Sitting of 5 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  CROSSRAIL BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Crossrail Bill be recommitted to the former Committee.
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee to reconsider its decision on the preamble of the Bill as reported by it to the House.—[Mr. Lidington]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after questions. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman is using up the time for questions.
  Mr. Greenway: It is on this.
  Madam Speaker: After questions in the usual manner, please.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Clinical Waste Incineration
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to encourage hospitals within the NHS to make arrangements for the incineration of their clinical waste in such a way as to avoid pollution of the environment in residential areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is the Government's policy to ensure that all national health service hospitals comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware of the environmental and occupational risks that can be caused by the disposal of clinical waste by incinerators such as the one at Hillingdon hospital in my constituency? Is he aware of the report published by the British Medical Association only last week on 30 June? Will he consider the
    132
    desirability of earmarking resources for a national network of incinerators to dispose of clinical waste well away from residential areas?
    Mr. Sackville: We shall be studying that report with interest, as we do all the utterances of the BMA. In particular, I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's consistent representations on behalf of his constituents about the hospital incinerator. However, he must remember the advantages of on-site clinical waste incineration and must take that into account in any other environmental considerations.

    Elective Operations
    Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of elective operations are now carried out on a day care basis; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The number of day cases in the general acute sector has already doubled since 1988–89, the earliest year for which figures are available. In 1993–94, the proportion of elective admissions treated as day cases reached 48 per cent.
    Sir Paul Beresford: This type of day care facility is being used as a specialty by many of the high-quality private health clinics and hospitals in Britain. Is there any trend to encourage health authorities to use those services, which are cost effective, to ease their workload?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Where such services provide good value, the health authority is certainly free to establish a contract with an independent provider. The key is that day care provides good value for money. However, my hon. Friend will know that his local hospital, the Mayday trust, did the fifth best in the country in terms of cataract extraction: 90 per cent. of its cases are dealt with on a day basis. The hospital received four stars for cataract operations, four stars for arthroscopy, four stars for laparoscopy and three stars for hernia repair. My hon. Friend has a great deal to be proud of in the Mayday trust.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Secretary of State aware that no one will believe the assurances that she gives on day surgery or any other aspect of the health service? If it is all sweetness and light in the health service, can she tell us why the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and a majority of other medical bodies, and now the Bishop of Birmingham, say that the health reforms are not working? They surely cannot be on their own in that. Will the Secretary of State answer that point?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Change is always difficult, but it has to be grasped if we are to protect a remarkable achievement. Today, the anniversary of its founding, the national health service is providing treatment available to all on the basis of clinical need. That means embracing new technology, taking difficult decisions and resisting the temptation to scaremonger rather than lead people forward.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Following my right hon. Friend's comments on day surgery and cataracts, will she congratulate the unit at Royal Berkshire Trust hospital, which she visited last Friday and which has had great success in day surgery? Will she congratulate the nurses and doctors on the success of that unit?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Most certainly I will. I will also report to the House the comments from the patients whom I met when visiting the unit. They said that they were appalled by the scaremongering which suggested, for example, that patients over the age of 65 would not be treated by the NHS. Those patients, many of them well into their 60s and 70s, gave an account of the quality of the care that they received: they went in in the morning and returned home in the evening. Although that hospital got one star in the league tables, it is already achieving 45 per cent. of its cataract operations on a day basis because, since those tables were compiled, it has seen the future and invested in a day unit particularly to deliver day cataract surgery.
    Mr. McCartney: First, I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on attending their last Health Question Time, as I understand that, like so many acute beds in the NHS, they are about to be closed down and shuffled out of the Department of Health.
    Last week, the Secretary of State said that she was giving stars to star performers in her league tables. Why, then, is Manchester's Withington hospital—which achieved 100 per cent. ratings in casualty, in ear, nose and throat, ophthalmology, urology, gynaecology, oral, neurology and general surgery—not being congratulated but being given notice to quit? When such a wonderful hospital is receiving five-star ratings from the right hon. Lady, why is she allowing the regional health authority and the Department to close it down?
    Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman has difficulty believing me, he may like to consult The Guardian, which reported that last week's league tables represented a milestone in the NHS and that the Opposition had made fools of themselves in their attitude towards those league tables.
    Perhaps I may quote to the hon. Gentleman the following comments:
    "Within the next 20 years, new technology, minimally invasive surgery and new diagnostic and treatment facilities will transform the delivery of health care in the developed world."
    Those are not my words; they come straight out of the Labour party's own policy document.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the agreeable benefits derived by patients from day care surgery are well supplemented by the Government's initiative on community care, which must be for the good of patients and their families?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Day surgery must be developed in context. The dramatic investment in primary care and the resources committed to community care ensure that those discharged from hospitals are properly supported at home. The idea that we should be in the business of trying to retain hospital beds as our prime preoccupation rather than increasing the number of patients treated conveniently is only the rhetoric espoused by the Opposition parties. We believe in patients, not furniture.

    Residential Care and Nursing Homes
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proposed review of registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): We expect shortly to issue for consultation a draft circular on improving the regulation of residential care and nursing homes.
    Mr. Pickthall: What does the Minister intend to do about the rising incidence of professional misconduct and even abuse in residential care and nursing homes, as highlighted in the United Kingdom Central Council report? How does he intend to provide enough registration and inspection officers to ensure that the affairs of those homes are properly conducted and that the elderly residents are secure?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman referred to the UKCC report. When the report was published, I said that a single case of abuse was a betrayal of nursing trust and I stand by that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the rise in the number of cases investigated from 15 to 28, 27 and 35 in the past four years must be judged in the context of the fact that the number of residents in nursing homes has gone up by tens of thousands. In that context, I shall be talking to the Royal College of Nursing about ways of enabling nurses to spot problems, as well as with the associations of matrons and managers about improving supervision and with the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, NAHAT, to discuss training and inspection. In that way, we shall ensure as far as we possibly can that people will be safe and secure in their residential nursing homes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do nothing to alarm people unnecessarily, because in the vast majority of cases loving care is given.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the recent case of a lady who was apparently severely scalded, a fact which was discovered only by accident? Is that the tip of an iceberg? If so, is it possible to have a proper inspection system at all times and on every aspect of care in nursing homes, because that is what is needed?
    Mr. Bowis: The case to which my hon. Friend refers occurred, I think, at a residential care home rather than a nursing home, and so is a matter for inspection by the social services. That particular case is also the subject of a police investigation, and I would not wish to comment on it.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that we must maintain a secure and effective programme of inspection by social services departments of residential care homes in the private, voluntary and public sectors to ensure the safety and well-being of the people in those homes.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the report on a recent survey conducted by the charity Counsel and Care, which shows that the Government are seriously mistaken in believing that registration and inspection are regarded by private homes as burdens? Has he studied the recent letter sent to his Department by the relatives association which speaks of the anger and concern of relatives at the possible reduction of inspections? Does he now accept that applying the political gimmick of deregulation to the care of vulnerable people is totally inappropriate and wrong?
    Mr. Bowis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the only circular that has been sent from my Department summarises the points that have been put to the

    135
    Department as a result of the consultation period. I hope that he will also accept that the Government have not spent the past decade putting into place regulations to support and safeguard vulnerable people to see them swept aside now. We are carefully considering the system of regulation and inspection to see whether it can be streamlined and simplified, and duplication avoided, so that the care in those homes can be devoted more effectively to the residents, and not in the interests of any form of bureaucracy.

    Capital Equipment
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on new patient-treating capital equipment installed in hospitals in the past five years.
    Mr. Sackville: In recent years, there has been a rapid rise in the use of non-invasive and minimal invasive techniques which has involved the acquisition of much high-tech medical equipment.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that in east Kent we now have available in our hospitals a new £1.25 million linear accelerator and a new computer tomographic scanner? Is he further aware that more patients are being treated by the new magnetic resonance imaging scanner, and that we are looking forward to tomorrow's visit by the Secretary of State formally to open the scanner?
    Mr. Sackville: All that equipment has led to new techniques, with shorter hospital stays and better recovery. My hon. Friend's area has an enviable record, and about £1 billion worth of such equipment is now being acquired each year throughout the country.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that it is not much use having all that magnificent equipment if anyone can walk in and fiddle with it, as has happened at Bassetlaw hospital's intensive care unit on 16 occasions? The Secretary of State has said that that has nothing to do with her, because the hospital is run by a trust. Three days ago at Nottingham, somebody walked into a hospital and walked off with a four-hour-old baby, who has not yet been found. Will the Secretary of State again say that it has nothing to do with her because it is all down to the trust? Will there be investigations into the way in which hospitals are run, or are five stars just awarded ad lib?
    Mr. Sackville: We are very aware that security needs to be much higher on the agenda of each hospital, but we cannot dictate what level of security to impose on each hospital. Hospitals are open places where people expect to visit their friends and relations, and each hospital must find a balance.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to assess the amount of new equipment opened and the number of new patients treated in the Birmingham area? Has he had a further chance to assess whether those have any link whatever with falling church attendance and church closures in the area?
    Mr. Sackville: The bishop and I had some exchanges at a distance over the weekend. That is probably sufficient.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the junior Minister agree that if the Secretary of State opens something tomorrow, there is a
    136
    fair chance that it will be closed within the next six months? Will he take this opportunity to whisper in the right hon Lady's shell-like ear that her credibility and future prospects could be enhanced today, on the 46th anniversary of the founding of the national health service, if the £150 million spent at Philip Harris house and the £44 million donated in charitable giving were put to good use and saved by the right hon. Lady announcing today that she will save Guy's from her closure plan?
    Mr. Sackville: I remind the hon. Gentleman that right through two severe recessions in the 1980s and 1990s we saw a constant rise in the hospital building programme—in sharp contrast with an earlier Government who, faced with a little local trouble in 1976 as a result of their own financial incompetence, reacted by slashing the NHS capital budget.
    Mr. Oppenheim: As to capital equipment, does my hon. Friend agree that a caring and a more business-like approach in the NHS are not mutually exclusive, but mutually interdependent? Fine words and hand wringing do not treat more patients, but using necessarily finite resources does. Conservative Members, together with hundreds of thousands of people working in the NHS, can be justifiably proud of the enormous increase in NHS services since we came to power in 1979.
    Mr. Sackville: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Nothing could be more un-Christian than running the health service in such a way as to produce longer waiting lists and less patient care.

    Pay Beds
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of pay beds in the national health service on the principle that treatment is determined by clinical need rather than ability to pay; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Pay beds have existed since the NHS was founded 46 years ago. They have no impact at all on the principle that NHS patients are treated according to clinical need rather than ability to pay. Any private work that a consultant does is additional to his or her NHS duties and is carried out in his or her own time.
    Mrs. Campbell: Nevertheless, will the right hon. Lady investigate whether pay beds or private referrals at Addenbrooke's hospital are responsible for one of my constituents, Megan Thompson, being told that she must wait until 1999 to see an orthopaedic consultant?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, that is a typical example of scaremongering from the hon. Lady. If she had made the investigations that I have made, she would know that the other orthopaedic surgeons at Addenbrooke's have waiting lists within 18 months. The hon. Lady referred to a particularly popular orthopaedic consultant, who has a longer waiting list. It is a question of freedom of choice for patients: if they insist on seeing a particular consultant, they must wait longer, but they can have an appointment with another within the 18 months.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pay beds provide an extremely valuable source of extra income for the NHS, but that the Labour party clearly does not

    137
    appreciate that? Does that not clearly show that despite the soft-focus imaging that the Labour party is undertaking at the moment, it does not permit freedom of choice?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has it exactly right. I am concerned about the dispute in the Labour party. I notice from early-day motion 1436 that the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) both support putting an end to NHS pay beds. Is that the political sweetener for the unions about which Barbara Castle used to speak?
    Ms Primarolo: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of private patients treated in the national health service has risen by 10 per cent. since she introduced the internal market? The NHS is subsidising private patients while health service patients are waiting longer for treatment. Will the right hon. Lady agree to establish the full cost of providing private health care, including the training of doctors and staff time in hospitals? Will she also ensure that private patients cannot queue-jump those in greater need?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Pay beds bring in £157 million for the NHS—the equivalent of 41,000 hip replacement operations. There are clear rules. There may be no queue-jumping for priority or urgent operations, and the private sector may not disadvantage the NHS. It so happens that most people signed up to private health insurance in the winter of 1979–80 and in 1980–81. As ever, the private sector recruiting sergeant was Labour's stewardship of the NHS and the winter of discontent.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the relationship between private medical care and the national health service, and the fact that we are now celebrating 46 years of the health service, does my right hon. Friend recall the attitude of the British Medical Association on the formation of the health service, and will she therefore take with a pinch of salt the sort of nonsense that we are currently hearing?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The current BMA conference is the fifth that I have experienced since I have been at the Department of Health. The script varies little from year to year. The doctors' trade union has a job to do, which it has done since 1948. I am pleased that behind the rhetoric there is a great deal of practical progress, such as reducing junior doctors' hours, improving out-of-hours arrangements for general practitioners and progress in other areas. The BMA is not talking about dismantling the reforms, but only about reforming them. That is progress indeed.

    Continuing Care
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she intends to take to clarify health authorities' responsibilities for continuing care.
    Mr. Bowis: We shall shortly be issuing, for comment, clarification on the guidance to health authorities on their long-term health care responsibilities.
    Mr. Gunnell: How many of the 50,000 beds that the Secretary of State plans to empty are currently filled by continuing care patients? How can health authorities follow the rulings of the health commissioner on the Leeds
    138
    case if patients cannot afford private beds and cannot find public beds because the Secretary of State has disposed of the furniture?
    Mr. Bowis: It is for health authorities to plan and provide the beds that they need. The hon. Gentleman misses the point that the Leeds case on which the commissioner made his judgment pre-dated community care and the discharge agreements that every local authority has to have in place with its local health authority. It is not for politicians to decide when a patient should remain in a bed; that is a matter for doctors. When they have decided that a patient no longer needs a bed, the discharge arrangements are put in place. Until the needs of the patient have been assessed and arrangements to meet them are in place, the patient should not be discharged from hospital.
    Mr. Sims: Is it right that a patient who no longer needs hospital treatment and is capable of being cared for in a different setting can insist on remaining in hospital and, at his own wish or under pressure from relatives, is legally entitled to occupy a much needed bed? Is the balance between rights and responsibilities accurate here?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I shall not prejudge the guidance clarification that we are about to issue, but I assure him that we have looked carefully at the issue that he raises so as to ensure that we provide for patients who need hospital beds and do not give patients the right to have beds when they no longer have a clinical need for them.
    Mr. Simpson: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the nightmare abduction from Queen's medical centre last week of Abbie Humphries, who was taken from her parents' arms. Will the Minister take this opportunity to offer support and sympathy to Roger and Karen, her parents, at this terrible time, and will he congratulate Queen's medical centre staff who, within five minutes of the abduction, were on the main roads outside stopping buses and questioning passengers? Will the Minister resist pressure for premature endorsement of the idea that infant tagging would have prevented that abduction rather than made the response time longer? Will he support calls from the police who say that members of the public must know the woman who took baby Abbie and that if they have even a fragment of information that can help to solve this crime they should contact the police so that Abbie can be returned safely and quickly to her parents?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman makes his point eloquently. I am sure that we all share the anguish of the parents of little Abbie. Our prayers are with those who are hunting for her, with her family and with her; our pleas are with the person who took her to return her to her family. I am sure that every maternity hospital and every maternity unit up and down the country is examining its security arrangements very carefully, to ensure that babies are safe in their care.

    General Practitioner Fundholders
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the proportion of patients in the United Kingdom treated by general practitioner fundholders.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): There are now more than 2,000 general practitioner fundholding practices in England covering just over 35 per cent. of the population, with more practices preparing to join next April.
    Mr. Coombs: Given the irresponsible scaremongering of the British Medical Association before the introduction of GP fundholding—it said that drugs would run out and that pensioners would go untreated—is not it highly significant that no fewer than 85 per cent. of my constituents are treated by GP fundholders, and are receiving a far higher standard of service as a result? Is not that evidence that the comments of Dr. Sandy Macara, the head of the doctors' trade union, should be treated with the contempt that they deserve?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Both the BMA and the Opposition got the issue wrong, and both are now edging towards an admission of that. I am not in the least surprised that 85 per cent. of my hon. Friend's constituents are happy with the GP services that they are receiving.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: The Minister will know that at the beginning of the last financial year millions of pounds were held in health authority bank accounts, representing the surplus or underspend on GP fundholders' budgets, at a time when hospitals and beds were closing because health authorities did not have sufficient funds. Would not it have been better for the money to be spent on treating patients? What steps will the Minister take to monitor such expenditure?
    Dr. Mawhinney: That is exactly what the money is to be spent on: it is to be spent to benefit patients, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows. Only last week, I announced that we were reviewing the extent of the services on which the money might be spent to benefit patients, and that I would make an announcement about that question in the autumn.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday I attended the opening of Handsworth medical centre in my constituency, which was financed by money from central Government under the London implementation zone programme? Is he aware that, as a GP fundholding practice, the centre now has 14,000 satisfied patients? Does not he agree that that is a good way of demonstrating to the BMA and the Bishop of Birmingham that they should stop making political capital out of such matters, and start backing us?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend has made two important points. The first is that, increasingly, the development of primary care is much more focused on what the GP feels able to do for his or her patients. The second—which flows from that—is that at the heart of the reforms was an understanding that if decisions were made as close to the patient as possible, they were more likely to be correct. That is fully borne out by what is now happening in GP fundholding practices throughout the country.

    NHS Authorities (Appointments)
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she is proposing to the system of appointments to NHS authorities.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The system of appointing chairmen to NHS authorities is largely unchanged, and has been supported by successive Governments. We are introducing further improvements to make the system more standardised and open to support our objective of attracting people of the highest quality on to health authorities and trusts.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the appointments that she has made to both health authorities and trust boards have made them less and less representative of the communities that they are supposed to serve? When will she abandon the process of making such appointments in secret, behind closed doors, so that credibility can be restored to a system that has lost all public confidence—or does she believe that jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls are more important than public accountability in the national health service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Public service is the key criterion that I consider when making appointments to NHS authorities and trusts. Like a number of other hon. Members, I spent many years as a magistrate and chairman of a court. No one thought that that was a political appointment; it was made after careful vetting. The same applies to health authority appointments.
    Unless the hon. Gentleman is trying to reopen the argument between Herbert Morrison and Nye Bevan, which was put to bed 46 years ago, I suggest that he ensure that members of his party no longer put the frighteners on Labour people who wish to serve on trusts and health authorities, to make certain that we have good people from all political parties serving the interests of the public.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appointment of wicked Tories such as Rabbi Julia Neuberger and the former Labour Member of Parliament, Helene Hayman as chairmen of trusts shows that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. If the Labour party wishes to hark back, I do not think that the health service benefited from the appointment of the disqualified Lambeth councillors to the local health authority, or from that of the three prospective parliamentary candidates by Greenwich Labour party to its local health authority.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does not the Minister accept that there would be far more confidence in the system that she propounds if there were much more local discussion about the kind of appointments that should be made, rather than the process appearing to take place behind closed doors? Openness should be part of the right hon. Lady's policy.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why, based on best practice, we are ensuring that in every region there is a process of open advertisement and nominations, including self-nominations, are encouraged. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will look for people with the skill, expertise and commitment to help us to take forward the extremely important NHS reforms.

    NHS Hospital Treatments
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in national health service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.
    Mr. Sackville: There were 9.6 million finished consultant episodes in 1992–93, compared with 6.5 million in 1978—an increase of 47 per cent.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures provide strong evidence of the improvement in the health service since the Government came to power? Will he confirm that the increase in the number of patients treated has been faster since the NHS reforms were introduced?
    Mr. Sackville: Yes, indeed, and in hospitals that have become trusts, the number of patients treated rose faster than in other hospitals. Throughout our hospital system, a rapid increase both in the quality of care and in the number of patients treated is taking place.
    Mr. Blunkett: On Sunday evening, the hon. Gentleman described the comments of the Bishop of Birmingham, saying that he lived "in a fairy-tale world" where no attempt at competitiveness existed. Is not such competitiveness best exemplified by today's revelation about the business plan at Charing Cross hospital, which involves headhunting a specialist from the Royal Marsden hospital, in order
    "to assist in destabilising a competitor".
    Is not that entirely to do with business and commercial ethics, and nothing to do with serving the people?
    Mr. Sackville: Health service management personnel are central and vital to the NHS. Unless we attract top-level management to run our hospitals it will be patients who suffer, because hospitals will be less well used, there will be a lower quality of care and fewer patients will be treated.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware how pleased we all are that the Front-Bench team is unmarked by the Santer claws? Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities for using volunteers—for example, in freeing beds by escorting patients home at weekends—are under-used, and will he ensure that more health authorities and trusts are aware of the opportunities for making full use of volunteers?
    Mr. Sackville: One of the greatest features of our national health service is the commitment of local people to their local hospitals. Anything that we can do to encourage that further is good for patients.

    NHS Service
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent to which the NHS provides a comprehensive service.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My assessment is that the national health service is excellently comprehensive.
    Mr. Michie: Is that the best that the Minister can do? May I remind the Secretary of State that the availability of the legal abortion of pregnancies, long-term care for the elderly, infertility treatment for women and physiotherapy
    142
    for old people are not universally available on the national health service? Added to that are the possible closure of the accident unit in Sheffield and threats to the children's services in Sheffield. Is not it true that the Secretary of State has failed to provide a comprehensive national health service in that city, too? Is not it about time that she either got on with the job or got out—or preferably both?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responsibility for an excellently comprehensive national health service, for which she deserves great credit. As for the various things that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, all of them are available on the national health service to those whose medical practitioners believe that they have a clinical need. Of course, the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that the resources in Sheffield have gone up in real terms year on year, that the number of patients treated in Sheffield has gone up year on year—both in-patients and day-case patients—and that there has been a reduction in the waiting lists in Sheffield. All that is also part of the excellently comprehensive national health service.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health service is comprehensive from the moment a child is born in one of our maternity units? I am sure that the House and the country will wish for the safe return of Abbie Humphries, but, rather than rejecting the possibility of introducing electronic tagging in maternity wards, will he and his right hon. and hon. Friends visit York district hospital maternity unit, where an electronic tagging system introduced last year has been extremely effective in improving security?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I associate myself with what my hon. Friend said about Abbie, and our prayers and thoughts go out to her parents and to her at this time. I agree with my hon. Friend that the national health service provides a comprehensive service from the day that babies are born, but I would add that it continues until people die. I take pride in the fact that 40 per cent. of the national health service resources are devoted to that 16 per cent. of the population who are of retirement age.
    Mr. Burden: But is not the market mechanism that the Government have imposed causing chaos in terms of the ability of the NHS to provide a comprehensive service? That is known by patients, who have to wait longer to see a consultant. Rather than attacking the Bishop of Birmingham for telling the truth, should not the Government reject a system that treats patients as mere commodities?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is precisely wrong. I always wish to be positive about the national health service. I want to welcome the extra number of patients who have been treated since the reforms came in, and I hope that the bishop agrees with me. I want to welcome the improvement in the quality of service of the national health service since the reforms came in, and I hope that the bishop agrees with me. I want to welcome the £100 million package of extra resources for Birmingham which was announced on Friday, and I hope that the bishop agrees with me. When I go to Birmingham again tomorrow, I shall be making it clear that, if the bishop would like to have a full briefing on what is actually happening in the national health service, I shall personally be happy to provide it for him.

    Suicides
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the "Health of the Nation" targets for the reduction in the number of suicides; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have received a number of representations from professional bodies, representatives of high-risk groups, voluntary organisations and members of the public. Recent representations have been constructive and broadly supportive of the targets.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the White Paper "The Health of the Nation" represents the first time that suicide has been treated and tackled as a public health issue? In anticipation of the exhibition by the Samaritans that is coming to Westminster in two weeks' time, will my right hon. Friend give us an update on the progress that has been made in tackling the targets, under the "Health of the Nation" strategy.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I look forward to the event organised by the Samaritans. On behalf of many, I should like to express my appreciation for their work and for the work of the great number of volunteers across the country who man the telephone lines.
    More people die by taking their own lives than are killed in accidents on the roads. One of the areas in the "Health of the Nation" strategy where we set out to achieve marked improvement was that of mental health—for the first time it has been identified. A great number of measures have been taken to help us to meet the targets, which we are determined to do.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept that when people are so distressed that they try to take their own lives—as a young man in my constituency did yesterday—one of the best ways of reducing the number of suicides is to ensure that they are as close as possible to the best possible medical treatment, to prevent their attempts turning into deaths and that the preservation of nearby acute services is of the essence? Will the right hon. Lady ensure that we have the hospitals and accident and emergency units to keep people alive?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point—but frankly it is a misuse of the question. Suicide is a serious matter, and good general practice and primary care services are the key. Six out of 10 people who take their own lives have consulted a family doctor in the fortnight beforehand, and the changes that we are seeking to achieve in London are designed precisely to ensure that London has the same quality primary care services as are available elsewhere. That is the single most important factor.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)rose—
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Mr. Newton: Hang on, and I will tell the House. I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Edinburgh to greet the King and Queen of Norway at the start of their state visit.
    Here in Westminster we await the visit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to discuss the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.
    Mr. Bayley: What help will the Government give to the victims of a £30 million theft—that is to say, Asil Nadir's creditors, who yesterday announced that they were suing the Conservative party for the return of £400,000 given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party before the general election?
    Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has made it quite clear that the Conservative party will of course return the money received from Polly Peck and Unipac—if it proves to have been stolen.
    Mr. Forman: In the interests of enhancing the aesthetic and architectural attractions of central London, particularly some of our finer buildings and their surroundings, will my right hon. Friend have another look, within Whitehall and with his colleagues, at the apparent determination of Ministers to endorse the decision, suggested to them by senior civil servants, that Horse Guards parade should continue to be used, unusually, for the parking of motor cars by senior civil servants? Surely, its architectural and other beauties should be enhanced by leaving it as a public open space.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be well aware of the discussions that have taken place on these matters. I shall certainly bring his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Beckett: Why does the Lord President think that the British Medical Association's conference is saying that the Government's health service changes have failed the nation?
    Mr. Newton: The British Medical Association's conference is making those remarks, but it appears to be overlooking the fact that the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, that the quality of care has improved and that the number of patients waiting more than a year has fallen by 100,000 to not much more than 60,000.
    Mrs. Beckett: But does not the Lord President understand that the remarks that he makes are recognised only by the Cabinet as a depiction of the picture of the health service and that those people at the sharp end of the national health service, including—but not only—the doctors, are talking about alienation, despair and a two-tier health service? They said yesterday:
    "treatment except in emergencies has now become a national and local lottery."
    How can he defend that?
    Mr. Newton: I do not accept for a moment—and I do not think many of the people to whom I talk in hospitals and general practitioner practices up and down the country accept for a moment—what the right hon. Lady is saying. As for two-tierism, the Government stand four square on their 1991 agreement that common waiting lists apply to

    145
    all urgent cases; that all emergencies will be treated immediately; and that no hospital is to offer contracts to one purchaser which will disadvantage patients of another.
    Mrs. Beckett: But the BMA is telling the Government that this is happening. Does the Lord President dispute the fact that there are three times as many managers and 12,000 fewer nurses than when all this started? I remind him again of what the BMA said yesterday:
    "business plans override clinical priority. Money does not follow the patient—The patient has no choice but to follow the money until it runs out."
    The Government are destroying the principle on which the health service is based. What will it take to make them realise, acknowledge and stop that?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady's criticisms and those she attributes to others simply do not stand up alongside the fact that, for every 100 patients treated in hospital in 1990–91—the last year before the reforms—the NHS expects to treat 121 this year. That is a 20 per cent. increase.
    Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the granting of legal aid on occasions to people of apparently significant means and sometimes to foreign nationals of very great means? Is not it time that the legal aid authorities looked far more closely at the applicants who come before them and said that under no circumstances should legal aid be granted to nationals of foreign countries unless there is a reciprocal arrangement in force?
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would wrong for me to be drawn into commenting from the Dispatch Box on an individual case. I want to recognise the concern that he and others have expressed. He will know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does consider carefully, and has made a number of adjustments of, the legal aid arrangements and will certainly want to look at what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Betts: Is the Leader of the House aware that, among its many inefficiencies, the Child Support Agency is regularly taking up to two weeks and sometimes longer to pass the maintenance that it receives on to parents with care? Is he further aware that that not only creates problems for those people, but means that the agency accrues large sums in interest on the money that it holds? Does he believe that the money should be paid back to those people making maintenance payments or those receiving them, or does he believe that the agency should continue to make a profit out of its own inefficiencies, and that the Government should make a profit out of the misery that they have inflicted on those people because of this appalling legislation?
    Mr. Newton: This subject was rightly debated extensively in the House yesterday and the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt was here, will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledge that there is a need for improvement in the
    146
    administration of the Child Support Agency and indicate that steps are being taken to bring that about. Indeed, that commitment is backed by some 700 extra staff and an increased budget to tackle just the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend agree that neither side in the signalmen's dispute merits much credit for the way in which the dispute has been handled? Does he further agree that not only are his constituents and mine becoming increasingly frustrated by the weekly disruption of their business and social life but the economy is being damaged? Is not it time for all parties in the House to condemn this foolish and unnecessary strike?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Once again, I must regret the extent to which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) felt unable to make her position clear. I am sure that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends regard a strike in support of an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring as one that should be reconsidered and called off with a view to returning to sensible negotiation.
    Mr. Chisholm: Did the Leader of the House see the research from North Thames health authority last week, which showed that more money is spent on average on the patients of GP fundholders than on those of non-GP fundholders? Has he seen the report in this morning's papers to the effect that a trust hospital in Kent has admitted operating a two-tier system with the tacit approval of the local health authority? Will he act against this blatant inequity and instruct Scottish Office Ministers to withdraw their edict that 30 per cent. of patients in Scotland should be looked after by GP fundholders by next April?
    Mr. Newton: I have already commented on the allegations of a two-tier service that were made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: GP fundholders are not preferentially funded. They make contracts with trusts on the same terms as health authorities.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strong support on both sides of the House, particularly given recent tragedies, for the introduction of seat belts in minibuses and coaches. Britain has been at the forefront in Europe in introducing measures to reduce road casualties, but will he assure the House that Britain will continue to be at the forefront on this issue?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already indicated his support for some of the moves that are being proposed in Europe, but, more comprehensively, we are reviewing the fitting of seat

    147
    belts in minibuses and coaches, including the technical and cost implications. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the report, and our conclusions, before the summer recess.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Lord President prepared to commend to all our people for study and action the Alzheimer's Disease Society's publication "Home Alone"? Does he agree that more doctors should be aware of the disease and more ready not simply to diagnose people as suffering from old age when they are suffering from Alzheimer's disease?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that, like him, I have had many contacts with the excellent Alzheimer's Disease Society over the years. It is important with that disease, as with others, that general practitioners are alert in identifying it and do not see it simply as a phenomenon of age. They should be able to steer people in the right direction, and part of the aim of our care in the community policy, not least the emphasis on carers as well as sufferers, is to improve our capacity to deal with such difficulties when they arise.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week a pioneering project was opened in my constituency sponsored by Shaftesbury housing, which combines housing with long-term care? Does he agree that that represents the very best of community care in action?
    148
    Not only does it debunk Labour's accusations of decentralisation but, more important, it gives residents a secure environment in which they do not have to sacrifice their independence.
    Mr. Newton: At the outset, I had better acknowledge that I was not aware of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency, which certainly sounds excellent. It is representative of a number of community care schemes throughout the country that are assisted by the Housing Corporation, a mixture of public and private finance and voluntary organisations. Such schemes greatly improve our capacity to care for Alzheimer's disease sufferers and for the others whom my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is completely unacceptable for the privatised electricity companies to apply a surcharge for consumers using pre-payment meters, such as key charge? Such consumers are nearly always those who are least able to afford to pay a surcharge. What action will the Government take to stop the practice?
    Mr. Newton: In general, charging policies for electricity companies or any other private operations are for the owners and managers of the individual operations to determine. Additional costs will often be incurred in providing a facility of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has described. That factor is one which, rightly, should be taken into account.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the oath:
Mrs. Helen Liddell, for Monklands, East.

Point of order
3.31 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order Madam Speaker. With great respect, what precedent is there for a Chairman of Ways and Means to veto a Bill that would have enormous implications for jobs and economic development in my constituency of Ealing, North and in constituencies throughout London and beyond? I refer, of course, to the Crossrail Bill.
Madam Speaker: I fully support the course of action taken today by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The future progress of the Crossrail Bill is for the Government to determine.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
Statutory Instruments, &c.
  INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
  That the Insurance Premium Tax (Taxable Insurance Contracts) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  HOUSING
  That the draft Stonebridge Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

French Words (Prohibition)
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to pages 528–29 of "Erskine May"? The first heading on page 528 is "Proceedings on Royal Assent". Within that section there are the following words:
"The Clerk of the Parliaments subsequently endorses the Acts with the customary Norman French formulae".
On page 529 there appear the formulae for the Royal Assent for public and private Acts:
"'La Reyne le veult', and for personal Acts 'Soft fait comme il est desire'."
As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) introduces his Bill, it could undermine the Royal Prerogative in terms of Royal Assents to Acts and could interfere with the ability of the Clerk of the Parliaments to provide the Royal Assent to both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me that the proposed Bill might infringe the rights of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Royal Prerogative.
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman has just made clear to the House, court French of the 14th century is entirely permissible in the instances that the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated. We shall now have to see whether the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who is proposing the Bill, is going to interfere with that Norman French of the 14th century. I must hear what the hon. Member for South Hams has to say before I rule on the point or order.
3.35 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of French words in written and spoken English; and for connected purposes.
I seek the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to outlaw the use of everyday French words in the English language, whether spoken or written, which, if infringed, would be punishable by a fine. I am doing this principally to make a point, not to be taken too seriously, to highlight the bizarre situation which has resulted in the French language prohibition Bill or le loi relatif a l'emploi de la langue Francaise tabled by Jacques Toubon, the Gaullist Culture Minister, which passed all its stages in the French National Assembly and the Senate last Friday.
That Bill banned the use of English words or expressions such as software, hamburger, football and tee-shirt on advertising boards, in the media, on television or radio, in work contracts and instruction leaflets; and, even where English is the chosen language at international congresses held in France, all French contributions must be delivered in French. If someone were to flout the law and sneak in an English word or two, that person could be sent to the Bastille for six months or fined £5,000. Mr. Toubon's Bill tears up completely the entente cordiale which was signed by Edward VII on 8 April 1904 at the end of 100 years of hostilities between the French and the English.
Mr. Toubon's measure also makes a mockery of the French commitment to a federal Europe. Every country in the European Community is proud of its status as a nation state, but the French have tipped the scales towards chauvinism. They want harmonisation, but on their terms. When Jacques Delors preaches a united states of Europe, he no doubt wants the capital in Strasbourg, the currency in francs and a single spoken language—French.

151
Some may conclude that the French language Bill is ridiculous but for the fact that Mr. Toubon insists that the Bill will be enforced rigorously. However, without employing battalions of language police, it will not be possible to prevent Frenchmen from using certain English words or expressions when they feel inspired to do so. To think otherwise is to live in cloud cuckoo land. My hunch is that the Bill will probably go the way of so many other French Bills—locked away in an anti-tilting filing cabinet marked "No further action".
I stress that my Bill is solely retaliatory—a cause célèbre. My aim is to introduce an equivalent measure as a tit-for-tat response. I am no enfant terrible and I am wholly in favour of the French—their food, their drink and their beautiful countryside. While some will see Toubon's Bill as a big joke, others see it as a discriminatory measure which is offensive.
What is the raison d'être, Madam Speaker—if you will excuse the phrase—for Mr. Toubon introducing his Bill? Perhaps the French fear an invasion of English words shooting through the channel tunnel and so infecting their language with impurities. However, is not the French Government's idea of a pure language a stone's throw from a policy of ethnic cleansing and purity of race?
Outlawing the use of English words is especially rich coming as it does exactly four weeks after D-day celebrations and commemorations where we stood shoulder to shoulder with the French remembering past events. However, the entire French Cabinet has endorsed a Bill outlawing the language of the very people who liberated them 50 years ago and who are close market partners. It is a clear case of discrimination, not of race, age or sex but of language.
Languages are strengthened, not weakened, by the introduction of words from other countries. Purity of language is a contradiction in terms. English is a mélange, if I may so, of Saxon, Norse, Icelandic, Dutch, German and French. There is also Urdu—take a dekko is Urdu—and Arabic, including words such as raffia. To stand up for English is to defend the constantly evolving and expanding entity which cannot be restricted or controlled. English could produce Shakespeare and Joyce only because of its inclusion of foreign words. Without French words—and some 1,400 of them are in regular use—the English language would have holes as large of those found in a gruyère cheese.
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking in favour of his Bill or against it.
Mr. Steen: Madam Speaker, if you give me a couple more minutes, you will see which way I am turning.
The fantasy of the French to believe that their language can ever be pure flies in the face of the fundamental promise and premise of what language is all about. It is about having sufficient words to describe life. As life gets more complex, we need more new words and phrases, not fewer.
How would my Bill work? It would work by utilising a much under-utilised national resource—by giving traffic wardens additional duties. Last night, 1,000 extra wardens were announced for London, undoubtedly in anticipation of this Bill getting through the House. In addition to using their eyes and gazing at parking meters, they would be invited to keep their ears open in public places for any
152
French word that might escape the lips of a passer-by. The law would empower them to issue an on-the-spot language fine of £10 for every French word used. The service would be self-financing, with £1 of every £10 collected going towards the wages of the warden, and the balance of £9 going towards paying the deficit in our balance of payments with France.
We should forget words like baguette or croissant—they are out. We would not be able to visit a café or brasserie. There would be no apéritifs or hors d'oeuvres—in fact, there would be no restaurants. We should forget the table d'hôte; there is no question of the a la carte instead. There would be no left or right-hand side of the menu and no nouvelle cuisine. Bon viveurs would be banned. One would not be able to shower one's fiancée with bouquets, meet at a secret rendezvous, or buy her haute couture clothes. There would be great difficulties in having a ménage-à-trois. Crime passionnel would be out of the question and negligée would make a liaison dangereuse a little risquée.
If one is a gambling man, one would no longer hear the familiar words faites vos jeux or rien ne va plus when playing the tables. There would be no question of feeling déjà vu and there is no way that one could live in a pied-à-terre. If by chance one drives in a cul-de-sac, that would be a bit of a faux pas. In short, everyone in the country would have to mind their language and pardon their French because Mr. Toubon's Bill is a fait accompli. However, he does not realise that, if he ever came to Britain, he would be refused entry unless he changed his name to Mr. Allgood.
Our parliamentary processes would also grind to a halt. There would be no messages from the Commons to the Lords, but I think that that can be taken care of by the 14th century French. Royalty would also resent the fact that their coat of arms would be laid bare with the removal of the words "honi soit qui mal y pense". In fact, Parliament would exist no more because it is a French word. But what a relief—no more 10-minute Bills.
At one fell swoop, the French, by their actions, will bring our nation's communications to its knees without a bone being broken. While Englishmen have free access to travel and frontiers have come down, their words must stay at home. Perhaps the French will argue that their Bill banning English words is dealt with under subsidiarity. But just as the Maginot line of fortification which was intended to stop the German invasion failed, so too will the French Words (Prohibition) Bill. It will not stop the invasion of English words into French, and that is how the French see it—an invasion.
The purpose of seeking leave to bring in the Bill is to introduce legislation which I hope will not cause a furore but which will highlight the absurdity and unenforceability of French law. I am raising the matter now to prevent a hairline crack in Anglo-Franco relations from growing into a chasm.
For those who say that this is all a waste of time, I remind them that the House sat for 1,978 hours and 14 minutes in 1987–88 and for 1,373 hours and 53 minutes in 1991. So 10 minutes is but a drop in the ocean in the affairs of state. Furthermore, the French clearly do not think that their Bill is frivolous. [Interruption.]
Mr. John Home Robertson: Guillotine him.
Mr. Steen: Otherwise, they would not have passed it through Parliament. I personally believe that discrimination against the country's language has serious implications, if for no other reason because it deprives the individual of his freedom of speech—
Madam Speaker: Order. The guillotine has fallen.
3.45 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Given the élan, the éclat, the insouciance and savoir faire with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has presented his Bill, it may seem churlish to oppose it, but I believe that, both for the sake of Franco-British relations and for the sake of the English language, a brief word of protest is called for.
English is the richest language in the world, but it is rich precisely because it is not pure. It is a mongrel tongue. Emerson called it
"the sea which receives tributaries from every region under heaven."
My hon. Friend has pointed out the many countries which have contributed to the English language, including, of course, France. The French have given our language more than a certain je ne sais quoi. They have enriched our vocabulary for centuries and will do so for many more.
For centuries, too, the French have been attempting to preserve the purity of their language, with the net result that their vocabulary is much smaller than ours. Shakespeare had a vocabulary of 30,000 different words in all his plays. James Joyce in just one work, "Ulysses", used a vocabulary of 30,000 words—several of which, Madam Speaker, I hope you have not come across. However, Molière, in his entire work, used a vocabulary of only some 9,000 words.
I understand the desire of the French to preserve the integrity of their language, but I fear that, in an age in which, happily for this country, English is the lingua franca of the global village, they face an uphill struggle. So in the bistro, the restaurant and the café—which my hon. Friend would obviously like us to call eateries in future—it will still be easier for a Frenchman to ask for "un sandwich", even if the Assemblée Nationale would prefer him to ask for "deux morceaux de pain avec quelque chose au milieu". I reckon that, when it comes to the linguistic exchange rate mechanism, one cannot buck the market.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the exemplification of sang froid—in this case, it certainly is the mot juste—and his opposite number Mr. Alain Juppé have just produced a joint publication to mark the 90th anniversary of that special relationship for which there is no fitting English phrase. That is why we call it the entente cordiale.
Exactly half a century ago, the then Prime Minister reminded the House that all his life he had been grateful for the contribution that France had made to the glory and culture of Europe, above all for the sense of personal liberty that has radiated from the soul of France. In the name of personal liberty, in the spirit of rapprochement, and on the day that the Tour de France comes to Tunbridge Wells, I must oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman gets the hat, I will take his point of order; otherwise, I cannot hear it.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a relatively simple matter for you to rule on. As the treaty of Rome, as amended, includes the words "acquis communautaire", may I ask whether, before we vote on the Bill, I am right in assuming that, if my hon. Friend's Bill were to be successful, the treaty of Rome would then cease to have effect?
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in a lot of wishful thinking.
The House having divided: Ayes 45, Noes 149.

280]

[3.49 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Marlow, Tony

Ashby, David

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Beggs, Roy

Neubert, Sir Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Body, Sir Richard

Porter, David (Waveney)

Booth, Hartley

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Congdon, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Sweeney, Walter

Dickens, Geoffrey

Sykes, John

Dover, Den

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Trimble, David

Gallie, Phil

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Gillan, Cheryl

Whittingdale, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Harris, David

Hawksley, Warren

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Mr. Anthony Steen and

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mr. Michael Fabricant.

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Allen, Graham

Coffey, Ann

Alton, David

Cohen, Harry

Ashton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Austin-Walker, John

Corston, Ms Jean

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cousins, Jim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Barnes, Harry

Dalyell, Tam

Battle, John

Davidson, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dixon, Don

Bennett, Andrew F.

Donohoe, Brian H.

Berry, Roger

Dowd, Jim

Betts, Clive

Dykes, Hugh

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Eastham, Ken

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

Enright, Derek

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Flynn, Paul

Burden, Richard

Foster, Don (Bath)

Byers, Stephen

Gapes, Mike

Callaghan, Jim

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Graham, Thomas

Canavan, Dennis

Grocott, Bruce

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gunnell, John

Church, Judith

Hall, Mike

Clapham, Michael

Hanson, David

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hendron, Dr Joe

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Heppell, John

155

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hodge, Margaret

Mullin, Chris

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Murphy, Paul

Home Robertson, John

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hood, Jimmy

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Olner, William

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hutton, John

Page, Richard

Illsley, Eric

Parry, Robert

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Patchett, Terry

Jamieson, David

Pickthall, Colin

Janner, Greville

Pike, Peter L.

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Raynsford, Nick

Jowell, Tessa

Reid, Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rendel, David

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Khabra, Piara S.

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Kilfedder, Sir James

Rooker, Jeff

Kilfoyle, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Lewis, Terry

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Liddell, Helen

Snaps, Peter

Livingstone, Ken

Spearing, Nigel

Loyden, Eddie

Spellar, John

Macdonald, Calum

Spink, Dr Robert

McFall, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Maclennan, Robert

Stephen, Michael

McMaster, Gordon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

MacShane, Denis

Timms, Stephen

Madden, Max

Tipping, Paddy

Mahon, Alice

Tyler, Paul

Marek, Dr John

Wareing, Robert N

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wray, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Wright, Dr Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Tellers for the Noes:

Milburn, Alan

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Alan Simpson.

Morley, Elliot

Question accordingly negatived.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), having spoken against the Bill, to fail to follow his voice with his vote?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman declared his intention, but he had absolutely every right to abstain. That was in order.

Orders of the Day

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
  Ordered,
  That the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: new Clauses except those relating to Magistrates' Courts, new Schedules except those relating to Magistrates Courts, Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 62, Amendments relating to Schedules 1 to 6, new Clauses relating to Magistrates' Courts, new Schedules relating to Magistrates' Courts, Amendments relating to Clauses 63 to 85 and Schedule 7, Amendments relating to Clauses 86 to 90 and Schedule 8.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]
    New clause 13

      APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO POLICE AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE POLICE ACT 1964
      '.—(1) Any relevant legislative provision which, immediately before the passing of this Act, applied to police authorities constituted in accordance with section 2 of the Police Act 1964 shall, except where the context otherwise requires, apply in the same way to police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964 (as substituted by section 2 of this Act).
      (2) Subsection (1) above is subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under this Act.
      (3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a provision is a "relevant legislative provision" if it is a provision (other than a provision which applies only to specified police authorities) of an instrument which—

      (a) was made before the passing of this Act under a public general Act, and

      (b) is of a legislative character.'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.2 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39 to 42, 38 and 75.
      Mr. Wardle: New clause 13 concerns secondary legislation that currently applies to police authorities. As the Bill amends the Police Act 1964, some existing references to police authorities in secondary legislation would cease to have effect. The new clause does not make any changes of substance, but simply allows existing secondary legislation to continue to apply to police authorities as they will be constituted under the Bill.
      Government amendments Nos. 39 to 42, 38 and 75 are technical in nature, and I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 14
      PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ETC.
      '.After section 15 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
      PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ETC.

        Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc
        15A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

        (a) to an international organisation or institution, or

        157

        (b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief officer of police for its area.

        (2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a member of the police force maintained by the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
        (3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
        (4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) of this section may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
        (5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

        (a) making a grant or loan,

        (b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or

        (c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.

        (6) A police authority may make charges for advice or assistance provided by it under this section.
        (7) In its application in relation to the metropolitan police this section shall apply—

        (a) as if the power conferred by subsection (1) were conferred on the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (and accordingly as if the references in subsections (1)(b) and (2) to a police authority were omitted), and

        (b) as if in subsection (6) the reference to a police authority were a reference to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

        (8) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 15—Reports from police authorities.
        Government new clause 16—Police grant and other grants.
        Government new clause 17—Regulations under section 33 of the 1964 Act.
        Government amendments Nos. 34, 35, 24 to 29, 36, 37 and 30 to 33.
        Mr. Wardle: The new clauses and consequential amendments deal with service overseas by British police officers. Their principal effect is to permit police officers from the United Kingdom to serve abroad not only with foreign Governments—which is already possible under existing legislation—but with international organisations such as the United Nations.
        New clauses 14 and 15 relate to England and Wales, and new clauses 16 and 17 apply the same substantive provisions in Scotland. I commend them to the House.
        Mr. David Trimble: If the Minister had spoken a little longer, I would have intervened. He said that the clauses would enable members of British police forces to serve overseas. Am I right in thinking that the clauses do not extend to the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Are there any proposals to enable members of that force to serve overseas, because it has an enormous wealth of experience that many countries would find relevant?
        Mr. Charles Wardle: As I said, the new clauses apply to England, Wales and Scotland, but I understand that the provisions will extend to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 15
      POLICE OFFICERS ENGAGED ON SERVICE OUTSIDE THEIR FORCE
      '.After section 53B of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
      POLICE OFFICERS ENGAGED ON SERVICE OUTSIDE THEIR FORCE

        Police officers engaged on service outside their force
        53C.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

        (a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of this Act,

        (b) central service (as defined in section 43(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

        (c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

        (d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or

        (e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.

        (2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 43 of this Act.
        (3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a member of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a member of that force during that service; but, except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

        (a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and

        (b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 33 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.

        (4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1)(c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
        (5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

        (a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and

        (b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.

        (6) A member of a police force who—

        (a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section, or

        (b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or

        (c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

        may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (3) of section 33 of this Act for anything

        159
        done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 37 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
        (7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

        (a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or

        (b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection, it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such other person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.' —[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 16
      PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ETC., SCOTLAND
      '. After section 12 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
      PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ETC., SCOTLAND

        Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc
        12A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

        (a) to an international organisation or institution, or

        (b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief constable of a force maintained by it.

        (2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a constable of the force maintained for the area of the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
        (3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
        (4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) above may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
        (5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

        (a) making a grant or loan,

        (b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or

        (c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.

        (6) A police authority may make charges for advice and assistance provided by it under this section.
        (7) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-Operation Act 1980.".' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 17
      CONSTABLES ENGAGED ON SERVICE OUTSIDE THEIR FORCE
      '. After section 38 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
      CONSTABLES ENGAGED ON SERVICE OUTSIDE THEIR FORCE

        Constables engaged on service outside their force
        38A.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

        (a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 12A(2) of this Act,

        (b) central service (as defined by section 38(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

        160

        (c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

        (d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or

        (e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.

        (2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 38 of this Act.
        (3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a constable of that force during that service; but except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

        (a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and

        (b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 26 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.

        (4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1)(c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) of this section to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
        (5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

        (a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and

        (b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.

        (6) A constable who—

        (a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section,

        (b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or

        (c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

        may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (2A) of section 26 of this Act for anything done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 30 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
        (7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

        (a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or

        (b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.'. — [Mr. Charles Wardle.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 22

      DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS OF SCOTTISH POLICE AUTHORITY
      '. In section 63 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (arrangements as to police authority functions etc.), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
      "(2A) The officers who may discharge functions of a police authority in pursuance of arrangements under section 56(1) or (2) of this Act shall include the chief constable of the police force.
      (2B) Where, pursuant to arrangements made by virtue of subsection (2A) above, a chief constable may discharge functions of a police authority, he may himself arrange for the discharge of any of the functions in question by a constable of the police force or by a person who is employed by the authority but is not under their direction and control,".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 70.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The clause clarifies the power of police authorities to delegate functions to the chief constable. It will also allow a chief constable to delegate responsibility to police officers or civilian staff where a function has been delegated to him by the police authority. The reason for the amendment is to allow maximum devolution of management responsibility for his force to the chief constable. That is an important aspect of the Government's policy on police reform. A similar amendment on delegation of functions by chief constables in England and Wales was passed in Committee. The amendment to clause 46 is consequential. The provisions will be permissive, not mandatory. Decisions on delegation will be matters for police authorities and chief constables. We will issue guidance on delegation on financial management after appropriate consultation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1
      LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS TO PROMOTE CRIME PREVENTION
      'After section 1 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
      LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS TO PROMOTE CRIME PREVENTION

        Local partnerships to promote crime prevention
        1A.—(1) It shall be the duty of every police authority to facilitate the crime prevention activities of a local authority in its area.
        (2) It shall be the duty of every local authority in a police area—

        (a) to take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of crime;

        (b) in consultation with the police authority, the chief officer of police and the chief probation officer of the area which includes the local authority and with such other organisations as the local authority shall see fit, to publish together with the police authority a joint strategy for the prevention of crime;

        (c) together with the police authority to promote the active involvement of local residents and voluntary organisations in understanding the incidence of crime in their own community and the design and the local implementation of joint strategy; and

        (d) to review and publish annually with the police authority a report on the strategy and the extent to which its objectives are being achieved.

        (3) In this section 'local authority' shall mean a county council, a district council or a London borough council.".'. — [Mr. Blair.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 81, in schedule 4, page 65, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
        '(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A after the words "joint authority", there shall be inserted the words "or a Police Authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964".'.
        Mr. Blair: The new clause proposes to place a statutory responsibility for crime prevention on local authorities, thereby putting crime prevention in a proper and structured framework. The proposal is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and every senior police body. It is supported by virtually all the agencies connected with crime prevention and by local authorities. In short, it is supported by everyone except the Government. The proposal is also in line with the explicit recommendation of the Government's last published report on crime prevention.
        Behind the new clause lies an important debate about the future of policing and the type of policing that we wish to see in our society.
        There are essentially two views of the role of the police. First, it is seen as simply a law enforcement agency to catch the criminal after the crime has been committed. The other view encompasses that vital role, but also sees the police as a public service working within its local community. That notion of community policing is not just consistent with the British system of policing but has been vigorously developed in recent years by the police themselves.
        The Government tend to the narrow view of policing, but we strongly favour the police as a public service working in local communities. Community policing sees the police as part of a local partnership working with other agencies that have an interest in fighting crime—schools, businesses, social services, local authorities and local community organisations. Therefore, the involvement becomes much more than law enforcement: it is also about preventing crime and tackling its causes. All over Britain, Labour councils are leading the way on crime prevention and have exemplified that approach.
        The reason for our approach is perfectly simple. Only one crime in 50 leads to a conviction. Therefore, any policy that deals simply with catching the criminal after the crime has been committed is one-sided and incapable of offering a solution. Up to a point the Government agree, but they say that there is no need for statutory responsibility to be placed on local authorities. They simply say, "Let it happen and if it happens, fine." If it does not happen, they do not intend to act.
        Precisely that argument, however, was rejected by the Government's own report—the Morgan report, published three years ago in 1991. That report expressly rejected the ad hoc approach taken by the Government. It said that, as the provider of a range of services that have a direct impact on the causes of crime, the local authority is a natural focus for the co-ordination—in collaboration with the police—of the broad range of activities intended to improve community safety. It concluded:
        "local authorities, working in conjunction with the police should have clear statutory responsibility for the development and

        163
        stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at a local level a multi-agency approach to community safety."
        In other words, the very report set up by the Government's own standing conference on crime prevention—the very people who were asked to analyse the way forward for crime prevention—came out with a solution—
        Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for interrupting the proceedings.
        Is it in order for a Government Whip to ask one hon. Member to leave, and then walk around the Chamber and ask another to leave as well? Is it not a fact that the entire Conservative party is not the slightest bit interested in law and order and crime prevention?
        Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to confirm what my hon. Friend said: I also saw what occurred. The Whip went over to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), and subsequently turned round from where he is now sitting.
        As you know, Madam Speaker, for some time Conservative Members have been asking when they will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). The Whips are now deliberately organising matters so that not a single Tory Back Bencher is left in the Chamber. That shows their complete lack of interest in any matter concerning the police and criminality. [Interruption.]
        Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this. I do not know what the Whips are up to; personally, I am riveted by the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
        Mr. Blair: I am delighted, Madam Speaker. It is a pity that the attention of more Conservative Members is not on my speech, and on the issue of crime and crime prevention. It is interesting that Opposition Members are the ones who are really talking about such issues.
        The Morgan report set out a strong framework for crime prevention. It said that such a framework was absolutely necessary, and that without it the policies of crime prevention would not be co-ordinated in the right way. That is not merely the view of the report; it is the view of ACPO and every other police body.
        Far from agreeing with the report, the Government are undermining the position of community policing. First, they are to set national objectives centrally, rather than allowing local priorities to take precedence. Secondly, as was pointed out today by senior police officers and chief constables, their review of the core functions of the police has provoked a widespread fear that they intend to strip out their community service functions, leaving only those connected with law enforcement.
        The dangers of that can be seen from experiments in crime prevention all over the country. There are examples everywhere of the fact that crime prevention—carried out on a proper, structured basis and led by police and local authorities—can actually work. In Reading, crime reduction groups have been set up under the Thames Valley policing initiative, resulting in a 50 per cent. drop in crime in certain areas. In the King's Cross area, as a result of work done by a partnership of local businesses,
        164
        police and the local authority, drug dealers have been driven off the streets and the place has been made safer for local people to inhabit. In Wigan—again, as a result of a partnership between local authority and police—vandalism in schools was dramatically reduced; that has now resulted in a £250,000 reduction in the insurance premiums paid by Wigan schools. If such examples, from those and from other authorities throughout the country, were built on and brought within a proper framework, they could lead the way in developing proper crime prevention measures.
        That is not prescriptive, but it sets a clear plan within which community policing can develop. Why do the Government not carry it out? Their own report said that it should be done, every body connected with policing advocates it, and local authorities want such a duty to be put on them. Why do the Government resist the recommendation of their own working party? The answer is: dogma about local government. There is no other reason. If anybody but local authorities had been given the task of co-ordinating the measures, the Government would have agreed overnight. But because local authorities were given the lead role, they did not.
        4.15 pm
        Now that the Government are spending more money through unelected, unaccountable quangos than through local government, it is surely a scandal that they are unwilling to give local authorities that statutory responsibility. Had they done so, it would have provided a boost for crime prevention, and that could have been happening over the past two or three years.
        The public are entitled to better. Every part of our communities should be mobilised in the fight against crime, and should be entitled to the type of partnership that has worked successfully where it has been tried.
        It is the Opposition who take the issues of crime and of law and order seriously, and the Opposition who are prepared to put in place the proper statutory framework, backed by Government, to fight crime in our local communities. If the Government and Conservative Members vote against the new clause, they will be showing that they are just not serious about law and order today.
        Mr. Charles Wardle: I suspect that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has come to the House to set down a personal marker on law and order and crime prevention. [Interruption.] The presence of a number of his supporters on the Opposition Benches makes it clear that the hon. Gentleman's appearance at the Dispatch Box today has been trailed as a landmark contribution on law and order. Yet all that we have heard, other than some interest in the Morgan report, is one bland generalisation after another.
        It is little wonder that the shadow Cabinet national executive monitoring group has asked the hon. Gentleman to redraft his law and order document, and in particular to beef up the crime prevention section. Perhaps that is what he intended to do today. But if the hon. Gentleman really is an advocate of law and order, and seriously wishes to challenge the achievements of the Home Secretary in that regard, he will have to explain to the House why he voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984, the Public Order Act in 1986 and the Criminal Justice Acts in 1988 and 1991, and why he abstained on Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill now passing through Parliament.

        165
        The hon. Member for Sedgefield will have to concede that virtually every one of his suggestions, except his recommendation that we provide a statutory obligation for local authorities on crime prevention, is already in practice. When he talked about the Thames Valley scheme and others, including the scheme in Wigan, of course the hon. Gentleman failed to mention that there is no need for any such statutory obligation, because the partnerships already exist; they are already working successfully without the Morgan recommendation.
        No doubt the House will recall that the Government have taken up with enthusiasm some of the recommendations of the Morgan report. Morgan emphasised partnership. No Government have ever done more than we have on partnership for crime prevention at local level, and the partnerships are already working. What the hon. Gentleman provides instead is his theme song about Morgan.
        All that would lead to is not greater crime prevention, but an auction; a series of bids for extra funding to do a job which is already being done locally. The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Bill and reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend has set in train already provide for locally focused policing plans, so that local interests may be taken into account. That is precisely what exists already in the Bill, and it has been greeted with enthusiasm by those involved in crime prevention up and down the country.
        I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I wish him well in his search for another job. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I see him as eternally youthful, pleasantly earnest and capable of singing a catchy refrain, but not necessarily with much substance. I think that he thinks that he is the Labour party's answer to Cliff Richard. Unlike Cliff, he has not succeeded in getting anything into the charts, and certainly his law and order single will not get there, either.
        Every force and every police authority—and, indeed, every local authority—already acknowledges the importance of crime prevention. We do not need the statutory requirement. The prevention of crime is already one of the fundamental roles of the police. It has been since 1829. To single it out now as one specific function, as an addition to the provision that sets out the duties of police authorities, would not make any sense at all. The Government strategy in dealing with crime already provides for partnership, and it is working successfully. I have already made it clear that the whole community has to play its part in crime prevention. Until the hon. Gentleman realises that everyone must have a vested interest in preventing crime, that everyone must involve himself or herself in crime prevention schemes, he will never understand that simply imposing a statutory obligation would encourage people to shrug off that responsibility.
        The spread of crime prevention initiatives at local and national level is testimony to the success of the partnership approach. The House will be familiar with the success of the national board on crime prevention, with the work of the ministerial group on crime prevention, with Crime Concern, started by the Government and with the success of closed-circuit television schemes brought in by many partnerships. The House will be familiar with the growing success of the parish constable scheme, of more than
        166
        130,000 neighbourhood watch schemes and other watch schemes, of the success of crime prevention panels and of estate action. The list could go on and on.
        In every police authority, in every area, strategies are being developed for targeting crime and are linking with local community groups, with local authorities, with local businesses and with individuals to ensure that crime prevention schemes are initiated and expanded. It does not need an additional statutory push of the kind that Morgan recommended and, now, the hon. Gentleman recommends. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
        May I now turn to amendment No. 81, about which I have better news for the hon. Member for Sedgefield? As the Bill stands, the chairman of a police authority is to be appointed at the annual meeting. That means that there is a risk of the chairmanship changing part of the way through the budgetary process, if the annual meeting has to be held between December and January. That seems to be a perfectly good argument in support of amendment No. 81, and the Government are therefore prepared to accept it.
        Mr. Robert Maclennan: What a disappointing speech from the Minister. I suppose that it was not to be expected that the Home Secretary would dignify the debate about crime prevention by speaking himself, but the fact that he sat there and allowed the matter to be handled by a junior Minister in such a manner was testimony to the Government's low level of interest in crime prevention. We are quite familiar with that.
        The Minister's first four minutes of roustabout might have amused a Conservative party wine and cheese gathering, but would certainly not have impressed anyone who was interested in the reduction of crime in this country.
        The reality is that the Minister and, indeed, the Government have failed to grasp the significance of crime prevention in the battle to reduce crime. They do not speak on these matters with any great authority, having presided over an explosion of crime during their tenure of office. Successive Home Secretaries have asked the House to believe that the latest piece of criminal justice legislation would be the panacea, and when Opposition Members have not necessarily accepted that view, that has been held up against us as evidence of our lack of faith.
        After crime has doubled in this country, it is scarcely surprising that we regard the implementation of yet another criminal justice Bill as unlikely to be the panacea. The truth is that crime prevention is one of the most hopeful, purposeful and effective ways of dealing with a scourge which afflicts society and which the Government have ignored too long. It is not enough to say, "We favour partnership; let a thousand flowers bloom," but to give no leadership whatever in the area of crime prevention.
        I would take issue with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) only if he sought to imply—I do not think that he did, because his speech was peculiarly non-partisan—that it is only Labour authorities that have been effective. The truth is that Liberal Democrat authorities throughout the country have promoted effective schemes of crime prevention, even against a background of serious cuts in Government expenditure which have borne down directly on those areas of discretionary expenditure which include crime prevention.

        167
        Sutton council is a case in point. Even in a year when its budget had to stand still, the council thought it right to appoint a crime prevention officer. But the Government have done nothing—
        Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has treated us to a tirade against the Government, saying how little they have done and how crime has increased. Now that our serious crime figures show a decline, can he name a single country in western Europe where overall crime has decreased?
        Mr. Maclennan: The encouraging short-term trend is certainly not statistically significant, or internationally comparable—as the Home Secretary was frequently at pains to argue when he was shrugging off, month by month, the most appalling crime increases in Europe.
        Mr. James Clappison: Would the hon. Gentleman care to justify his comment about statistical insignificance? In the Metropolitan area, residential burglaries have fallen by 16 per cent., and in my constituency, which is part of that area, house burglaries have decreased by 50 per cent. Is that not good news for householders?
        Mr. Maclennan: It is excellent news, but it does not establish a trend. I hope that it will be the forerunner of a general improvement in the effectiveness of community policing—an area in which the Metropolitan police, especially with Operation Bumblebee, have shown a lead.
        The fact is that the Government have turned a deaf ear, not only to parties in the House that have advocated strong crime prevention measures, but to their own advisers. I will not labour the point that the hon. Member for Sedgefield eloquently and cogently made—that to shrug aside the advice of the Morgan report is highly irresponsible and does not impress those who are interested in results, as opposed to Government rhetoric.
        The Government ought to be analysing local crime prevention schemes, drawing together the information about what is effective, disseminating best practice, encouraging it and exhorting those who are working as volunteers, or in commercial groups, or in local government, to come together and build on best practice.
        Even without Government resources at our disposal, a year ago the Liberal Democrats published evidence of what we were doing in our local authorities, showing what was effective and disseminating it among other authorities, regardless of their political complexion. We suggested that they start to do likewise and that they come up with other ways of doing even better. The Government have subsequently come up with comparable ideas of their own.
        The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I was extremely interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of disseminating best practice on crime prevention and I entirely agree with him. Is he not aware that Crime Concern, an organisation which the Government have set up and are funding, and which he should be aware of, because its chairman is president of the Liberal Democrats —demonstrating our non-partisan approach to these matters—is doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman has said should be done? It is doing it effectively and disseminating best practice about crime prevention across the country. Does not the hon. Gentleman know about that?
        4.30 pm
        Mr. Maclennan: Of course I know about the excellent work done by Crime Concern under the leadership of Tim Clement Jones, who, as it happens, is not the president, but a distinguished member, of my party. I am also aware that the resources that the Government have made available to Crime Concern are not of the magnitude that would enable it to do the work that could and should be undertaken by the Home Office in drawing together information.
        Mr. Thomas Graham: Surely the Government should recognise that Britain has the finest network of local authorities, which could operate crime prevention more successfully than central Government can. All advice and information should generally be available through the local government network.
        Mr. Maclennan: I am a strong believer in decentralising authorities in these matters, but the Home Office and its counterpart in Scotland have a role to play in ensuring that the best experience of local government and local police authorities is made widely available, and that that best practice is followed and added to by further and better examples.
        The Under-Secretary seemed to sweep aside the central importance of crime prevention in policing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield that that reflects very much the Minister's attitude to policing. One is increasingly fearful that the Government intend to tackle crime only after it has been committed, to put to one side the causes of crime and crime prevention, and, possibly, to contract out most of the rest of the matters that are handled by the police, which play such a significant role in making the civil order in which we live one where people are not smitten by fear and the expectation that crime will blight their lives.
        The proposal in the new clause was canvassed in Committee and I spoke strongly in favour of giving police authorities a specific and express duty to treat crime prevention as a priority. The Government have been only too willing to impose national objectives on police authorities, a trend which I deplore and regard as counter-productive to community policing. Crime prevention, however, does not fall into the sort of national objective category that the Government appear to favour. It goes to the core of what policing is about.
        I agree with only one thing that the Minister said—it is implicit in policing that the police must be concerned about crime prevention. Such a general statement, however, goes nowhere near to addressing the importance of the task, the importance of the allocation of responsibilities and resources for crime prevention, and the importance of the involvement of the community in that task, wherein lies the best hope of reducing the impact of crime on the lives of our citizens.
        Mr. Blair: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the Minister's comments.
        I thank the Minister for accepting amendment No. 81, but I should deal with his central argument. As I understand it, he agrees that partnerships should be set up throughout the country, but says that that is already happening. The fact of the matter is that it is happening not everywhere but only in certain parts. It should happen everywhere.

        169
        Why do not the Government give the lead? If they were prepared to place these partnerships in a proper framework, there would be a chance of extending them throughout the country.
        The Home Secretary mentioned Crime Concern. I understand that it is fully behind the Morgan report and its recommendation that local authorities should be given statutory responsibility. Ultimately, we are driven back to the conclusion that the recommendation is being resisted merely because local authorities were given this responsibility. It is dogma standing in the way of progress. We should have none of it: we should vote for the new clause.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 280.

        Division No. 281]

        [4.35 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Ainger, Nick

        Dafis, Cynog

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Allen, Graham

        Darling, Alistair

        Alton, David

        Davidson, Ian

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Denham, John

        Ashton, Joe

        Dewar, Donald

        Austin-Walker, John

        Dixon, Don

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Dobson, Frank

        Barnes, Harry

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Barron, Kevin

        Dowd, Jim

        Battle, John

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Bayley, Hugh

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Beggs, Roy

        Eastham, Ken

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Enright, Derek

        Bennett, Andrew F.

        Etherington, Bill

        Benton, Joe

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Berry, Roger

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Betts, Clive

        Fatchett, Derek

        Blair, Tony

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Blunkett, David

        Flynn, Paul

        Boateng, Paul

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Boyes, Roland

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Foulkes, George

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

        Fraser, John

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Burden, Richard

        Galbraith, Sam

        Byers, Stephen

        Gapes, Mike

        Callaghan, Jim

        Gerrard, Neil

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Canavan, Dennis

        Gordon, Mildred

        Cann, Jamie

        Graham, Thomas

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Grocott, Bruce

        Church, Judith

        Gunnell, John

        Clapham, Michael

        Hain, Peter

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Hall, Mike

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Hanson, David

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Clelland, David

        Harvey, Nick

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Henderson, Doug

        Coffey, Ann

        Heppell, John

        Cohen, Harry

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hodge, Margaret

        Corbett, Robin

        Hoey, Kate

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Home Robertson, John

        Cousins, Jim

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cummings, John

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        170

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Olner, William

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Hoyle, Doug

        Parry, Robert

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Patchett, Terry

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Pendry, Tom

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Pike, Peter L.

        Hutton, John

        Pope, Greg

        Illsley, Eric

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Ingram, Adam

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Prescott, John

        Jamieson, David

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Janner, Greville

        Purchase, Ken

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Radice, Giles

        Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        Randall, Stuart

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Redmond, Martin

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Reid, Dr John

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Jowell, Tessa

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Roche, Mrs. Barbara

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Ross, William (E Londonderry)

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Lewis, Terry

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Livingstone, Ken

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Short, Clare

        Loyden, Eddie

        Simpson, Alan

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Skinner, Dennis

        McCartney, Ian

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Macdonald, Calum

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

        McFall, John

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        McLeish, Henry

        Snape, Peter

        Maclennan, Robert

        Soley, Clive

        McMaster, Gordon

        Spearing, Nigel

        MacShane, Denis

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        McWilliam, John

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Madden, Max

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Mahon, Alice

        Stevenson, George

        Mandelson, Peter

        Straw, Jack

        Marek, Dr John

        Timms, Stephen

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Trimble, David

        Martlew, Eric

        Turner, Dennis

        Maxton, John

        Tyler, Paul

        Meacher, Michael

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Meale, Alan

        Walley, Joan

        Michael, Alun

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        Watson, Mike

        Milburn, Alan

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Miller, Andrew

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Wilson, Brian

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Winnick, David

        Morley, Elliot

        Worthington, Tony

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

        Wray, Jimmy

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Mullin, Chris

        Murphy, Paul

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

        O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

        Mr. John Spellar.

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Ashby, David

        Alexander, Richard

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Amess, David

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Ancram, Michael

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Baldry, Tony

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        171

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Bates, Michael

        Gale, Roger

        Batiste, Spencer

        Gallie, Phil

        Bellingham, Henry

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Bendall, Vivian

        Garnier, Edward

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Gill, Christopher

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Body, Sir Richard

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Booth, Hartley

        Gorst, Sir John

        Boswell, Tim

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Bowden, Sir Andrew

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Bowis, John

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Hague, William

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Brazier, Julian

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Hannam, Sir John

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Harris, David

        Browning, Mrs. Angela

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hawksley, Warren

        Burns, Simon

        Hayes, Jerry

        Burt, Alistair

        Heald, Oliver

        Butcher, John

        Hendry, Charles

        Butler, Peter

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Butterfill, John

        Hicks, Robert

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Horam, John

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Churchill, Mr

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Clappison, James

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

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Coe, Sebastian

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Colvin, Michael

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Congdon, David

        Hunter, Andrew

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Jessel, Toby

        Cormack, Patrick

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Cran, James

        Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Key, Robert

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Kilfedder, Sir James

        Day, Stephen

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Knapman, Roger

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Knox, Sir David

        Dover, Den

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Duncan, Alan

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Dunn, Bob

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Legg, Barry

        Dykes, Hugh

        Leigh, Edward

        Elletson, Harold

        Lennox-Boyd, Mark

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Lidington, David

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Lightbown, David

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Evennett, David

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

        Faber, David

        Lord, Michael

        Fabricant, Michael

        Luff, Peter

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Maclean, David

        Fishburn, Dudley

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Forman, Nigel

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Madel, Sir David

        Forth, Eric

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Malone, Gerald

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Mans, Keith

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Marland, Paul

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Marlow, Tony

        French, Douglas

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        172

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Mates, Michael

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Merchant, Piers

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Mills, Iain

        Spring, Richard

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Sproat, Iain

        Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Steen, Anthony

        Moss, Malcolm

        Stephen, Michael

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Stern, Michael

        Nelson, Anthony

        Stewart, Allan

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Streeter, Gary

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Sumberg, David

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Sweeney, Walter

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Sykes, John

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Norris, Steve

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Ottaway, Richard

        Thomason, Roy

        Page, Richard

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Paice, James

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Thurnham, Peter

        Patten, Rt Hon John

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

        Pawsey, James

        Tracey, Richard

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Tredinnick, David

        Pickles, Eric

        Trend, Michael

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Trotter, Neville

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Rathbone, Tim

        Viggers, Peter

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Richards, Rod

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Riddick, Graham

        Ward, John

        Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Waterson, Nigel

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Watts, John

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Wells, Bowen

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Whitney, Ray

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Whittingdale, John

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Sackville, Tom

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Willetts, David

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Wolfson, Mark

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wood, Timothy

        Shersby, Michael

        Yeo, Tim

        Sims, Roger

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Soames, Nicholas

        Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Mr. Derek Conway.

        Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 2
      PUBLIC INQUIRY ON REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLICE AREAS
      'After section 23 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
      PUBLIC INQUIRY ON REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLICE AREAS

        Public inquiry on reduction in number of police areas
        '23A.—(1) This section has effect where—

        (a) the Secretary of State has proposed an alteration to the area of a police force which would have the effect of reducing the number of such areas in Schedule IA to this Act;

        (b) an objection has been duly delivered in accordance with section 21A(4) above; and

        (c) that objection has not been withdrawn within three weeks of the Secretary of State having given notice under that subsection that he does not accept it.

        (2) In any case to which subsection (1) above applies the Secretary of State shall cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of any objection by a person appointed by him (who shall not be an officer of police or of any Government department).

        173
        (3) The Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person holding the inquiry before determining whether the proposed reduction in the number of areas should be made and if so subject to what modifications, if any.
        (4) Where a proposal has been subject to a public inquiry in accordance with this section, the Secretary of State shall not lay a draft order under section 21B(3) above until 7 days after he has laid the report of that public inquiry before Parliament.".'. — [Mr. Michael.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 5℄Metropolitan Police Force—
        ' .—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order made not later than 30th June 1997 provide that there shall be a police authority for the metropolitan police district.
        (2) A police authority established under this section shall be a body corporate to be known as the Metropolitan Police Authority.
        (3) A police authority established under this section shall secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for its area.
        (4) A police authority established under subsection (1) above shall have a scheme of membership specified in accordance with section 3A of the Police Act 1964 and the Secretary of State shall before issuing any order setting out such a scheme consider the exercise of his power in subsection (2) of that section.
        (5) For the purposes of this section, a council is a relevant council in relation to a police authority if it is the council for a London borough.
        (6) Schedules 1B and 1C to the 1964 Act shall apply with respect to appointments to a police authority established under this section.'.
        Amendment No. 2, in clause 13, page 7, line 25, at end insert
        'and where a reduction is proposed section (Public inquiry on reduction in number of police areas) shall apply.'.
        Amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 42, at end insert
        'provided that a further notice of the revised proposals shall have been given to the recipients of the original notice under subsection (1) of this section and that the recipients of the further notice shall have a further period of four weeks beginning with the date of the further notice within which to lodge objections with the Secretary of State, who, on receipt of such objections, shall follow the procedure outlined in subsection (4) of this section.'.
        Mr. Michael: The new clauses and amendments relate to the accountability and independence of the police. The House should be aware that that accountability and independence are under threat as a result of the Bill. The essence of policing is that the police are the police of the people, not of the state. That is the message of the Association of Chief Police Officers, but those words should have a resonance with every hon. Member and with the general public.
        Policing is not through imposition from the centre, but by the consent of the local community who are represented for policing purposes by the locally elected members who sit on the police authority. It is through the police authority, constituted with a majority of elected members, that a legitimate relationship exists between the police and the community.
        With regard to the office of chief constable, and again according to ACPO,
        "The Chief Constable of the police force is accountable to the community through the police authority, but is operationally independent. That independent role is vital if the integrity of policing in this country is to remain."
        Those words should also have resonance for every hon. Member. Accountability and independence are threatened by a Bill which places great powers in the hands of the
        174
        Home Secretary to influence and undermine the independence of the chief constable and to influence and undermine the independence and accountability of the police authority.
        New clause 2 seeks to ensure that if a local authority or a local police authority objects to a proposal to merge police forces, there will be a local inquiry and, as a result of that local inquiry, the Home Secretary will be required to consider the report of the independent person holding the inquiry before he reaches his conclusions. According to the new clause, the Home Secretary shall not lay a draft until he has had time to consider the views of that individual and the outcome of the inquiry before he places his conclusions before Parliament. That basic principle is contained in the Police Act 1964, but the centralising Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill seems to remove that principle from the statute book. That is wrong and we seek to restore it through the new clause.
        Through new clause 5, we seek to ensure that, not later than June 1997—a date which is not far distant, but far distant enough to allow for planning—there shall be a police authority for London. It is wrong that there is no police authority for London. The Home Secretary does not fulfil that function except in relation to statute. He does not fulfil it in reality. It is right that we should state today that there shall be a police authority for London.
        The amendments grouped with new clause 2 seek to ensure that notice shall be given of revised proposals. There are also minor amendments to improve the quality of the Bill and the accountability and independence of local police forces.
        The effect of clause 13 would be to repeal schedule 3 of the Police Act 1964. That schedule requires the Home Secretary to set up a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him—so the Home Secretary still has that choice—if a police authority or council objects to a proposed scheme for policing or, in other words, a merger.
        Mergers threaten the police forces of this country. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Home Secretary, he was part of the centralising tendency. There is an influence which is seeking to bring police forces under the greater control of the Home Secretary—which is what this Bill does—and to merge local police forces into large regional police forces in which the character of individual areas and individual police forces will be lost and submerged. We wish to resist that. If the Minister is true to the comments that he made in Committee when he insisted that there was no plan to merge police forces, and to the comments of his ministerial colleague in the House of Lords where an assurance was given that there was no intention, within many years, to merge police forces, he must accept the new clause.
        The Government's position as expressed in the House of Lords is that the Home Secretary would not propose to alter police areas unless he was satisfied that that was in the interests of police efficiency and effectiveness, but we cannot take that for granted, because the Home Secretary during his period of office has taken many steps which have not been in the interests of police efficiency and effectiveness.
        If the Home Secretary does not accept the objections, he must give reasons. If he wishes to proceed, an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament is necessary. That is true. The argument that we heard in Committee from the Minister was that public inquiries would cause delay. I repeat the point that I made to the Minister in Committee:

        175
        delay occurs only if the Government want to go ahead with mergers. If they do not wish to go ahead with mergers, there is no need for the expedited course for merging allowed for in the Bill.
        Let us consider the hurdles that the Home Secretary would have to overcome. According to the Minister, the Home Secretary considers proposals for amalgamation or alteration of police areas carefully and is bound to give reasons for rejecting objections. We expect that. Is the Minister suggesting that the Home Secretary should not have to give serious thought to proposals? However, it would be desirable for the Home Secretary to expose his reasoning to open discussion in a public inquiry, which would allow people to express the views of the locality and would allow the views of the police in that area to be heard.
        The Government have expressed enthusiasm, which we heard again from the Minister a few moments ago, for the involvement of the local public in policing. The Government support, as we do, neighbourhood watch, other kinds of watch, parish constables, increasing the number of special constables, multi-agency crime prevention and police-community consultative groups. The interests of local democracy in those approaches should be preserved in any change to police areas, and that requirement should outweigh the requisites of administrative convenience.
        An affirmative resolution in Parliament is required for a change to be made, but that is not a safeguard because an order would contain a mass of detail and would be unamendable. There would thus be a dilemma if a particular point—such as the the siting of headquarters, which can be a very important element in local decision making—needed attention. Members would be under pressure from Ministers to approve the order, and not to reject it so that the procedure has to be started again. Moreover, it is extremely rare for an order not to be approved.
        With regard to delay, it seems that some public inquiries in the 1960s took several months and the Minister used that point to great dramatic effect in Committee. In fact, the inquiries took several months, but implementation took two to three years or longer. The greater part of the delay was caused by implementation rather than by the period taken up by the public inquiry. In one case cited by the Minister it was conceded that the public inquiry lasted only 13 days.
        It is the quality of proposals that matters, not the quantity of proposals. The Minister made a case for making public inquiries more effective and targeted, and we agree with that. However, he has not made a case for sweeping away public inquiries and trying to still the voice of the police and the community when considering decisions on the future of a police force.
        Amalgamation orders last a long time. The period of reorganisation of any organisation, particularly the police, is a period of great disruption to the service and the quality of the service provided locally. It should therefore not be entered into without great thought. That is why a period of uncertainty is a price well worth paying to be sure that we get the answer right. The basic principle should be, "Don't reorganise unless you are absolutely certain." Consistent with that is the requirement to have a public inquiry so that the public as well as the Minister can be fully informed and take a balanced view of any proposals.
        It must be helpful for the Home Secretary to hear any case against amalgamation argued through an inquiry which offers the possibility of oral discussion and
        176
        exchanges of views. With today's police forces—irrespective of mergers—we are dealing with larger areas and populations than was the case after the Police Act 1964. Cleveland has an area of 59,000 acres and Dyfed Powys has more than 1 million acres, despite being the smallest police force. Gwent has a population of nearly 500,000, while the West Midlands area has about 2.5 million. We are talking about much larger police forces than those which were merged in the 1960s. The arguments that applied in respect of delay, of which the Minister made great play, therefore do not apply.
        Although the marginal note to clause 13 is "Alteration of police areas", it is obvious that mergers and amalgamations are intended. They will make the police service more remote from local communities. I repeat my question to the Minister because he did not answer it successfully during the hours we spent debating these issues in Committee. If there are no plans to make amalgamations or to merge police forces, or to have vast and remote regional police authorities, why introduce such drastic streamlining methods in the Bill?
        The Government's continued resistance to incorporating a provision for a public inquiry is ominous. I must tell the Minister that, pleasant though his responses often are, we distrust the Government's intentions and those not only of the present Home Secretary but of future Home Secretaries—following the imminent reshuffle—as to the way in which they could use the powers in the Bill.
        Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is speaking while the Local Government Commission is sitting. Whatever the outcome of the Local Government Commission, there will be a marked change in the boundaries. Is it not prudent of the Home Secretary to take powers which would allow the police authorities to be adjusted to the new local authorities?
        5 pm
        Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, and I can forgive him for regarding that as a valid point. The changes to local government in Wales, for instance, have been decided by the Local Government (Wales) Bill, which was passed by the House. Later tonight, the Minister will seek powers—this will undoubtedly be subject to a little debate—to deal with the new local government boundaries in Wales.
        That is different from the power that I am contesting here, which is the power to merge police forces without the need to have regard to new local government boundaries, without a public inquiry and without having to take account of the views of local people and the police who deal with a particular area. That is the point, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for giving me an opportunity to make that absolutely clear. The point is that if there is a change to police boundaries which has everyone singing and dancing in the streets because it will improve the standard of policing, a public inquiry will not be necessary. The issue arises only where there is an objection by the appropriate bodies.
        The problem is that we must deduce from the Government's resistance to the minor improvements which we have sought that further centralisation and further increases in the size and remoteness of police forces is intended. Those considerations place in context the denial

        177
        of natural justice, including the removal of the provision for a public inquiry, especially when significant changes to the most sensitive of public services are intended.
        As for the situation in London, it is outrageous that democratic accountability does not exist in relation to the police in London. I should make it clear that our criticism is not of the police or of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, but of the Home Secretary for failing to take the opportunity to create an accountable body. I know that my hon. Friends have taken the opportunity of meeting police in various parts of the capital recently, and those who represent London feel particularly strongly on this point.
        The police seek a partnership approach, which includes working with the boroughs in London as well as with the local community. The police respect the important role of local government. Unfortunately, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said in a previous debate, that respect is not shown by Tory Members. The missing players in such local partnerships are, as usual, the Government.
        Technically, the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, but that cannot and does not work. In effect, accountability is in the hands of Whitehall for most of the time, apart from the odd annual occasion when the Home Secretary comes out of the box to speak to the House. That shows disrespect for democracy. In a decade of democracy—I think that it can be characterised in that way—when accountability is extending widely in society, particularly to police forces in the former Soviet Union, in South Africa and on the west bank, it seems odd that London does not have proper accountability and democracy. The former Chancellor promised it and then snatched it away from us within a short period. That shows a disgraceful lack of confidence in the people of London.
        Mr. Michael Brown: I am following closely and understanding to some extent the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I accept that there is a case for making police authorities accountable to elected representatives. However, one of the things that has always irked me is that, like hon. Members representing London, I can table parliamentary questions and raise debates about policing in London before the ultimate arbiter of democracy—this House—but when I want to question the operational conduct of the Humberside police, I cannot do so. There is no opportunity for me as an elected representative to ask the Humberside police to account to me; yet perversely—ironically, I would argue—London is the only case in which hon. Members, through the Home Secretary, can ask the police authority to account to us. We cannot do that in the counties. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?
        Mr. Michael: As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) pointed out, it is a fat lot of use the Home Secretary being accountable, as he refers operational matters to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He is not accountable to the House for operational matters.
        If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has trouble contacting the chief constable in his police authority, I would be happy to tell him how to go about it. I know that my hon. Friends spend a considerable amount of time talking to members of their police
        178
        authorities and to chief constables, and find that they are ever responsive to our concerns. If the hon. Gentleman has the good fortune to be in an area where the majority of members of the police authority are Labour, he will have an excellent police authority—I have every confidence in that. Indeed, I visited that police authority and discussed some of the policing issues which I believe are important in every part of the country.
        Two issues are paramount: there should be a body that is accountable to local people, and the Home Secretary should be accountable to the House for his actions. We get a fat lot of answers on many of those issues as well. We need that accountability, and it is wrong that it does not exist for London, as it does for other parts of the country.
        Finally, the Minister in this House and the Minister in another place have used these words—I quote the Minister in another place:
        "My right hon. Friend has no intention at present of amalgamating anything, but it is perfectly possible in the course of the next 10, 20 or 30 years that amalgamations will have to take place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 324.]
        If there is a belief that mergers of police forces should take place, that should be tested by a public inquiry which gives local people and local police forces the opportunity to have their voice heard before a decision is taken. That is why this debate about accountability, responsibility and the independence of the police force is so important.
        Mr. Maclennan: I rise to support new clause 2, the first proposal to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke, which calls for inquiries to be retained in the case of expected amalgamations. When the matter was first discussed in another place and Lord Harris of Greenwich spoke about the need for public local inquiries in the event of proposals for amalgamation, he was assured by the Minister that he was looking for slugs under stones.
        It was suggested that the prospect of amalgamation was unreal. Earl Ferrers said:
        "He says that we are producing arrangements for amalgamations, but we have no intention of doing any. I have no hesitation in telling the Committee what the position is. My right hon. Friend has no intention at present of amalgamating anything, but it is perfectly possible in the course of the next 10, 20 or 30 years that amalgamations will have to take place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 323–24.]
        In the few months that have elapsed since then, the Government's true intentions have become much more clear.
        Only this morning, I received a letter only this morning from the chief constable of Gwent constabulary, Tony Burden, expressing alarm about the Government's intentions for amalgamation in Wales. He asked me to agree that the principle that nothing useful can be gained from police force amalgamations, and that policing as a service should remain local, should be imported into our discussions today. He is right to be worried about that prospect in Wales.
        The Minister communicated with me—and undoubtedly with other hon. Members, including perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—in a letter dated 30 June, outlining intentions to amalgamate forces in Wales. We shall have an opportunity later to consider those proposals in detail. I do not propose to dwell on the matter now, except to say that the Government have not played a wholly frank hand during the discussion of the procedures for amalgamation. Throughout the deliberations, we have

        179
        been told that the Government have nothing so sinister in mind—it was simply that contingency arrangements were being made. Even before the Bill is out of the House, we are being told of the Government's present and, indeed, urgent intentions to do just what Lord Harris spoke of.
        Inquiries play a significant part in the argument for amalgamations and in ensuring that local considerations are properly taken into account. Major amalgamations took place in the 1960s when my noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary. Local inquiries were carried out. No one argued that the major programme of amalgamations was in any significant or serious way damaged or that the police service was adversely affected by the delays caused by the local inquiry system. It was seen to be reasonable and it did not affect the efficiency of the relevant police forces.
        The Minister has not so far produced any good reason why we cannot adhere to the practice that I have outlined. It appears to be a strengthening of central authority to dictate the disposition of the police authorities without proper checks and controls of a democratic nature and to exclude from the deliberations precisely the local interests which would be ventilated in local inquiries. I hope that, even at this late stage in the progress of the Bill, the Government will concede the force of the case for the use of local inquiries.
        The arguments on the other amendments, which deal with the case for a local police authority for London, have been canvassed many times in the House and fought by Ministers of the present Government wearing different hats. There can be no dogmatic view against the desirability of such a police authority. Certain functions of the police in the Metropolitan area might properly remain within the oversight of the Home Office, although I must say that Home Secretaries have not shown themselves to be notably successfully in preventing intrusions into the royal palaces or always to be the most effective police authority to deal with international matters of diplomacy and the protection of the Government. Those cases have traditionally been deployed against a police authority for London.
        I believe that those arguments have been overtaken by events and that there is now a strong balance of opinion within the police force itself and among the public in favour of the development of a police authority for London. That should be given expression at the earliest possible date. I therefore propose to support that proposal, too.
        5.15 pm
        Mr. Charles Wardle: I hope that the House will allow me to clarify some remarks that I made in the short debate on new clauses 14 to 17 in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He asked me whether the new clauses applied to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I made an error. I apologise to the House. New clauses 14 to 17 would apply where English, Welsh or Scottish police officers served with the RUC, but they do not apply to officers of the RUC serving abroad, because the clauses amend the Police Act 1964, which does not extend to Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that point.
        New clauses 2 and 5 deal with the issue of public inquiries and amalgamations, which was debated twice in another place and twice during the recent Commons
        180
        Committee stage. On all those occasions, amendments were defeated. I believe that the arguments against the new clauses are overwhelming. The procedures in the Bill for altering police areas are thorough but not cumbersome. They involve five separate stages. That gives full opportunity for any objections to be raised and fully considered. New clause 2 would add a sixth stage to all the others by requiring my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to hold a public inquiry which could produce an interminable delay.
        The House will be aware that previous experience of public inquiries in the 1960s showed that they caused delay and were often convened to consider fairly trivial issues that did not add anything useful to the process of considering changes to force areas. Those delays sometimes had adverse effects on police morale.
        We have no plans to change the number of police forces. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked me to confirm the point again. No sensible Government could promise to preserve intact every police force in perpetuity, but we have no plans to make any changes. If we made the promise that the hon. Gentleman a little mischievously sought from me this afternoon and in Committee, the effect would be that there would never be any change in the number of police forces. If that promise had been given in 1964 when the Bill that became the 1964 Act was debated, we would still have 125 separate police forces. For those reasons, I urge the House to disregard the entreaties of the hon. Gentleman.
        I mentioned five stages. Before anything else happens, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must be satisfied that any alteration would be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Secondly, he has to give interested parties formal notice of his proposals. Thirdly, those interested parties have a minimum of four months to consider the proposals. Fourthly, when my right hon. and learned Friend receives any representations from those who have been consulted, he is under a statutory obligation to consider them. If he still wishes to proceed after all that, he must make proposals in an order which must be laid before Parliament. Hence, we do not need a sixth stage.
        New clause 5 deals with a police authority for London. Successive Governments of different political complexions have made it absolutely clear over the past 165 years that there should be special and separate arrangements for policing the capital. It is not an accident of history that the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolitan police. We have had a developed system of local government for more than a century, but we have consistently declined to give local government the responsibility for policing.
        We are talking not about party politics but about questions and judgments of vital national interest which go beyond local government. The differences between the Metropolitan police and other forces are not simply a matter of size—although we should not overlook the fact that it is a huge body of men and women, 13 times larger than the average police force. The differences also arise from the Metropolitan police force's unique functions, which include national functions such as anti-terrorist activities, functions undertaken on behalf of the whole police service, and local functions of vital national concern.
        The Government have publicly examined the various possibilities, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. I make no apology for that. It was right that

        181
        we should do so. In doing so, we decided that we should stick with the status quo. It is impracticable and, in some cases, impossible to draw a clear and permanent line between national and local interests in policing London—hence the arrangements as they now stand. So our conclusion is that the Home Secretary must remain the police authority for the Metropolitan police, to safeguard the national interest in their work and make them fully accountable to Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) reminded the House a few moments ago.
        We are not, however, simply maintaining the status quo, because we are establishing a new non-party political body, the Metropolitan Police Committee, outside the Home Office, to help my right hon. and learned Friend and Londoners to get the best from the reforms. We believe that the new committee will add real value to the existing arrangements. It will help my right hon. and learned Friend to apply the reforms administratively to the Metropolitan police without disturbing or confusing the direct lines of accountability from the force to the Home Secretary and Parliament.
        For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 287.

        282]

        [5.20 pm

        AYES

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Ainger, Nick

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Allen, Graham

        Clelland, David

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Coffey, Ann

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Cohen, Harry

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Connarty, Michael

        Ashton, Joe

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Austin-Walker, John

        Corbett, Robin

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Barnes, Harry

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Barron, Kevin

        Cousins, Jim

        Battle, John

        Cummings, John

        Bayley, Hugh

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Bennett, Andrew F.

        Dafis, Cynog

        Benton, Joe

        Dalyell, Tam

        Berry, Roger

        Darling, Alistair

        Betts, Clive

        Davidson, Ian

        Blair, Tony

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Blunkett, David

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Boateng, Paul

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Boyes, Roland

        Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Denham, John

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Dewar, Donald

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

        Dixon, Don

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Burden, Richard

        Dowd, Jim

        Byers, Stephen

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Callaghan, Jim

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Eastham, Ken

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Enright, Derek

        Canavan, Dennis

        Etherington, Bill

        Cann, Jamie

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Church, Judith

        Flynn, Paul

        Clapham, Michael

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        182

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Mandelson, Peter

        Foulkes, George

        Marek, Dr John

        Fraser, John

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Galbraith, Sam

        Martlew, Eric

        Gapes, Mike

        Maxton, John

        Gerrard, Neil

        Meacher, Michael

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Meale, Alan

        Godsiff, Roger

        Michael, Alun

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Gordon, Mildred

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        Graham, Thomas

        Milburn, Alan

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Miller, Andrew

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Grocott, Bruce

        Morley, Elliot

        Gunnell, John

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

        Hain, Peter

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Hall, Mike

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Hanson, David

        Mullin, Chris

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Murphy, Paul

        Harvey, Nick

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Henderson, Doug

        O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

        Heppell, John

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Olner, William

        Hinchliffe, David

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Hodge, Margaret

        Parry, Robert

        Hoey, Kate

        Patchett, Terry

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Pendry, Tom

        Home Robertson, John

        Pickthall, Colin

        Hood, Jimmy

        Pike, Peter L.

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Pope, Greg

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Purchase, Ken

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Radice, Giles

        Hutton, John

        Randall, Stuart

        Ingram, Adam

        Raynsford, Nick

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Redmond, Martin

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Reid, Dr John

        Jamieson, David

        Rendel, David

        Janner, Greville

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        Roche, Mrs. Barbara

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

        Rogers, Allan

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Jowell, Tessa

        Rowlands, Ted

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Ruddock, Joan

        Keen, Alan

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Simpson, Alan

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Lewis, Terry

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

        Liddell, Helen

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Snape, Peter

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Spearing, Nigel

        LIwyd, Elfyn

        Spellar, John

        Loyden, Eddie

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        McAllion, John

        Steinberg, Gerry

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Stevenson, George

        McCartney, Ian

        Straw, Jack

        Macdonald, Calum

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        McFall, John

        Timms, Stephen

        McKelvey, William

        Tipping, Paddy

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Turner, Dennis

        McLeish, Henry

        Tyler, Paul

        Maclennan, Robert

        Vaz, Keith

        McMaster, Gordon

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        MacShane, Denis

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        McWilliam, John

        Wareing, Robert N

        Madden, Max

        Watson, Mike

        Mahon, Alice

        Wicks, Malcolm

        183

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Winnick, David

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Worthington, Tony

        Mr. Eric Illsley and

        Wray, Jimmy

        Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

        Wright, Dr Tony

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Alexander, Richard

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Dover, Den

        Amess, David

        Duncan, Alan

        Ancram, Michael

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Arbuthnot, James

        Dunn, Bob

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Dykes, Hugh

        Ashby, David

        Elletson, Harold

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

        Evennett, David

        Baldry, Tony

        Faber, David

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Bates, Michael

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Bellingham, Henry

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Forth, Eric

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        French, Douglas

        Booth, Hartley

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Boswell, Tim

        Gale, Roger

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Gallie, Phil

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Bowden, Sir Andrew

        Garnier, Edward

        Bowis, John

        Gill, Christopher

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Brazier, Julian

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Browning, Mrs. Angela

        Gorst, Sir John

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Burns, Simon

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Burt, Alistair

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Butcher, John

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Butler, Peter

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Butterfill, John

        Hague, William

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hannam, Sir John

        Carttiss, Michael

        Harris, David

        Cash, William

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hawkins, Nick

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hawksley, Warren

        Churchill, Mr

        Hayes, Jerry

        Clappison, James

        Heald, Oliver

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hendry, Charles

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Hicks, Robert

        Coe, Sebastian

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

        Colvin, Michael

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Congdon, David

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Conway, Derek

        Horam, John

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

        Cormack, Patrick

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Cran, James

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

        Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Day, Stephen

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        184

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Jessel, Toby

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Sackville, Tom

        Key, Robert

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Kilfedder, Sir James

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knapman, Roger

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Knox, Sir David

        Sims, Roger

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Soames, Nicholas

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Legg, Barry

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Leigh, Edward

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Lennox-Boyd, Mark

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Lidington, David

        Spring, Richard

        Lightbown, David

        Sproat, Iain

        Lord, Michael

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Luff, Peter

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Steen, Anthony

        MacKay, Andrew

        Stephen, Michael

        Maclean, David

        Stern, Michael

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Stewart, Allan

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Streeter, Gary

        Madel, Sir David

        Sumberg, David

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Sweeney, Walter

        Malone, Gerald

        Sykes, John

        Mans, Keith

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Marland, Paul

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Marlow, Tony

        Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Thomason, Roy

        Mates, Michael

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Merchant, Piers

        Thurnham, Peter

        Mills, Iain

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

        Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

        Tracey, Richard

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Tredinnick, David

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Trend, Michael

        Moss, Malcolm

        Trotter, Neville

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Nelson, Anthony

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Viggers, Peter

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Walden, George

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Ward, John

        Norris, Steve

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Waterson, Nigel

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Watts, John

        Ottaway, Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Page, Richard

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Paice, James

        Whitney, Ray

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Whittingdale, John

        Pawsey, James

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Pickles, Eric

        Wilkinson, John

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Willetts, David

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Wilshire, David

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Wolfson, Mark

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Wood, Timothy

        Richards, Rod

        Yeo, Tim

        Riddick, Graham

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

        Robathan, Andrew

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Mr. Irvine Patnick and

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 3

      OFFICE OF CONSTABLE IN A DESIGNATED POLICE FORCE
      '.—(1) A person may be attested as a police constable only if he serves in a police force which is either a force constituted under a Police Act or in a force, designated under this section by the Secretary of State.
      (2) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State may by order and after consultation with persons representative of police authorities and chief officers of police specify the jurisdiction and responsibilities of a constable.
      (3) No order may be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
      (4) A duly attested constable serving in a designated force shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable under a Police Act but only—

      (a) where no other constable is present and available to exercise his powers as a constable and he is satisfied that the circumstances require him to exercise those powers and privileges, or

      (b) in pursuance of a request for assistance from another police constable serving in a force constituted under a Police Act.

      (5) The Secretary of State may by order apply such provisions as he considers appropriate of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to constables serving in a designated force.
      (6) For the purposes of this section, a "Police Act" means the Police Act 1964, the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 or the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1970.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We now come to an extremely important issue which was debated in Committee in respect of police forces other than the ordinary police forces. Those are sometimes called Home Office police forces, but they should be regarded as the police forces of local people, which we have in different functions in the country.
      The new clause deals with the office of constable, and asks what a constable or a police officer is. It relates to the confidence of the public in recognising a police officer and knowing that that somebody whom they have identified as a police officer is, in fact, a constable. The new clause is designed to meet the Minister's objections to some of the ways in which we proposed to tackle the smaller, non-regional and non-local police forces. I refer hon. Members to the debates in Committee, and particularly to some very well-informed speeches by my hon. Friends. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were made at that stage.
      It is more important than ever that we should know how to recognise a police officer. In an age of vigilantes, core functions, national targets, privatisation and centralised control within Whitehall, it is important that we know who is a police officer. I underline the fact that we are talking about the police of the public, and not the police of the state.
      The new clause seeks to determine who is a constable and what is a police force, and the public have a right to know with certainty who fulfils those categories. The new clause states that somebody can be recognised as a police officer only
      "if he serves in a police force which is either a force constituted under a Police Act or in a force designated under this section by the Secretary of State."
      186
      That seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward way of dealing with the issue, and it also takes into account the problems raised by the Minister in Committee.
      It is only right that there should be something specific about the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the constable. It is also right that we should deal with the difficulties facing members of the British Transport police. The new clause says that if somebody is a designated and trained police officer who has the responsibility and experience of a police officer, he should have
      "all the powers and privileges of a constable under a Police Act but only where no other constable is present."
      If an officer from the British Transport police was on the way to Ystrad Mynach and an accident or incident occurred which required the help of a police officer, that officer should be able to act until a member of the South Wales police force was available to fulfil the functions of policing. That British Transport police officer, or an officer of any of the other non-regional, non-local police forces, should have no doubt that he has the powers of a constable, and members of the public should be in no doubt about his status and his powers to act.
      A variety of other arguments were made in Committee, and I do not intend to rehearse them, but I was disappointed in Committee by the way in which Conservative Members sought to diminish and minimise the importance of the issues. The Minister made reference to the Barnet dog handlers and, as someone who was bitten by an alsatian in Barnet at the age of 13, I intend to find out more about that body and why its strength at present is zero.
      The Minister said in Committee that it was a centralising idea to bring the forces together and to combine them under a single authority. That is not required by the new clause. We have overcome the difficulties that the Minister brought out, but the choice is clear for the Government. The Minister should say either that the organisations concerned are police forces staffed by constables and that they should be brought within the ambit of the relevant law, or that they are not police forces. In that case, the Minister should describe how they must be governed and regulated, because it is certain that they should be governed and regulated in some way.
      If members of the forces are police officers, they should come within the proper ambit of the law. If not, they should be acknowledged as something different. The Minister failed to tackle those issues in Committee and I hope he will tackle them today, perhaps by accepting the new clause.
      The Minister also said in Committee that some of the constables outside the local police forces are in tiny forces. That is true, but what does it mean? Does it mean that because they are small, such forces should be outside the scope of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Should they be outside the jurisdiction and supervision of the inspectorate, the training requirements for police officers and any formal supervision? Is that what the Minister maintains on the Floor of House, as he did in Committee? I hope not.
      There is a need for certainty to be given to the public and to those who should be recognised as police officers in the vital role of constable, wherever and under whatever conditions they exercise those functions. The new clause would give that clarity, and I appeal to the Minister to accept it.
      Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is at his most dangerous when he says that he appeals to me. I have listened to his entreaties, but I fear that I must disappoint him, as I did when we debated this subject in Committee.
      New clause 3 is an only slightly rejigged version of what we discussed in Committee. A range of useful, complementary and—in many cases—rather small policing arrangements are already in place. The House has already given necessary powers and provided jurisdiction to those individuals concerned, and also provided a system of complaints where that is needed.
      We do not want or need the Home Department gainsaying those powers and providing a top-heavy, centralised system. That would not serve non-Home Office forces well. It is not a question of a legislative gap. The House made wise legislative arrangements for the various undertakings and classes of undertakings involved on an individual basis, which makes for flexibility and allows arrangements to be tailored to individual circumstances. It also allows problems and proposals to be dealt with on their merits, as they arise.
      That approach is reflected in the arrangements for applying the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to non-Home Office forces. In Committee, I explained that section 96 of PACE allows its complaints and discipline procedures to be established for those forces along the lines of those for forces maintained under the Police Act 1964. That is fundamentally important.
      The new clause makes the somewhat radical proposal to extend the jurisdiction of all constables in non-Home Office forces so that, in effect, they could exercise their powers anywhere in England and Wales to assist the public or local police force. There is a constitutional point. The limited jurisdiction of the forces in question reflects their constitutional position as decided by the House. By and large, non-Home Office forces are not about policing the general public but about protecting private property and specific interests. Their members are recruited and trained for specific purposes, and their accountability, management and control arrangements reflect that.
      It would not be acceptable to the public or to the House for members of such forces to exercise full constabulary powers anywhere in England and Wales. Local public accountability would not be there, and training, discipline and management arrangements are different, and rightly so. I must therefore disappoint the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I support new clause 3 and will respond to some of the Minister's erroneous arguments. There is a plethora of so-called non-Home Office forces. Some are highly regarded, highly valued, highly skilled and of historic importance. There are also small forces valued by the public, but not in the same league.
      Among the big players are the British Transport police, whose training, ethos and traditions are almost indistinguishable from those of Home Office forces. I couple with them the Ministry of Defence and Atomic Energy Authority police and the Royal Parks constabulary. Three of those forces operate within a stone's throw of the House. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to walk with me down Whitehall, we might meet a police officer whose appearance would lead us to think that he was a member of the Metropolitan police but who was a Ministry of Defence
      188
      officer. We might cross the road into Horse Guards Parade and meet a member of the Royal Parks constabulary. British Transport police also operate in the vicinity.
      I present that scenario because many members of the public cannot understand why such officers would have any hesitation in responding to an incident. Non-Home Office officers would have at least momentary hesitation because they do not have powers as police officers, except in the immediate vicinity of a railway station, the Ministry of Defence, the Atomic Energy Authority or St. James's park—yet all could witness an incident in the street to which they would want to respond, but are not at liberty to do so.
      In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that non-Home Office police have no more powers than you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, yet—unfairly, I thought—he never suggested that they would be duty bound to respond. That is the spirit in which those proud police officers respond, but they risk being placed in jeopardy. If a complaint were made about their conduct or they suffered injury, the question would arise of their competence and insurance. The matter should be regularised for that if for no other reason.
      Three London boroughs and other authorities throughout the country have appointed police forces to patrol their parks—where, unhappily, there is an incidence of crime. Those officers wear traditional uniforms, but they do not have the training of other officers and are not subject to PACE or to the Police Complaints Authority. The Minister said that it is within his competence to ensure that they are subject to the authority. Perhaps he ought to exercise that power, and not leave that to the new clause. However, it beefs up the arguments and emphasises the public need for change and to ensure standards.
      5.45 pm
      A number of bodies are appointing police officers, but there is no central knowledge of who holds the office of constable, which is irresponsible. It is also unfair to the majority of police in the Home Office forces, Metropolitan police and quality forces to which I referred, that people whose names are not known centrally can be arbitrarily sworn in after receiving poor training. They place in jeopardy not only their own status as police officers and the reputation of their small forces but those of other officers and forces.
      It would be prudent to make the proposed modest addition to the Bill to ensure that the Home Secretary has the capacity to ensure standards among those described as police officers and sworn in as constables, and to ensure that there are proper complaints procedures to enhance the status of such constables and protection for the public.
      The Minister was talking rubbish when he implied that the new clause sought to extend the general powers of police officers in non-Home Office forces. No one is arguing for co-jurisdiction. The clause makes explicit the fact that, where no other police officer is available, a constable in certain designated non-Home Office forces—we have in mind quality forces such as the British Transport, Atomic Energy Authority and MOD police and the Royal Parks constabulary—would have the full powers and competence of a Metropolitan police officer. What is wrong with that? Such a change is urgently needed.
      If a Metropolitan police officer required assistance, he would be able to call on a constable in any of those other

      189
      forces for assistance, and it would be given by the respondent as a constable and not as a member of the public.
      The argument is best illustrated by the poll tax riots in Trafalgar square, when we saw dramatic television coverage of a scaffolding pole being thrown through the window of a British Transport police vehicle. Clearly, the occupants of that car were inextricably involved in a dangerous incident—but under the existing arrangements described by the Minister, they had no more competence than any of us to respond. That is barmy.
      If the Minister is fair and generous, and reads the new clause properly, he will know that we are only talking about ensuring that in an emergency, police officers who have been highly trained at significant public expense would have the capacity to respond in the interests of police colleagues and the public—who demand and expect the attendance and attention of a police officer.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made an interesting point. I have a particular interest in the Royal Parks constabulary because I was responsible for bringing it into existence through a private Member's Bill. It is a fine force and does a good job in St. James's park and other royal parks.
      The Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, with which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) is intimately familiar, provides for the appointment of constables in docks such as those at Harwich. Those constables are responsible for the protection of private property. Their recruitment, training and accountability and their duties in the docks and one mile outside the perimeter are different from those of officers in a regular or recognised force.
      The issue of accountability has troubled me since I came across this Victorian statute some five years ago. I am not criticising the port of Harwich or the officers who serve there. I merely draw the matter to the Minister's attention in the hope that he will reflect on it to see whether it might be possible to ensure that all uniformed police officers who carry out their duties in the areas to which they are appointed are properly trained and accountable. To all intents and purposes, they should carry the same responsibilities as regular police officers.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has done the House a great service by focusing upon forces with designated status which are highly efficient and much regarded in their areas. I can speak with personal knowledge of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, which has operated for years not only in Dounreay but in its vicinity. The hon. Gentleman has alighted upon a sensible suggestion as to how such forces could be more usefully integrated in the areas in which they operate and where there is a chance vacuum that their training and experience equips them to fill better than anyone else. So far, the Government have not shown any support for that, but I hope that they will rethink the matter because the common-sense suggestion has great value.
      Question put and negatived.

    New clause 4
      CONDITIONS FOR SETTING NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
      'For section 28 of the 1964 Act there shall be substituted—
      CONDITIONS FOR SETTING NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

        General duties and the setting of objectives for police authorities
        28.—(1) The Secretary of State shall exercise his functions under this Act in such manner as is most likely to promote the efficiency of the police.
        (2) In exercising his functions under sections 28A to 28D below the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing.
        (3) The power by order to determine objectives for the policing of the areas of police authorities under section 28A(1) below shall not be exercisable before the relevant date.
        (4) For the purposes of this section the relevant date shall be a date determined by the Secretary of State which shall be—

        (a) not before he has laid before Parliament a study by an independent person appointed by him of the effectiveness of levels of performance ("performance targets") established by police authorities in accordance with section 28B below; and

        (b) not less than three years after the issuing under that section of a direction to establish performance targets.

        (5) Before appointing any independent person for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) above the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief officers of police.".'. — [Mr. Michael.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 14, page 9, line 43, leave out from '(1)' to 'the' in line 44.
        No. 20, in page 9, line 46, leave out from 'targets")' to end of line 47.
        No. 12, in page 9, line 47, at end insert—
        '(1A) Before issuing any direction under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief officers of police.'.
        No. 5, in page 10, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 7.
        No. 17, in page 10, line 20, at end insert—
        '(4) No code of practice or revision of a code of practice laid before Parliament under subsection (3) of this section shall have effect unless it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
        Mr. Michael: In an exchange on Second Reading, it became clear that the Home Secretary had not properly understood what he was doing in taking the power to establish national objectives. His mistake in not understanding his own Bill became clearer as our debates in Committee proceeded. I am sure that the Home Secretary meant what he said on Second Reading when he suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that national policing objectives would not override or unduly influence local objectives and local policing plans. That being so, I am sure that he will accept new clause 4 with enthusiasm and alacrity.
        As it stands, the Government's proposal for national objectives is a centralising measure. Our alternative will improve the performance of police in partnership with the community that they serve, and it will be for the Government to listen and learn from local experience. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that the

        191
        new clause is positive and constructive and should be accepted. It says that, in exercising the powers to set national objectives,
        "the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing."
        The trouble with the Government's approach to this issue is that although they pay, much lip service to locally accountable policing, the tendency of legislation is away from that important principle. I hope that the Home Secretary will put his money where his mouth is and accept the new clause.
        The new clause would delay the implementation of national objectives. The Home Secretary would not set national objectives and lay requirements before Parliament until he had received a study by an independent person whom he had appointed. We have no desire to take the Home Secretary out of the picture. If he wished to do so, he could play a constructive part in developing the future role of the police. Only after the report would he set national objectives and performance targets for police authorities to pursue.
        We also require a period of three years before the issuing of a direction to establish performance targets. The reason for that is that we should learn from local experience. Performance indicators and targets should be developed on the basis of local experience, requirements and aspirations. For that reason, we also suggest that the Home Secretary should consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers of police.
        How can the Minister not accept such a modest and constructive approach to the establishment of national objectives? National objectives should be based on local experience and on the views of the police and public. If that is done, they may work, but national objectives based on a paper exercise carried out in Whitehall, however able are those who undertake it, will not work because it starts from the wrong end.
        The White Paper on police reform said that each authority
        "will be required to secure implementation of the Home Secretary's key objectives and to publish its own local objectives".
        I emphasise the word "required".
        We have four worries about the national objectives. First, local priorities could be unduly distorted because of failure to tailor policing to local circumstances. That is a real danger, because the Home Secretary will not know the local circumstances; nor will he be able to design general, national objectives to suit the local circumstances of each force.
        Secondly, the process will threaten police integrity by distorting recording patterns and skewing priorities. That is a disturbing development which the Home Secretary will bring about.
        Thirdly, the objectives will not be owned by the police authorities or the police service and they should be owned, understood and possessed by both.
        Fourthly, the police service should not be measured against objectives that are largely outside police control. That fourth point is important. I have experience of the successful implementation of management by objectives in local government. Those objectives were used to improve the quality of service to the local community by the local authority and a variety of departments. We were successful in pursuing that course because we involved those who had to try to meet the objectives—local authority officers at
        192
        every level—as well as the public, who had a right to expect a decent standard of service from the way that the objectives developed and were pursued.
        We already have difficulties with the key objectives for 1994–95, which have been established at the Home Secretary's behest. As often happens, Parliament is discussing legislation for matters that are already being pursued with some vigour in the machine. There are five key objectives for 1995: detections for violent crimes; detections for burglaries; to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem; high-visibility policing; and emergency calls.
        All those objectives are important. Four of them will be measured by numbers and percentages, but the third key objective—to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem—is different. The Home Office has said that no high-level indicator is currently available, although there is work on developing an indicator for 1995–96.
        On the key issue of crime prevention—local partnerships and the police are about crime prevention as well as investigating crimes that have taken place—there is difficulty in finding key indicators. I have had experience of that as well, although perhaps it was not intentional. A project in which I was involved included probation and social services and had the police and voluntary organisations on the management committee which was chaired by the local vicar. We involved education, and so on.
        The chief constable referred to the project in his annual report in three successive years, and it was also mentioned by the chief probation officer, because it was reducing the incidence of crime among young people in the community.
        6 pm
        Such recognition might have been expected to lead to the continuation of the project, but we received a telephone call from the probation service saying that the two people who were primarily involved would have to be withdrawn. The reason? "We receive our money from the Home Office chiefly for the supervision of young offenders, and offenders in general. Because not enough young offenders are going to court, we cannot justify continuing to devote time to the project."
        If certain factors are measured, that will influence the way in which a service is provided. Unless the indicators are right—unless the right factors are being measured—priorities will be distorted. The problem is that we cannot easily measure what we have prevented. Crime prevention is crucial; yet the development and use of performance indicators to affect the performance of the police is likely to remove them from some of the crucial elements that should be a priority for them.
        The Bill's suggestion of a power for the Home Secretary to give and enforce directions is worrying, because it appears to run counter to a focus on specific and detailed local issues and factors that affect crime. It runs counter to the theme of the White Paper on police reform, whose aim was supposedly to empower chief constables to deliver a service that responded better to local needs and strengthened police authorities.
        It seems that the Government's theme is to devolve responsibility to chief constables, but to keep carefully in the hands of the Home Secretary and civil servants a great deal of the influence on what must be chief constables' priorities. We consider that a mistake.

        193
        As drafted, the Bill involves the potential entry of the Home Secretary into local operational issues. We touched on that point in an earlier debate. The operational independence of the chief constable should not be interfered with, but the way in which national objectives are being set—not in the way that we suggest, but in the way that the Home Secretary suggests—would affect that independence.
        The Bill will not serve to clarify the respective roles of chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary in improving accountability for the performance of the police, which was supposed to be one of the White Paper's objectives. It will enable the Home Secretary to override the police authorities' views on resources: he will be deciding the national objectives. It is likely to result in increased staffing demands on the Home Office for planning, directing, monitoring and action at local level and in specific detail. It is important for the setting of objectives, and the measuring of those objectives at local level, to be done in a way that does not increase the amount of bureaucracy in a local police force, rather than helping it to carry out its duties.
        The powers in the Bill are likely to interfere and be inconsistent with the Home Secretary's responsibility for national policing efficiency, rather than for becoming involved in the detail of priorities that should be set by a chief constable and the police. They run contrary to the arrangements for performance targets that local authorities set themselves under the Local Government Act 1992.
        The new clause and amendments would do three things. They represent a measured approach to the setting of national objectives, which would best aid the Government's objectives if they really want to improve policing standards. They would give police authorities an opportunity to demonstrate the responsible exercise of their functions in the interests of a locality, without depriving the centre of a locus: in other words, local police forces would be able to set objectives that recognised the nature of crime in their communities, the aspirations of the public and the experience of the police, and the centre could then learn what happens at local level. Finally, the new clause and amendments would continue to promote partnership in the best traditions of the tripartite system.
        The Home Secretary should accept our new clause with enthusiasm if he meant what he said on Second Reading about not wishing to interfere with the priorities of the local police, in conjunction with local authorities that represent local people and local interests. That is where the important objectives are set, so that patterns of policing for the future can be decided.
        Mr. Maclennan: I am sorry to have to disagree with the new clause. I do so not because I believe that some of its objectives are not laudable: it recognises the need to ensure that police objectives are set locally, with local considerations and priorities in mind. Nor do I fail to recognise that the new clause would, to some extent, water down the power of the Secretary of State to set the general, national objectives contained in clause 14.
        I feel, however, that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) risks supping with the devil, and using too short a spoon. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the present Home Secretary—or, indeed, any foreseeable Home Secretary in the current Government—would appoint an independent person, under the terms of the new clause, to conduct a study of
        194
        "the effectiveness of levels of performance"
        which might conceivably be acceptable to police authorities or to the police. One wonders whether the Home Secretary might have in mind for the task someone comparable to Sir Patrick Sheehy, who may be deemed the originator of much disquiet in the bosoms of the police, and who may have prevented the Home Secretary—equanimous gentleman though he is—from sleeping every now and again.
        I do not believe that that task is either appropriate or capable of being performed to anyone's satisfaction. The whole concept of imposing performance targets externally on a service such as the police strikes me as misconceived. Performance targets are fairly contentious even in the areas of commerce and industry where they have been deployed, and I feel that in the police service—where so much depends on the inhibition of unlawful or disorderly behaviour, and where performance is almost impossible to measure—the exercise would be in vain.
        The new clause requires the Secretary of State to
        "consult persons representative of police authorities"
        before appointing the Sir Patrick Sheehy equivalent. I am rather dubious about whether anyone would regard consultation as offering much of a safeguard. I recall that, at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth took exception to the use of the word "consultation", suggesting that "agreement" with police authority representatives and chief officers might be more appropriate when a Conservative Home Secretary was involved.
        Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a comment that I made about agreement between chief constables and police authorities on local objectives and plans in their areas. I am rather surprised by what he has said. Is he suggesting that he would prefer the Home Secretary to introduce national objectives without benefiting from local experience? That is what will happen unless the new clause becomes part of the Bill.
        Mr. Maclennan: No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the proper way in which to deal with the issue of national objectives is to strike it out of the Bill. I do not think that we should countenance the suggestion that national objectives issued by any Home Secretary are tolerable. I dare say that parliamentary procedures may limit the way in which the matter can be discussed, but it seems to me that—inadvertently, perhaps—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is giving some support to the idea that national objectives might reasonably he introduced at some time if certain conditions were met.
        Mr. Michael: In Committee, we said that we preferred to deal with objectives entirely as a local issue. However, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly implies, we cannot have exactly the same debate on the Floor of the House as we had in Committee. We have therefore responded to Ministers' rejection of our case by coming up with a positive constructive solution. Has the hon. Gentleman tried to delete national objectives from the Bill? If so, I must have overlooked his amendment.
        Mr. Maclennan: At this stage in the debate, the exercise would be in vain. But by suggesting that national objectives might be made more tolerable, the hon. Gentleman is compromising his position and that of the

        195
        Labour party. If the Bill becomes the law of the land, a future Labour Home Secretary may avail himself of the power to establish national objectives. I should take equally strong exception to a Labour Home Secretary seeking to use such a power as to its use by a Conservative Home Secretary.
        However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when a matter has been exhaustively debated in Committee, as this has been, it is probable, indeed almost certain, that the subject will not be reopened on Report. Therefore, to go through the charade—under provocation, I am using slightly stronger language—of implying that there is some merit in seeking, as the hon. Gentleman has done, to qualify the introduction of national objectives is dangerous; it is playing with fire. It is an ingenious debating device, but unfortunately it gives entirely the wrong signals to the police, the police authorities and the general public.
        National objectives have no part in British policing. They should be struck out at the earliest opportunity, and we should make it clear now that it would be our intention to do so at the next legislative opportunity.
        Mr. Howard: I shall begin by explaining what the new clause would actually achieve. It would have three main effects. First, it would require the Home Secretary to have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing. Secondly, it would require the Home Secretary to appoint an independent person to consider the effectiveness of performance targets established by police authorities. Thirdly, it would prevent the Home Secretary from setting key objectives before that independent report had been laid before Parliament, and also prevent him from doing so before three years had elapsed since police authorities had been directed to set performance targets.
        That seems a curious mixture of ideas, and it would be best if I dealt with them one by one. First, the Home Secretary is already required to promote the efficiency of the police. As to promoting locally accountable policing, that is the central purpose of the Bill. That is why we are setting up strong independent police authorities with clear responsibilities for providing efficient and effective local policing. That is why we are requiring police authorities to consult their communities about policing objectives and priorities in their areas. That is why we are requiring police authorities to publish annual policing plans and annual reports setting out the outcomes of those plans. So the first declared objective of the new clause is already achieved by the Bill.
        The new clause would also prevent the Home Secretary from determining key objectives for policing before he had laid before Parliament an independent study of the effectiveness of local performance targets. The connection between the two elements is not at all clear. The Home Secretary's power to set key objectives is designed to enable him to focus police attention on the major areas of concern expressed by the public. The objectives set for the current year involve increasing the number of detections of violent crimes and of burglary, targeting and preventing local crimes, in partnership with the public, providing high-visibility policing and responding promptly to emergency calls. We do not require an independent study to recognise that those are common concerns of people throughout the nation.
        196
        6.15 pm
        In fact, there is already an independent person, appointed on my recommendation, whose task it is to report annually on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces and their performance. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that that person is not Sir Patrick Sheehy, but Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. He is entirely independent—I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not want any of his remarks to be taken as implying otherwise—and has under his control a number of inspectors responsible for inspecting police forces.
        Inspectors of constabulary are independent of the police service, and are accountable to the Home Secretary for carrying out their responsibility. Part of their job will be to consider the effectiveness of the performance targets established by police authorities under the Bill, and to report accordingly. Inspection reports are published, as is the annual report of the chief inspector to the Home Secretary. I therefore see no purpose whatever in establishing yet another independent person to cover the same ground as the existing independent inspectorate.
        The fact is that the Labour amendments on national objectives are a red herring. The simple truth is that Labour Members do not want national objectives at all. Judging by the other amendments that they have tabled, Labour Members do not want local police authorities to set out local policing plans with local objectives, either.
        The Labour party simply does not understand the first thing about measuring and improving the performance of public services. They always take the side of the producer, never the side of the consumer or of the public. In that respect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is just as prehistoric as his Front-Bench colleagues. He is interested only in rehearsing tired arguments about giving new duties to local authorities. That would be the effect of the new clause on which he chose to speak, and that speaks volumes for his priorities. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that we need a body separate from the police—in this case, the police authority—to set objectives and to measure performance.
        The hon. Member for Sedgefield should listen to the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I know that he will find this hard to take, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West is not only a closet moderniser, but more of a moderniser than the hon. Member for Sedgefield. When asked how to reform public services the hon. Member for Oldham, West explained:
        "If you are going to make it work seriously you have to set targets independently."
        I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman—in fact, I do not often agree with him. But I entirely agree with him on that, and that is precisely the point that we are making in the Bill. Regrettably, that is entirely lost on the hon. Member for Sedgefield. He talks about modernising public services, but votes against the very measures that will make that happen.
        In his recent Police Foundation lecture, the hon. Member for Sedgefield called for a
        "proper national strategy and framework"
        to deal with crime, yet today he rejects that. As usual, he is all sound bite and no substance.
        The hon. Gentleman talks as though he has just bought his first modern textbook on management, but has read only the index. Some of the words are there—

        197
        "performance", "efficiency", even "accountability" but he does not understand what they mean. The hon. Gentleman would not reform public services to make them better. He would simply say to those responsible for delivering services, "Set your own targets, measure your own performance, and don't bother to publish the results." Indeed, that was the philosophy that lay behind the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). It is entirely inconsistent with a proper approach to accountability.
        The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) does not want targets of any kind. That is the approach taken by the modern purposive Liberal Democratic party.
        To sum up, the new clause—
        Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary does me a disservice in misrepresenting what I said. I am much in favour of local police authorities having targets and local policing plans, but I object to the Home Secretary's taking that authority into his hands, and to his dictating what the national targets should be. I do not believe that he is sensitive to local needs.
        Mr. Howard: Of course, it is always possible that the words which the hon. Gentleman used in his speech earlier did not adequately convey the meaning which he intended to convey. However, if he reads those words in Hansard, he will find that the representation which I made of them a few moments ago is entirely justified and accurate.
        To sum up, the new clause is misguided and unnecessary. It is misguided because it suggests that the Home Secretary cannot set key objectives to reflect major concerns of the people of the country without first having some sort of investigation into the way in which police authorities have set local targets. It is unnecessary because it seeks to duplicate the independent review and assessment function that is already provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.
        Amendments Nos. 4 and 20 would detach performance targets, which police authorities may be required to set, from the key objectives, but there is an inescapable connection between the Home Secretary's key objectives and the police authorities' performance targets. Otherwise, there would be no common point of reference, no way in which people could establish how their police force had performed against the objectives and no possibility of making any comparisons. Clearly, the performance targets to be set by the police authorities should relate to the key objectives. Equally, it is right that the Home Secretary's powers and responsibilities in that area should clearly link the two issues.
        Amendment No. 12 arises from a misunderstanding about the Home Secretary's powers in relation to performance targets. The Home Secretary has no power at all under the Bill to set performance targets. The power to set the targets quite deliberately rests with the police authority. Since the Home Secretary has no power to set targets, but merely to direct the police authorities to do so, it follows that he does not need to consult anyone before he decides to issue a direction. It is a matter for him and him alone to decide how, when or if to instruct police authorities to set performance targets, but when he has instructed them to do so, the targets will be determined locally with local consultation. The hon. Member for
        198
        Cardiff, South and Penarth did not speak to amendment No. 17, which is included in the group, so there is no need for me to deal with it.
        The new clause and the amendments epitomise the muddle which has characterised the approach of the Labour party to the Bill. They are misconceived, misguided and unnecessary. They illustrate how remote the Labour party is from any true appreciation of how accountability of public involvement in policing can best be achieved, and I urge the House to reject them.
        Mr. Michael: That was a nice try by the Home Secretary to sound as if he was being reasonable in rejecting the new clause. He is not. However, I shall first refer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). His speech was disappointing. He sometimes disappoints and, sometimes, one finds him supporting rational argument on such issues. He seemed to be suggesting an agenda for misrepresentation on a fresh issue of focus in the near future, which rather misrepresents the nature of the debate.
        The Home Secretary paid my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) the compliment of concentrating on my hon. Friend's speech in an earlier debate, during which the Home Secretary chose not take part, before leading his troops into the Lobby to vote against local partnerships for crime prevention. The Home Secretary missed his chance on that occasion. That is his mistake and he cannot recover with a sound bite in this debate.
        If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would be a victory for common sense over dogma—such as the victory that we have heard has taken place this evening in another place. The Home Secretary has been given another bloody nose because of his pursuit of dogmatic attitudes towards the problems of crime and crime prevention, rather than listening and learning from those who have been involved in and have been trying to tackle those issues over the years.
        I am glad that the Home Secretary thinks that he understands the new clause, but he has not explained to us why he will vote against having regard to the desirability of promoting local, accountable policing. That is what the new clause requires.
        Mr. Howard: That is what the whole Bill is about.
        Mr. Michael: It is not what the whole Bill is about. The whole Bill, I tell the Home Secretary, is about centralising power in his hands. He has had that exchange before. He will not get away with it. People will—belatedly, perhaps—recognise how centralising and damaging and constitutionally bad the Bill is. He has an opportunity today to accept the new clause, which would move us a little in the right direction.
        The Home Secretary has talked about a study by an independent person. Why is he so against learning from experience? Why is he so against learning from what happens when local police authorities and chief constables set objectives and seek to meet them? Why will not he learn from the combined experience of all local police authorities and forces in every part of the United Kingdom? He says that he already has an independent person to look at such issues, so why not accept the new clause?
        Labour Members understand the setting of priorities and the use of objectives. I told the Home Secretary that I have had positive experience of that myself. It should be

        199
        done locally, on the basis of partnership, with the experience of the police and on the aspirations of the public. The police authorities will set targets, but those targets will be distorted by the imposition of national objectives, which the Government seek to set, unless the Home Secretary accepts the new clause, as he should if he is really interested in local, effective and accountable policing.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 303.

        Division No. 283]

        6.25 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Dewar, Donald

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Dixon, Don

        Ainger, Nick

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Dowd, Jim

        Allen, Graham

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Ashton, Joe

        Eastham, Ken

        Austin-Walker, John

        Enright, Derek

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Etherington, Bill

        Barnes, Harry

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Barron, Kevin

        Fatchett, Derek

        Battle, John

        Fisher, Mark

        Bayley, Hugh

        Flynn, Paul

        Bell, Stuart

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Foulkes, George

        Bennett, Andrew F.

        Fraser, John

        Benton, Joe

        Fyfe, Maria

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Galbraith, Sam

        Berry, Roger

        Galloway, George

        Betts, Clive

        Gerrard, Neil

        Blair, Tony

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Blunkett, David

        Godsiff, Roger

        Boateng, Paul

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Boyes, Roland

        Gordon, Mildred

        Bradley, Keith

        Graham, Thomas

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Burden, Richard

        Grocott, Bruce

        Byers, Stephen

        Gunnell, John

        Callaghan, Jim

        Hain, Peter

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Hall, Mike

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Hanson, David

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Harvey, Nick

        Canavan, Dennis

        Henderson, Doug

        Cann, Jamie

        Heppell, John

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Church, Judith

        Hinchliffe, David

        Clapham, Michael

        Hodge, Margaret

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Hoey, Kate

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Home Robertson, John

        Clelland, David

        Hood, Jimmy

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Coffey, Ann

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cohen, Harry

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Ingram, Adam

        Cousins, Jim

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Jamieson, David

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Janner, Greville

        Dafis, Cynog

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        Darling, Alistair

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Davidson, Ian

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Keen, Alan

        Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Denham, John

        Khabra, Piara S.

        200

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

        Purchase, Ken

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Lewis, Terry

        Radice, Giles

        Liddell, Helen

        Randall, Stuart

        Livingstone, Ken

        Raynsford, Nick

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Redmond, Martin

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Reid, Dr John

        Loyden, Eddie

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        McAllion, John

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Roche, Mrs. Barbara

        McCartney, Ian

        Rogers, Allan

        Macdonald, Calum

        Rooker, Jeff

        McFall, John

        Rooney, Terry

        McKelvey, William

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Rowlands, Ted

        McMaster, Gordon

        Ruddock, Joan

        MacShane, Denis

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McWilliam, John

        Sheerman, Barry

        Madden, Max

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mahon, Alice

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Mandelson, Peter

        Simpson, Alan

        Marek, Dr John

        Skinner, Dennis

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

        Martlew, Eric

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Maxton, John

        Snape, Peter

        Meacher, Michael

        Spearing, Nigel

        Meale, Alan

        Spellar, John

        Michael, Alun

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Milburn, Alan

        Stevenson, George

        Miller, Andrew

        Straw, Jack

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Timms, Stephen

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Tipping, Paddy

        Morley, Elliot

        Turner, Dennis

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

        Tyler, Paul

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Vaz, Keith

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Mullin, Chris

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Murphy, Paul

        Wareing, Robert N

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Watson, Mike

        O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Olner, William

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Parry, Robert

        Winnick, David

        Pendry, Tom

        Worthington, Tony

        Pickthall, Colin

        Wray, Jimmy

        Pike, Peter L.

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Pope, Greg

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Mr. John Cummings and

        Prescott, John

        Mr. Eric Illsley.

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Beggs, Roy

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

        Alexander, Richard

        Bellingham, Henry

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Amess, David

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Ancram, Michael

        Body, Sir Richard

        Arbuthnot, James

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Booth, Hartley

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Boswell, Tim

        Ashby, David

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Bowden, Sir Andrew

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Bowis, John

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

        Brazier, Julian

        Baldry, Tony

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Browning, Mrs. Angela

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Bates, Michael

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Budgen, Nicholas

        201

        Burns, Simon

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Burt, Alistair

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Butcher, John

        Hannam, Sir John

        Butler, Peter

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Butterfill, John

        Harris, David

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hawksley, Warren

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hayes, Jerry

        Carttiss, Michael

        Heald, Oliver

        Cash, William

        Hendry, Charles

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hicks, Robert

        Chapman, Sydney

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

        Churchill, Mr

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Clappison, James

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Horam, John

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Coe, Sebastian

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

        Colvin, Michael

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Congdon, David

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Conway, Derek

        Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Cormack, Patrick

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Cran, James

        Jenkin, Bernard

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

        Jessel, Toby

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

        Day, Stephen

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Key, Robert

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Kilfedder, Sir James

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Knapman, Roger

        Dover, Den

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Duncan, Alan

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Knox, Sir David

        Dunn, Bob

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Dykes, Hugh

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Elletson, Harold

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Legg, Barry

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Leigh, Edward

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Lennox-Boyd, Mark

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Evennett, David

        Lidington, David

        Faber, David

        Lightbown, David

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lord, Michael

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Luff, Peter

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Forman, Nigel

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        MacKay, Andrew

        Forth, Eric

        Maclean, David

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Maclennan, Robert

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Madel, Sir David

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        French, Douglas

        Malone, Gerald

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Mans, Keith

        Gale, Roger

        Marland, Paul

        Gallie, Phil

        Marlow, Tony

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Garnier, Edward

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Gill, Christopher

        Merchant, Piers

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Mills, Iain

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Gorst, Sir John

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hague, William

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        202

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Steen, Anthony

        Norris, Steve

        Stephen, Michael

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Stern, Michael

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Stewart, Allan

        Ottaway, Richard

        Streeter, Gary

        Page, Richard

        Sumberg, David

        Paice, James

        Sweeney, Walter

        Patnick, Irvine

        Sykes, John

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Pawsey, James

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

        Pickles, Eric

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Thomason, Roy

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Thurnham, Peter

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Rendel, David

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

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Tracey, Richard

        Richards, Rod

        Tredinnick, David

        Riddick, Graham

        Trend, Michael

        Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

        Trimble, David

        Robathan, Andrew

        Trotter, Neville

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Viggers, Peter

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Ross, William (E Londonderry)

        Walden, George

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Ward, John

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Sackville, Tom

        Waterson, Nigel

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Watts, John

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Wells, Bowen

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Whitney, Ray

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Whittingdale, John

        Shersby, Michael

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Sims, Roger

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Wilkinson, John

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Willetts, David

        Soames, Nicholas

        Wilshire, David

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Wolfson, Mark

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Wood, Timothy

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Yeo, Tim

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Spring, Richard

        Sproat, Iain

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Question accordingly negatived.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1994

  Antarctic Act 1994

  State Hospitals (Scotland) Act 1994

  Chiropractors Act 1994

  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994

  Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

  Sunday Trading Act 1994

  Coal Industry Act 1994

  Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994

  Value Added Tax Act 1994

  Commons Registration (East Sussex) Act 1994

  Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Act 1994

  London Underground (Green Park) Act 1994

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered
  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]
    New clause 6
      SCHEMES FOR COMPULSORY OR VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE ON STRUCTURAL GROUNDS: SCOTLAND
      'After section 31 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
      SCHEMES FOR COMPULSORY OR VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE ON STRUCTURAL GROUNDS: SCOTLAND

        Schemes for compulsory or voluntary severance
        31A. No scheme for the introduction of compulsory or voluntary severance on structural grounds shall be introduced in any police force without prior consultation with the staff associations representing the interests of those officers affected.".'. — [Sir Anthony Durant.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Sir Anthony Durant: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Schemes for compulsory or voluntary severance on structural grounds: England and Wales—
        'After section 58 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

        Schemes for compulsory or voluntary severance
        59. No scheme for the introduction of compulsory or voluntary severance on structural grounds shall be introduced in any police area without prior consultation with the staff associations representing the interests of these officers affected.".'.
        New clause 9—Amendment of Police Negotiating Board Act 1980—
        'Section 1(1) of the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980 shall be amended by inserting after the words "pay and allowances," the words "structural severance terms and criteria,".'.
        Amendment No. 21, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
        '(3A) A chief constable shall, after consulting his police authority, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to have responsibility for complaints and for discipline within the force'.
        Amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
        '(5A) A chief constable may, after consulting his police authority and the Secretary of State, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to deputise for him in the exercise of any of the powers and duties of the chief constable.'.
        Amendment No. 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
        '(c) for the words "ranks of superintendent," there shall be substituted the words "the rank of superintendent (and an officer with the rank and salary of superintendent may, subject to the approval of the police authority and the Secretary of State, be designated as a chief superintendent by the chief constable or chief officer of police where special circumstances of command or organisation make such designation desirable), the ranks of chief inspector,".'.
        Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 38, after first 'the', insert
        'words "ranks of" the words "chief superintendent," shall be inserted, and after the'.
        Amendment No. 18, in clause 17, page 13, line 22, at end add—
        '(6) In subsection (6), after the word "section", there shall be inserted the words "(except regulations falling within the provisions of subsection (7) below)".'.
        Amendment No. 19, in page 13, line 22, at end add—
        '(7) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
        204
        "(7) No regulations shall be made under this section which contain references to performance related pay for assistant chief constables or chief constables unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
        (8) Draft regulations laid under subsection (7) shall relate only to one police authority.
        (9) Before laying any regulations before Parliament under subsection (7) the Secretary of State shall consult the police authority concerned and the chief officer of the police force concerned and lay copies of their representations before Parliament.".'.
        Amendment No. 66, in clause 44, page 22, line 26, leave out from 'ranks)' to 'subsection' in line 34.
        Sir Anthony Durant: This discussion is principally about voluntary and compulsory severance from the police service. I speak as parliamentary adviser to the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales.
        On 28 October 1993, the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced that severance schemes were to be introduced into the police service. Those schemes will involve both voluntary and compulsory severance. He gave an assurance that such schemes would be used only as a last resort and only with his authority. However, as more and more forces reorganise to cut their management layers to the absolute minimum, there is every likelihood that such schemes will need to be used. The ad hoc voluntary scheme currently available in the Metropolitan police is a clear example.
        There is currently no national mechanism for the determination of appropriate severance arrangements for police officers, or any coherent national policy on the criteria to be adopted by forces. Police officers are "officers of the Crown". Their peculiar legal status means that they are not covered by normal employment legislation that applies to most people. Instead, their conditions of service are set out in Acts of Parliament and regulations made thereunder.
        Severance is an entirely new concept that will be introduced into the police service for the first time and there is currently no legal framework governing the negotiation and determination of severance schemes. That could leave the way open for individual police forces to design their own packages, with only the Secretary of State having to approve them. That is likely to result in unfairness to police officers, and long and costly legal arguments over such schemes. A clear example of the diversity that is likely to occur can be found by comparing the current Metropolitan police scheme with that offered by the British Transport police.
        A 53-year-old superintendent, with 30 years' service, in the Metropolitan police scheme would receive £10,119. A similar officer in the British Transport police scheme would receive £40,479. The scheme proposed in the much-lamented Sheehy report, which hon. Members keep coming back to, would have given the officer £101,197.
        Currently, both the Metropolitan police and the British Transport police schemes are voluntary. Officers can elect to apply for them as they individually choose. The Secretary of State intends, however, to include compulsory severance in his schemes, which adds a new dimension. Police officers have almost common conditions of service throughout the United Kingdom and they are able to negotiate matters affecting their pay and conditions of service through the police negotiating board.
        Two clear issues are at stake. First, local negotiations should take place in any force that is contemplating the

        205
        introduction of severance, whether voluntary or compulsory. Those negotiations should involve staff representatives of those officers likely to be affected. Secondly, national negotiations should agree the criteria and terms of any severance schemes so that all are aware exactly what is involved when making an application to the Secretary of State for such schemes.
        My amendments to the Police Act 1964 and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 are intended to cover the point about local negotiation and will ensure that staff representatives are consulted before any application is made for a severance scheme. They are worded in exactly the same way, but two amendments are necessary because of the differing legislation governing policing in different parts of the country.
        My other amendment seeks to clarify the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980. At present, the Police Pensions Act 1976 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the times at which and the circumstances in which members of police forces are, or may be, required to retire other than on grounds of misconduct. The Act requires that such decisions should follow consultation with the police negotiating board.
        The Police Negotiating Board Act 1980, however, clearly sets out in its first section those matters covered by the Act and severance is not included. That causes a lack of clarity and my amendment intends to rectify matters by clearly including structural severance terms and criteria in matters falling within the scope of that Act.
        I should like to discuss amendment No. 13, which deals with the question of the rank of chief superintendent. Through the Bill, the Government have sought to reduce the number of ranks in the British police service. The service generally has nine ranks, with some exceptions in the Metropolitan and City of London forces. The Government argue that reducing the number of ranks will streamline the management of the service—simplify the structure—improve communication and enable officers of high ability to move quickly though the ranks. The Sheehy report suggested doing away with two ranks, but the Home Secretary has decided to reinstate chief inspectors into the service.
        6.45 pm
        I shall deal with each point in turn: first, streamlining the management of the police service. The most effective way to streamline management, while maintaining quality and effectiveness, is to consider carefully all management posts, keeping only those that are necessary and ensuring that the grade of the post is appropriate to the task. There is no need to have a full hierarchical structure under each post. Only those posts necessary to do the job at the right grade should be in place.
        That process is already under way in the police service, with the full and active co-operation of police officers of all ranks. Forces are reorganising using the basic command unit model. As part of the process, the number of posts and the rank that officers should have are critically examined. Police forces no longer have a full hierarchical structure under every rank-they consider carefully what is required and put in place the right number of officers at the right rank.
        The large reductions in the number of chief superintendents and superintendents in post in England and
        206
        Wales is evidence of what has already been achieved. By December 1990, the total number of chief superintendents plus superintendents in post was 2,055. By May of this year, the number had been reduced to 1,612—a reduction of 443, or 21.5 per cent.
        When considering simplifying the structure, it should be borne in mind that the current structure has developed over a long period. That is well understood, both inside and outside the police service. It provides a clear distinction of ranks, a good operational command structure and the ability to reward at clear levels. Any reductions in existing command levels will result in unnecessary operational management difficulties and the likelihood of the creation of artificial grades to fill in the gaps. In the professional view of the police service, through associations of chief police officers and superintendents associations, the number of ranks available at present is right.
        The improving communication argument presupposes that a problem exists with current lines of communication. Although I accept that communications can always be improved, there is a point beyond which too few levels can cause a breakdown rather than an improvement in communications. We should remember that removing bridges can leave gaps. That was clearly shown in the ill-fated reorganisation of the London ambulance service, when an overly drastic reduction in management grades caused a lack of communication of such proportions that the subsequent failure of the ambulance command and control system resulted in a breakdown.
        Enabling officers of high ability to move quickly through the ranks is already something that has been notably achieved by the police service over the years. There is great scope for officers with such ability to progress quickly. The police graduate entry scheme and the special course ensure that officers of high potential are recognised and that their careers are carefully planned. Current conditions of service allow for rank skipping and fast progression—removal of some ranks would do nothing to improve the position. One has to consider only the top echelons of the police service today to recognise that those officers with ability are already able to progress effectively to the top positions.
        Ranks exist primarily for operational purposes. We currently have only nine ranks from constable to chief constable, far fewer than any of the armed services and far fewer than the number of grades in the civil service. The Government's proposals will leave only seven ranks operationally to deploy and command a police service in the United Kingdom that approaches 150,000 officers in total—bigger than any of the armed services on their own.
        Recent experience of similar measures taken in New Zealand, where a similar police service exists, showed that removal of ranks resulted in the creation of "grades within grades" to replace the removed ranks—an outcome that has proved far less beneficial in terms of operational and career structure. That police service has recently reduced the number of grades to only two. It has gone back to what was there before, but it has not gone back to the post of chief superintendent.
        When large-scale public order events have to be commanded, or major criminal investigations have to be carried out, the chief superintendent has a clearly defined role to command and control such operations. The 'blanket' abolition of chief superintendents is likely seriously to reduce that operational command flexibility, with no consequent benefit to the organisation. Retaining

        207
        chief superintendents will assist in devolving responsibility from chief officer level while at the same time providing management and command resilience in supporting assistant chief constables and chief superintendents, particularly in their absence.
        The advent of single-line budgets and national criteria for posts, coupled with police authority involvement and the overview of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, will result in posts being available only where there is a clear need for them, thus giving better value for money and commonality of structure throughout the force.
        The Government are committed to providing the best quality of policing to the public, with the right balance between national standards and local delivery to meet local needs. By supporting amendment No. 13, the House will ensure that forces have the flexibility to structure themselves to meet those commitments. The retention of the rank of chief superintendent will enhance that flexibility; the loss of it will reduce that flexibility. I urge the Government to look at this matter yet again.
        Mr. Michael: Despite the ominous sound of the title of new clause 6, I shall speak to a number of simpler issues, some of which were dealt with by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant).
        It is fair to say that, again, I am proposing simple, common-sense amendments. I accept that my saying so is likely to result in a rebuff from the Minister and probably a savaging from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The Opposition have attempted to table reasonable and acceptable proposals. We acknowledge that our debates in Committee showed that the Government have made up their mind on certain issues. Our amendments seek merely to make reasonable changes to the Bill.
        In recent years, I have followed with interest what has happened to ranks of the police force. In south Wales, the loss of a number of occupiers of the rank of chief superintendent has slimmed the upper structure, and the passing of responsibility to the local superintendent has resulted in a good deal of local targeting of activity. Our experience has been mirrored in a number of police forces, and I do not understand why the Home Secretary has found it necessary to delete ranks rather than relying on common sense and the natural constraints on chief constables and police authorities to slim ranks and flatten the structures of responsibility. When something is already being achieved, why give it a push in statute, especially when that push takes things slightly too far?
        I should like to refer specifically to the ranks of deputy chief constable and chief superintendent. Our amendment seeks not to reinstitute the rank of deputy chief constable but to deal with the consequences of its removal, which the Government have not yet faced up to. It seeks to allow for the possibility that the Home Secretary will, in certain circumstances, be persuaded that the rank of chief superintendent is necessary. It leaves the final decision to the Home Secretary. He and the police authority must be persuaded that a chief constable is right to want a post of chief constable. The Home Secretary would give up very little by accepting the amendment.
        The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland might accuse me of selling the pass, so I should I make it clear that we are not doing so. We say simply that it is sensible
        208
        to have provision in legislation, rather than legislation absolutely ruling out the possibility of someone being designated as a chief superintendent.
        The Bill does not deal with a number of elements of the rank of chief constable. Amendment No. 21 says:
        "A chief constable shall, after consulting his police authority, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to have responsibility for complaints and for discipline within the force'".
        Such matters are normally dealt with by a deputy chief constable, but without someone of that rank, who will fulfil those functions? It is clear that the chief constable, who has ultimate responsibility for appeals within his force, should not do so. This amendment would simply deal with the problem by providing a sensible way of ensuring justice for complaints and disciplinary matters.
        Amendment No. 23 provides:
        "A chief constable may, after consulting his police authority and the Secretary of State, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to deputise for him in the exercise of any of the powers and duties of the chief constable."
        Many chief constables and other senior members of the police force have said that deputising is occasionally necessary, and a large force must have a second person to exercise functions to prevent the chief constable from being overwhelmed by the burdens of his important and onerous office.
        The amendment does not reintroduce a deputy but proposes a mechanism under which deputising can take place. The requirement that the Home Secretary should agree to it surely should commend the amendment even to Ministers who wish to set their faces against allowing such delegation under the Bill.
        The Association of Chief Police Officers says that an ACC appointed to the office of deputy chief constable will have had experience in a chief-headquarters rank, which will be all the more important following police reform because there will be fewer holders of the rank of chief superintendent. Indeed, there will not be any if the Bill is passed as it stands, and that flattening of the rank structure surely requires that functions be identified.
        I agree with the Association of Chief Police Officers that the case for abolishing this important post of more than 30 years' standing has not been made, which is why it does not wish to dispense with it. I suggest, more modestly, that we should simply deal in a sensible and reasonable way with the functions carried out by the deputy.
        I have suggested—it requires no change to negotiating patterns or national agreements—that an officer with the rank and salary of superintendent might be designated as a chief superintendent by the chief constable or chief officer of police where special circumstances of command or organisation require it. A chief constable would have to say to the police authority, which would then have to say to the Home Secretary, "Because of the size of our force," or, "Because our town must be policed in a certain way, we believe that it would be best to have a senior officer designated as chief superintendent. He might have a superintendent working with him, but for reasons of command and organisation we would prefer that designation." Such a request would be perfectly reasonable, and I commend the amendment to the Minister.
        We suggest that the introduction of performance-related pay for assistant chief constables or chief constables should not be made until draft regulations have been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House. That would

        209
        deal with the problem of accountability. Performance-related pay should be targeted and should relate to only one police authority. The Home Secretary should first consult the authority and chief officer concerned and lay copies of their representations before Parliament.
        The jury is still out on performance-related pay. The Minister has been as trappist as he can be in his responses to requests for evidence about the effectiveness of performance-related pay. In a written answer on 27 June, requesting a list of the possible incentives that he is considering as rewards, he referred me to a previous reply in which he had not answered the question. On 27 June, I asked him to list the police functions that he intends to be subject to measurement to provide a basis for performance-related pay for chief constables. He replied:
        "This matter is under discussion with the relevant interests." —[Official Report, 27 June 1994; Vol.245, c. 423.]
        He cannot have assured himself that the system will work, because he does not have a system that he can tell the House about.
        In answer to a request for
        "the studies and research findings on which he based his decision to introduce a system of performance-related pay for senior police officers",
        he said:
        "My right hon. and learned Friend"—
        he is passing the buck already—
        "took account of the argument in support of relating pay to overall performance contained in the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards."
        That was the Sheehy report, and we know what happened to that. That is not an effective basis on which to decide the future rewards of the police. The Minister continued:
        "But the most influential factor in the Government's decision to introduce-performance related pay for all ranks in the police service was the benefit it will bring to the police service itself."
        The Government were asked for evidence and their response was a statement of dogma. They have produced no evidence.
        The Minister then said:
        "Distinguishing especially good performance from the average performance provides an incentive to people to improve the effectiveness of their contribution, bringing added benefit to both the organisation and the individual, and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do."—[Official Report, 28 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 458.]
        The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to show that PRP would benefit the performance of the police or be to the benefit of the public.
        7 pm
        I can produce evidence from a report of the Institute of Manpower Studies. It is one of many reports from which I could quote. It is entitled "Pay and Performance: The Employer Experience" and it was produced in June 1992. Having referred to previous research, it states:
        "few, if any, studies have demonstrated a causal link between individual performance related pay and increases in productivity."
        That is the finding for industry and commerce as a whole;
        it is not confined to the police. Even in terms of the production of widgets, there is little evidence of the benefit of IPRP.
        The report then questions whether performance-related pay delivers. It found that rarely was there an effective monitoring and evaluation process built into an IPRP scheme. The report states:
        "This was because most employers did not have clearly articulated objectives for introducing such schemes against which
        210
        they could measure subsequent success or failure. Furthermore, little thought appeared to be given to the indicators that could be used to measure the effectiveness of the scheme and the type of information that should be collected."
        There is a direct parallel between that management experience and the fact that the Minister could not answer my question about what he intended to measure to determine the nature of PRP within the police force.
        The institute's report refers also to costs and benefits. It suggests that many additional costs are incurred in adopting PRP
        "(such as, preparation of supporting documentation, training, communication strategy etc) but not the level of these costs. When pushed, 'guesstimates' in the region of one to two per cent…were typical."
        The institute concluded that the lack of monitoring and evaluation and the lack of evidence of the benefits of PRP meant that such schemes should be examined extremely carefully.
        When it came to Government policy, the institute reported:
        "Performance related pay has become an important building block in overall Government policy and is perceived"—
        I stress "perceived"—
        "to be a means of raising public sector efficiency through linking pay to performance levels.
        Our research would cast doubt on this argument. There is little support, in practice, for the claims that PRP motivates, changes organisational culture for the better or serves to retain high performers. In short, many of the objectives of introducing PRP do not appear to have been realised."
        As I have said, I have produced one piece of evidence in response to the Government's failure to produce any figures. The Minister should accept the amendment, which would force him at least to make the preparation that is recommended by the institute. He should produce arguments and evidence before he brings forward an untried system for an important public sector service—the police.
        Mr. Maclennan: I nearly always agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). That being so, I feel some pain when I disagree with him. It is plain from the hon. Gentleman's response to an earlier debate that that feeling is reciprocated; the same can be said of his opening remarks in this debate. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman deployed his arguments so forcefully and effectively, because there is now no need for me to speak at great length in support of the amendments that he has tabled.
        Exceptionally, I have appended my name to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), which is a response to the Government's proposal to abolish the rank of chief superintendent. If the Government did that, they would be making a serious error of judgment based on a hangover from an earlier phase of consideration of the rank structure. That consideration should have been swept aside when it was evidently not necessary to achieve the objective of streamlining or thinning the top ranks of police forces. That process was effectively already under way in another guise, and there was a danger that the Government would seriously interfere with the flexibility of police forces throughout the country and their ability to deploy their manpower in the most effective way that chief constables, in particular, had identified.
        The position of chief superintendent is a special one. It is not required in every police force but it is useful in larger city forces. There is a 24-hour responsibility or duty to give

        211
        effect operationally to the policing objectives or duties that have been set by chief constables. It is recognised that that position or role, where it has been established and exercised, is an important one.
        The Government appear to be trying to foist upon the 43 police forces a pattern that is not apt in each police force area. I do not take a dogmatic view. I am not arguing that an exactly similar structure is required throughout the country. I do not say dogmatically that the rank of chief superintendent should be used in all 43 forces. I merely say that the usefulness or otherwise of the rank should not have been determined in the way that the Government deemed appropriate.
        The nine police ranks are rather few when a comparison is made with numbers of ranks in the armed services. Evidence has been drawn most effectively from the New Zealand experience to suggest that a contraction of the numbers of ranks leads to serious problems of inflexibility, resulting in a need to create ranks within ranks. That is to be avoided.
        The arguments that have been deployed by the Association of Chief Superintendents are manifold, careful and serious, and they deserve consideration. I shall not repeat them all, because I deployed some of them at an earlier stage in our consideration of the Bill. I know that they have been put directly to Ministers and I think that Ministers should respond to them. They have been deployed without rancour. They have been advanced fairly and considerately. Recognition would not amount to a significant backdown by the Government. No one would claim it to be a backdown. That view would not be taken if the Minister conducted a review, recognised the force of the argument and said to the chief superintendents, and the chief constables for that matter, "Yes, you are talking sense."
        I hope that the Minister will not argue that when given the choice between chief inspectors or chief superintendents, the Association of Chief Police Officers said, "Well, if we had to choose, we would call for the retention of the rank of chief inspector." It would be unfortunate if he adopted that argument, because the association was given an unacceptable choice. The reality is that ACPO wanted both ranks, and the Minister knows that. I hope that he will not regard a change of mind as a loss of face.
        Ministers gain a reputation for strength when they listen to good arguments and respond positively to them. That is what the debate is all about. If the Minister is able to accept that, he will have made the entire exercise worth while.
        The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth about performance-related pay were sound, and were adduced in Committee. The Government have produced no evidence in support of the importation of their proposals into policing. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments. I simply use this opportunity to say that my party and I entirely endorse the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench on that issue and will support whatever steps the Labour party may take to press the matter.
        Mr. Charles Wardle: I want first to consider the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). As he has explained, the effect of the new clauses would be to require consultation at both national and local level on any severance provisions that might be introduced for the police service and to make such provisions subject to arbitration.
        212
        I have some sympathy with the thinking behind the new clauses. Although I cannot accept them as they stand, I should like to explain the way in which the Government propose to involve the police service before making regulations relating to severance schemes for police officers.
        When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced last October the Government's decisions on the recommendations made by the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards, he said that we intended to make provision for voluntary and compulsory severance schemes for police officers. He made it clear that the use of those provisions by individual forces would, none the less, require the approval of the Secretary of State, which would be given for a limited period only.
        The regulations providing for severance schemes will be made under legislation that does not attract the statutory requirements for consultation with the Police Negotiating Board that apply to regulations governing other aspects of police pay and conditions of service. However, the Government do not intend to lay any such regulations before Parliament without giving the police staff associations and police authority representatives the opportunity to comment on them in draft. We therefore propose to operate, on a non-statutory basis, precisely the same consultation arrangements that are required by statute to be applied in respect of regulations dealing with police pensions.
        Those arrangements, which were in place before the PNB was established in 1980, have worked well in respect of police pensions regulations. They seem to provide the correct balance between consulting the police service interests about pensions arrangements and having regard to the important wider public sector implications. What we propose will provide a structured means of consulting police service interests about draft regulations dealing with severance on precisely the same basis as applies to pension arrangements, with Parliament's having the final say about the form of regulations.
        In view of that assurance, I do not think that there is any need to provide for consultation at local as well as national level on severance provisions. Police regulations are made on a national basis and consultation on them takes place properly at the national level. Our undertaking to consult the relevant interests through the PNB machinery provides all the safeguards that are needed. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West will feel able to withdraw his new clauses.
        The arguments in amendment No. 21 are based on the mistaken premise that, in all forces, it is the deputy chief constable who is in effective charge of complaints and discipline issues. That is not the case. In some forces, those matters are not even nominally the responsibility of the deputy chief constable. In others, while the deputy chief constable may have the nominal responsibility, all decision making takes place at a lower level. It is, and should remain, a matter for the chief constable to decide how to organise his force.
        Amendment No. 21 would impose a rigidity on police management structures by requiring the chief constable to nominate one of his assistant chief constables to have responsibility for complaints and disciplinary matters and to consult the police authority as to his choice before implementing it. Such an arrangement would damage flexibility and impinge on the chief constable's operational control.

        213
        No doubt the amendment is related to the proposed abolition of the role of deputy chief constable. In many forces, the deputy chief constable handles complaints and disciplinary matters prior to a hearing because, under the present system, the chief constable must remain separate and aloof from them in order to be unbiased when he hears disciplinary cases. However, there is no statutory provision requiring those matters to be under the oversight of a deputy chief constable and, as I have already said, in many forces that is not what happens.
        What of amendment No. 23? The essential quality of a deputy is that he or she carries out the full range of duties in the absence of the chief constable. The Bill currently provides for all the powers and duties of a chief constable to be exercised by a designated assistant chief constable in the absence of the chief constable or while the chief constable post is vacant. While the chief constable is available, there is no need for anyone else to exercise his powers or duties. That point was made time and again in Committee. The chief constable is able to delegate to his assistant chief constable whatever tasks he thinks appropriate, and that is thoroughly sensible. Amendment No. 23 adds nothing to the provision already contained in clause 6.
        7.15 pm
        With regard to amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 66, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained on Second Reading the reasons for the Government's decision to reduce the number of police ranks. There are obviously benefits to the police service in having a less top-heavy management structure. There would be clearer and more direct communication, more officers available for front-line duties and swifter progression for officers through the management hierarchy. All those points must be important. That is why the ranks of chief superintendent and deputy chief constable are to be abolished.
        Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation accept the need for reform of the police rank structure. The issue has already been discussed at great length and the overwhelming opinion is that all the responsibilities currently discharged by superintendents and chief superintendents can be managed more efficiently and effectively within a restructured single superintendent rank.
        Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 relate to performance related pay. Bearing in mind the time and the fullness of debate in Committee, if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is short of interesting breakfast reading tomorrow, he can revisit columns 194 to 199 of our Committee proceedings. I suspect that he would find that reading stimulating—at least the part when I was expanding on the very subject on which he now claims that I was somewhat Trappist.
        Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. They would require approval of regulations by each House of Parliament rather than their being subject to the negative resolution procedure, as at present. They would mean that only one police authority could be covered by one set of regulations. Imagine the
        214
        weight and pressure on parliamentary business! They would require the Secretary of State to lay police authority and chief constable representations before Parliament.
        Although I know it will disappoint the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and in spite of the alluring nature of the entreaties made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—
        Sir Anthony Durant: With regard to the severance matter, the Metropolitan police have introduced some severance arrangements. Where will those arrangements stand when the statutory instrument is produced?
        Mr. Wardle: As I have explained, the undertaking that I have given is that there will be consultation, but there will not be a statutory provision for that consultation. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the undertaking that I have provided.
        In spite of the entreaties of Opposition Members, I urge the House to reject the new clauses and the amendments.
        Mr. John McFall: I will be brief, and concentrate on the issue as it affects Scotland. I lament the fact that, again, the Government have not rethought this matter. Two ranks have been abolished simply because of the revolt in the other place. There has been no consultation in Scotland with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) or other police ranks. The decision was dogmatic and has meant the flattening of the police structure for its own sake.
        When we consider that the police have nine ranks compared with 12 in the civil service and 11 in the Army, it is clear that efficiency in terms of police ranks exists in Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Office has already admitted to the police that no money will be saved through this flattening of the ranks. The police will still be required to do the job. What will happen is that a superintendent will be appointed; he will be labelled a senior superintendent, and the extra money will go to him.
        If no money is saved, what are the advantages that the Government seek? Sadly, there will be no advantages, but there will be many disadvantages. Taken together with performance-related pay and fixed-term contracts, what will happen is that ambitious young officers will be content to stay below the rank of chief superintendent and not proceed to those levels where they will be subject to four or five renewals of fixed-term contracts.
        Every police force in Scotland is below the median for the United Kingdom in terms of promoted ranks. If the Government think that too many officers are being promoted, they can introduce the on-cost formula and prohibit all police forces from having more than a certain percentage in promoted posts, in terms of either cost or the number of individuals. That would stop forces promoting more individuals than the formula allowed and it would give chief constables the flexibility which they so desperately require and which the Government say they wish to provide. By abolishing those ranks, the Government will interfere with the command structure and introduce a rigidity into operational duties.
        For example, the Strathclyde and Grampian regions in Scotland are different by nature. The Strathclyde region has 15 divisional command structures, and each division is larger than the entire size of Dumfries and Galloway. The Grampian region is very much rural-based. I have spoken to the chief constables of both areas. The chief constable in Strathclyde told me that he would like the post of chief

        215
        superintendent retained, whereas the chief constable in Grampian would like the post of chief inspector retained for operational flexibility. The Government are precluding that by abolishing the two ranks. They should consider that we have had two emergencies in Scotland in the past few years. The first was the Lockerbie disaster—
        Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are keeping the role of chief inspector.
        Mr. McFall: I am talking about flexibility for the Strathclyde region, which wants the rank of chief superintendent retained, and the Grampian region, which wants its chief inspectors retained. My point is that the chief constables want that operational flexibility, but the Government are denying them that. The emergencies which occurred, sadly, a few years ago with Lockerbie and only about a month ago with the Chinook helicopter in the Mull of Kintyre, have shown that flexibility is necessary. The Government's proposals will not give that flexibility or operational command structure.
        In terms of flexibility, efficiency and decentralised management, I ask the Government to consider what the chief constables have said and allow them the flexibility which these forces of disparate nature require.
        Sir Anthony Durant: As I have received reassurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. I do not know what Labour will do with regard to the rank of superintendent, but I wish to withdraw the new clause relating to severance provisions.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 8
      PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES: LICENSING
      'After section 5 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
      PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES: LICENSING

        Private security services: licensing
        5A.—(l) There shall be established a special police authority for the licensing and regulation of organisations or individuals purporting to offer crime prevention or detection services.
        (2) The membership of the authority shall be comprised of such number of persons as the Secretary of State may specify from among members of police authorities established under section 3 of this Act.
        (3) In carrying out its functions under this section, the authority shall—

        (a) consult and have regard to the views of persons representative of chief officers of police; and

        (b) have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State.

        (4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument establish arrangements under which the authority may recover the costs of carrying out any duties under this section.
        (5) It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise or purport to offer crime prevention or detection services unless they are licensed by the authority established under this section.
        (6) It shall be the duty of any person licensed under this section—

        (a) to ensure that they have sufficient available funds or are bonded to cover any tort in respect of which they might reasonably become liable; and

        (b) to provide evidence of this on request to the authority or to the chief constable or the police authority of any area in which they operate.

        (7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) of this section shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".'. —[Mr. Michael.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        In Committee, we had quite a debate about the current problems of the private security industry. I hasten to add that the problems relate not to the more established and responsible part of the industry but to the less responsible part—that which is outside the regulation of the voluntary organisations dealing with the industry. In Committee, we sought to have a system which would put some power into the hands of chief constables to enable them to deal with problems when they arise. Our amendments were rejected by the Minister.
        In the new clause, we seek to have a national system of licensing and regulating the private security industry, but making it responsible and accountable to local police forces which, of course, deal with issues that arise on a local basis. The system would have a nice symmetry in that it would be local in terms of accountability, using the professionalism of the police service, but would provide the national structure which is necessary if we are to deal with the issue properly. In Committee, several references were made to ways of dealing with those issues on a voluntary basis.
        The private security industry recognises the need for proper regulation. I have had comments from the industry which suggest that there is a welcome for the coming together of the two major associations in the United Kingdom, which between them govern some 74 per cent. of private security provision. Obviously, it is beneficial for industry members to belong to a merged association. From the same source, I heard the comment that the ultimate goal must be statutory regulation, and that any such accommodation would leave out the 25 per cent. of the industry which causes the greatest concern not only to the public and to the Labour party but to the security industry itself.
        I make it clear that the need for statutory regulation of the private security industry is well recognised in the industry. It is not good enough simply to leave it to voluntary regulation because voluntary regulations regulate only those who volunteer.
        In Committee, I warned the Minister that we have seen the rise of vigilantes and people coming into areas to improve the security of people's homes. Some of my constituents have been approached by individuals who say that they operate a security system and will look after homes in an area for a weekly payment. They sometimes hint that homes might not be so secure if money is not paid. I am not suggesting that those people always intend to break the law, but their hints are interpreted by residents as a form of threat. Such behaviour is close to operating a protection system, or at least being perceived to be so. That must be unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
        I have come across an incident in which those who were proposing a security system on a small estate had told the police of their plans and then told local people that they had the support and approval of the police, which was not the case. Such developments are worrying to the private security industry as well as to the public and ourselves, and underline the need for proper statutory regulation.
        The police in my area are concerned that they do not have powers to move in and nip such problems in the bud. That is a general problem which is reflected by many constituents up and down the country. The new clause would provide a tidy way of approaching the problem

        217
        without forming a great new bureaucracy. It would regulate the industry in a way which is now urgent. I commend the new clause to the House.
        Mr. Shersby: I support the concept that the private security industry should be properly regulated by statute— and I am on the record as having said that on a number of occasions. Indeed, I have supported proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for that purpose.
        Today, a number of private security organisations of one sort or another provide quasi police and security services, often on private premises. A good example is the sort of shopping mall which is becoming increasingly prevalent, where it is not unusual to find an individual dressed in a fancy uniform who has the role of private security officer.
        At a recent election campaign, one of the candidates —this will be of interest to a number of my colleagues in the House—was told: "You cannot come in here to conduct your campaign. I am in charge of what goes on here. I am a private security officer. You cannot come into the shopping precinct."
        Other private security services are being offered to my constituents. For example, some individuals offer to keep a special watch on a house for 20p a day. They have a van and a video camera, and they will ensure that people have the extra security that will put their minds at rest. It is unsatisfactory that private individuals who are not screened in any way can offer such a service. They may well be driving round the streets with video cameras recording the goings-on of private citizens because they have been paid to do so by other private citizens in the same street. That raises several issues, some of which have been in the news during the past day or two.
        There is therefore a need for private security to be properly regulated and for all of us to know to whom private security forces are accountable. If a Member of Parliament is prevented from entering any premises by a private security officer, or if an individual suffers some personal restraint or even assault at the hands of a private security officer, does that person have the same recourse to the police complaints procedures as if the officer involved was a member of a regular, properly established police force? I think that the answer to that question is no.
        7.30 pm
        There is a proliferation of private security organisations. Some of them are perfectly reputable and are well known. I have no criticism of any particular force, but more and more of them are coming into existence. The time has come when people should be clearly aware of their rights and of the protection that is available to the individual under the law if an officer of a private security force takes action which would lead to an appeal if it was taken by an officer in a regular police force.
        Therefore, I hope-that my hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic to the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Even if my hon. Friend feels unable to accept the new clause this evening, I hope that he will give the House an assurance that the matter is at the forefront of the minds of
        218
        Home Office Ministers and that the necessary action will be taken to deal with it. The matter deserves the serious consideration of the Home Office at an early date.
        Mr. Maclennan: I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that regulation of the security industry merits careful thought by Ministers. The growth of vigilantism and organisations which come pretty close to offering protection rackets rather than security services must be watched. Regulation and licensing may prove to be necessary to protect the public.
        Certain problems with new clause 8 lead me to doubt whether the Government are likely to accept it. New clause 8 seems to be widely cast in recommending
        "the licensing and regulation of organisations or individuals purporting to offer crime prevention".
        That would seem almost to require the regulation and licensing of locksmiths. I do not believe that that was in the mind of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The new clause also implies that, if there is no cash nexus between the member of the public and the organisation, it is questionable whether there is a need for regulation. That is perhaps a slight defect of drafting.
        Putting aside matters of drafting, the purpose of new clause 8 is sound. We have to watch the growth of private security organisations. In a society in which there is an alarming breakdown of law and order in some communities which almost stretches police resources beyond their easy limits, the temptation to rely on such organisations is great.
        There are undoubtedly some perfectly reputable companies which contract to offer services which, on the face of it, look very much like private policing. Such developments are mushrooming. I should like to hear from the Minister tonight exactly what consideration the Government have given to the problems. I do not want to hear merely a dismissal of the new clause as untimely, ill-thought-out or whatever. What thought are the Government giving to the protection of the public?
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: I support new clause 8 and remind the House that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. The central concern of new clause 8 is that a burglar can be in prison, come out of prison, buy himself a dog, deliver leaflets through people's letter boxes or to shops saying that he is a security guard, wear a uniform and pass himself off as one. There are no regulations to stop him doing that. Therefore, it is essential that we have a decent and proper regulation of an expanding industry.
        Much of the industry is entirely reputable. Several companies adopt the highest standards. However, there is also in the industry a group of organisations and individuals which are less than reputable and regulation is desperately needed. It is a growing industry. In 1987 the private security sector was worth approximately £800 million. By 1992—the latest year for which figures are available—it was worth more than £2 billion. The figure is rising. The industry employs about 250,000 people. They are involved in patrolling housing estates, shopping centres and factories as well as working as store detectives and private investigators. Yet the Government seem not to be prepared to display any interest in proper regulation of the sector to protect the public.
        We need to regulate training, ensure that companies are properly insured for civil torts and prevent criminals from operating in private security. It is nonsense to suggest, as

        219
        I suspect the Government may, that professional bodies in the industry can regulate the sector effectively. The main reason why they cannot is that many small businesses are not members of the professional bodies. Where the professional bodies have membership, they are struggling valiantly and doing good work to regulate the industry, but so long as people who enter the industry do not need to become members of the professional bodies, those bodies can in no way ensure reasonable and reputable standards. Companies are under no obligation to join.
        In my county of Warwickshire and in my constituency, private security companies are knocking on people's doors offering to patrol areas or villages for £2 or £1.50 per week per household. The chief constable of Warwickshire estimates that, if he had that extra income from each household in Warwickshire, he could put an extra 2,000 fully trained, properly regulated and properly vetted police officers on the streets to reduce crime.
        Some private security organisations may be reputable, but the public do not know whether they are. They do not know whether the people who knock on their doors are criminals or honest business men. They do not know whether the companies are insured for civil torts or uninsured. They do not know whether they are commercially viable and reputable or not. The industry cries out for regulation and for basic standards to be enforced. If the Government will not accept the detail of new clause 8, let them at least show that they recognise the need for urgent regulation. The police want it and the public want it. Let the Government recognise that and say so.
        Mr. Charles Wardle: This has been an interesting debate. No hon. Member on either side of the House would deny that there are some cowboys operating in the private security industry. The question that matters is whether a system of statutory regulation would prevent the cowboys from doing what they do now. I do not believe that that would be the case, as I shall show in a moment.
        There is no evidence that there is a greater level of criminality in the private security industry than generally in Britain. That is not to deny that there are cowboys at work, but new clause 8 does not provide the remedy that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has recommended. The Government are determined in any case to lift unnecessary controls on business and to avoid adding new ones.
        Of course, we would be ready to consider legislation if there was a clear and demonstrable need for statutory control. Such a need simply does not exist. Regulation would add nothing of benefit to the industry. Some disreputable individuals undoubtedly operate on the fringes of the industry and give it a bad name. No one denies that they exist, but it is unworldly to assume that they would just vanish as soon as the House introduced statutory controls.
        The supporters of statutory regulation believe that its introduction would somehow raise standards straight away, but the industry is increasingly mature and professional, and it is doing a great deal to improve standards. Self-regulation is the way forward. The industry has accepted the discipline of that and made a great deal of progress. It already provides better training for its staff, and individual employees may study for national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications.
        220
        These days, the well-established British standards are more relevant to the companies and their products. In the past few years, the industry has increasingly come to believe that it is not enough to say that certain standards are maintained, but that companies' adherence to those standards must be independently demonstrated. For that purpose, the industry has established the inspectorate of the security industry and the National Approval Council for Security Systems. Both those organisations perform independent and reliable inspections of companies and of their products or services.
        Mr. Shersby: I was not talking about the companies that my hon. Friend is describing, which belong to an organisation which is quite capable of self-regulation, but about the kind of one-man bands that go around our constituencies. Surely our local chief superintendents should have some discretion to decide whether such people are able to offer their quasi-police services to private individuals. That is what the argument is about.
        Mr. Wardle: If the local police have any reason to believe that any such operators are breaking the law, no doubt they will take action.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) also spoke of recourse to the police complaints procedure, but there is no such recourse. As I said earlier, there is recourse under the law, however, because the employees of private security firms have no powers other than those of the private citizen. The police would bear that in mind.
        My hon. Friend also spoke about vetting personnel who may be considered for jobs with security firms. That matter is currently being considered in a consultation document entitled "The Access to Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes". It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the conclusions of that consultation exercise, but my hon. Friend has made an interesting point.
        For the reasons that I have cited, there is no evidence to suggest that such a deep-rooted problem exists in the industry as to require the heavy-handed approach of statutory regulation. I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 280.

        Division No. 284]

        [7.42 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Berry, Roger

        Ainger, Nick

        Betts, Clive

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Blair, Tony

        Allen, Graham

        Blunkett, David

        Alton, David

        Boateng, Paul

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Boyes, Roland

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Bradley, Keith

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Ashton, Joe

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Austin-Walker, John

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

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Barnes, Harry

        Burden, Richard

        Barron, Kevin

        Byers, Stephen

        Battle, John

        Callaghan, Jim

        Bayley, Hugh

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Beggs, Roy

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

        Canavan, Dennis

        Bell, Stuart

        Cann, Jamie

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

        Bennett, Andrew F.

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Benton, Joe

        Church, Judith

        221

        Clapham, Michael

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Hutton, John

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Ingram, Adam

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Clelland, David

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Jamieson, David

        Coffey, Ann

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Cohen, Harry

        Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        Connarty, Michael

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Corbett, Robin

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Keen, Alan

        Cousins, Jim

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

        Cummings, John

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Dafis, Cynog

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Darling, Alistair

        Lewis, Terry

        Davidson, Ian

        Liddell, Helen

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

        Loyden, Eddie

        Denham, John

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Dewar, Donald

        McAllion, John

        Dixon, Don

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Macdonald, Calum

        Dowd, Jim

        McFall, John

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        McKelvey, William

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        McLeish, Henry

        Eastham, Ken

        Maclennan, Robert

        Enright, Derek

        McMaster, Gordon

        Etherington, Bill

        McWilliam, John

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Madden, Max

        Fatchett, Derek

        Mahon, Alice

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Marek, Dr John

        Fisher, Mark

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Flynn, Paul

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Martlew, Eric

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Maxton, John

        Foulkes, George

        Meacher, Michael

        Fraser, John

        Meale, Alan

        Fyfe, Maria

        Michael, Alun

        Galbraith, Sam

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Galloway, George

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        Gapes, Mike

        Milburn, Alan

        Gerrard, Neil

        Miller, Andrew

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Gordon, Mildred

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Graham, Thomas

        Morley, Elliot

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Mudie, George

        Gunnell, John

        Mullin, Chris

        Hain, Peter

        Murphy, Paul

        Hall, Mike

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Hanson, David

        O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

        Harvey, Nick

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Henderson, Doug

        Olner, William

        Heppell, John

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Parry, Robert

        Hinchliffe, David

        Patchett, Terry

        Hodge, Margaret

        Pickthall, Colin

        Hoey, Kate

        Pike, Peter L.

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Pope, Greg

        Home Robertson, John

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Prescott, John

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Hoyle, Doug

        Purchase, Ken

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Randall, Stuart

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Raynsford, Nick

        222

        Redmond, Martin

        Straw, Jack

        Reid, Dr John

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Rendel, David

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Roche, Mrs. Barbara

        Timms, Stephen

        Rogers, Allan

        Tipping, Paddy

        Rooker, Jeff

        Trimble, David

        Rooney, Terry

        Turner, Dennis

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Tyler, Paul

        Ross, William (E Londonderry)

        Vaz, Keith

        Rowlands, Ted

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Ruddock, Joan

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wareing, Robert N

        Sheerman, Barry

        Watson, Mike

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Simpson, Alan

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Skinner, Dennis

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

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

        Wilson, Brian

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Winnick, David

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Worthington, Tony

        Soley, Clive

        Wray, Jimmy

        Spearing, Nigel

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Spellar, John

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Mr. Eric Illsley and

        Stevenson, George

        Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Cash, William

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Alexander, Richard

        Chapman, Sydney

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Churchill, Mr

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Clappison, James

        Amess, David

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)

        Ancram, Michael

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Coe, Sebastian

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Colvin, Michael

        Ashby, David

        Congdon, David

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Conway, Derek

        Atkins, Robert

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

        Cormack, Patrick

        Baldry, Tony

        Cran, James

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Bates, Michael

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Day, Stephen

        Bendall, Vivian

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Body, Sir Richard

        Dover, Den

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Duncan, Alan

        Booth, Hartley

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Boswell, Tim

        Dunn, Bob

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Dykes, Hugh

        Bowden, Sir Andrew

        Elletson, Harold

        Bowis, John

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Brazier, Julian

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Evennett, David

        Browning, Mrs. Angela

        Faber, David

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Burns, Simon

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Burt, Alistair

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Butcher, John

        Forman, Nigel

        Butler, Peter

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Butterfill, John

        Forth, Eric

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Carttiss, Michael

        French, Douglas

        223

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

        Gale, Roger

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Gallie, Phil

        Moss, Malcolm

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Garnier, Edward

        Nelson, Anthony

        Gill, Christopher

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Gorst, Sir John

        Norris, Steve

        Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Page, Richard

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Paice, James

        Hague, William

        Patnick, Irvine

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Hannam, Sir John

        Pawsey, James

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Harris, David

        Pickles, Eric

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hawksley, Warren

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Hayes, Jerry

        Rathbone, Tim

        Heald, Oliver

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Hendry, Charles

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

        Richards, Rod

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Riddick, Graham

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

        Horam, John

        Robathan, Andrew

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

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

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Sackville, Tom

        Hunter, Andrew

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Jessel, Toby

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

        Sims, Roger

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Key, Robert

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Kilfedder, Sir James

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Knapman, Roger

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Knox, Sir David

        Spring, Richard

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Sproat, Iain

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Legg, Barry

        Steen, Anthony

        Leigh, Edward

        Stephen, Michael

        Lennox-Boyd, Mark

        Stern, Michael

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Stewart, Allan

        Lidington, David

        Streeter, Gary

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

        Sumberg, David

        Lord, Michael

        Sweeney, Walter

        Luff, Peter

        Sykes, John

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        MacKay, Andrew

        Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

        Maclean, David

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Thomason, Roy

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Madel, Sir David

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Thurnham, Peter

        Malone, Gerald

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

        Mans, Keith

        Tracey, Richard

        Marland, Paul

        Tredinnick, David

        Marlow, Tony

        Trend, Michael

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Trotter, Neville

        Mates, Michael

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Merchant, Piers

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Mills, Iain

        Viggers, Peter

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        224

        Walden, George

        Wilkinson, John

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Willetts, David

        Ward, John

        Wilshire, David

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Wolfson, Mark

        Watts, John

        Wood, Timothy

        Wells, Bowen

        Yeo, Tim

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Whitney, Ray

        Whittingdale, John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Mr. David Lightbown and

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

        Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 18
      MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE AUTHORITIES
      'After section 3 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
      MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE AUTHORITIES

        Membership of police authorities
        3A. — (1) The number of members of each police authority established under section 3 of this Act shall be specified by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
        (2) The number of members of an authority specified by an order under subsection (1) of this section shall be an odd number no fewer than seventeen.
        (3) An order made under subsction (1) above may relate to the membership of more than one authority, and any such order may be varied by a subsequent order.
        (4) Before making an order under subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of State shall consult any relevant councils.
        (5) Where an authority is of the opinion that in order to ensure fair representation on it of—

        (a) each relevant council within the authority's area;

        (b) the population and geographical density of the area concerned and of each unit of representation within the area; and

        (c) the political balance among councils and among members required by paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 1B to this Act

        it requires the number of its members to be varied, it shall submit a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
        (6) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (5) of this section he shall—

        (a) if he approves it, lay an order under subsection (1) to give it effect; or

        (b) where he does not approve it, publish his reasons for not approving it and lay those before both Houses of Parliament.

        (7) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
        (8) Schedules 1B and 1C to this Act shall have effect in relation to police authorities established under section 3 and the appointment of their members.".'. — [Mr. Michael.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 20—Constitution of Northern Ireland Police Authority—
        'For paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 (The Police Authority) to the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 there shall be substituted—
        "1. The Police Authority shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and fifteen persons.
        2. — (1) Nine members of the Authority shall be members of District Councils in Northern Ireland, appointed by the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland and it shall be the duty of the Association to secure as far as practicable that the members it appoints are representative of the community in Northern Ireland.

        225
        (2) Five members of the Authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to secure as far as practicable that among the members appointed under this paragraph is a person representative of—

        (i) the trade unions.

        (ii) agriculture, industry and commerce, and

        (iii) voluntary organisations having as their principle object, or one of their principle objects, the welfare of children or young persons.

        (3) Three members of the Authority shall be resident magistrates or judges authorised to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.".'.
        Amendment No. 62, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.
        Government amendment No. 44.
        Amendment No. 22, in schedule 2, page 53, line 21, after 'prevailing', insert `between the councils and'.
        Amendment No. 16, in page 54, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.
        Government amendment No. 45.
        Amendment No. 15, in page 56, line 22, leave out from `years' to ', or' in line 23.
        Mr. Michael: I appear at the Dispatch Box as the defender of two endangered species—the Conservative voter and the Conservative councillor. They, too, should be protected from the actions of the Government, and they should have a voice within police authorities. That will not happen if the difficulties of achieving a proper balance of political representation within a police authority is limited in the way the Government wish.
        New clause 18, in particular, proposes that,
        "Where an authority is of the opinion that in order to ensure fair representation…of each relevant council within the authority's area; the population and geographical density of the area concerned and of each unit of representation within the area; and the political balance among councils and among members"
        the authority should say that it needs an increase in numbers. It is surely right that there should be a balance on the authority.
        First, it is right that each relevant council within the authority's area should be represented. It is important that there is an understanding of the policing of the area among the leadership of the local authority. We have said on a number of occasions that the joint working of police authorities and local authorities is very important. The Minister pays lip service to that, but it is important that it is contained within the institutions.
        Secondly, the population and geographical density of the area make a difference, as can be seen within the existing police authority areas. One can look at the Greater Manchester police authority area, or at the changes within the South Wales police area, where the number of unitary authorities will be as large as the number of members under the minimum composition which is allowed at present.
        That does not allow for opposition groups, and we feel that minorities within the overall scope of political involvement in an area should be represented. Therefore, either there is a representative from one of those authorities who is not from the majority group and thus cannot speak for the whole council, which means that the leading voice
        226
        on that authority is not heard, or there is an increase in the numbers to allow for minority representation from within the area.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: I can illustrate the hon. Gentleman's point with an example from the Northumbria police authority area. If Northumberland council is to have only one member of the police authority, on the present balance of the council it would probably be a Labour councillor. But the Labour party mainly represents the urban south-east of the county, and the rural areas which are represented by Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors would be unrepresented. That point has been put quite fairly to me by police authority members, and it is a view generally shared among all parties on the authority. More than one representative from the county would be needed to achieve the spread that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
        Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that illustration. There are a number of examples around the country, although the situation may not arise in some areas—for instance, where there is shire county representation. Where a county is to be moved to a unitary authority, as in Gwent, the number of unitary authorities would still be sufficient for the number of representatives allowed for by the Government to be met while including some opposition representation. That is fine, but it does not apply in all circumstances.
        In my view, it would be dangerous to require a composition which does not allow for those minorities. Apart from anything else, the vagaries of political life are such that there can be switches, and it is always best if a minority which becomes the majority has had some experience of the workings of an authority. In view of the need for continuity and in pursuit of conservatism with a small "c", I should have thought that that would commend itself to the Minister, and lead him to accept the new clause.
        The Minister stated in Committee that the Secretary of State would not use the powers in the Bill which allow him to vary upwards the numbers on a police authority—an amendment won following a debate in the House of Lords —very often at all. He said that the powers would be used responsibly, but very sparingly—indeed, exceptionally. All that we seek is that the number of occasions on which it is used—whether they be few or many—should be determined by the need for proper representation on a police authority. We therefore seek to persuade the Government that the powers contained in the Bill allow for greater flexibility as to size than the Government seem to envisage.
        There are advantages to be gained where it is possible to achieve proper representation within a small size of police authority, but that aim should not be pursued inflexibly or as a matter of dogma. For instance, there are instances in which nine elected members are insufficient to represent a police authority's area and the balance of political interest, so the people there will not enjoy proper representation.
        8 pm
        One amendment in the group seeks to remove the age limit of 70 on police authority members. In the light of debate in Committee, I hope that that will commend itself to the Minister. Magistrates who hold an appointed office, often for many years, are required to retire from front-line judicial service at 70. Their duties beyond that age are

        227
        judicial service at 70. Their duties beyond that age are fairly nominal, such as signing passport applications. With the loss of active office there follows a requirement to resign from the police authority, if the individual is a magistrate appointed by the local magistrates courts committee. Councillors, however, can hold elected office as long as they are elected to stand for public office and are returned at local council elections, and they are eligible to
        A limited number of existing police authority members ably serve their communities on a police authority, and it would be wrong in principle to exclude them on age alone —the popular term is agism. I warn the Minister of the consequences of grey power. He may care to reflect that, as he grows older, he too may still want to make a contribution to public life. There should not be a blanket reason for excluding people.
        If individuals under 75, 70 or 60 are not capable and responsible representatives, they should be removed by the judgment of those who appointed them—not by a cast-iron limit in the Bill. In debate on an earlier amendment, reference was made to the administrative predicament for the Bill's draftsmen, who chose a common retirement age for all new police authority members. We argue that is wrong in principle, discriminatory and misconceived.
        There are many examples of individuals who assumed high public office beyond their 70th birthday. They include Lord Gladstone, Prime Minister at 82; Lord Hailsham, Lord Chancellor at 70; Winston Churchill, Prime Minister at 70 and again at 76; Lord Home, Foreign Secretary at 71; Lord Whitelaw, Lord President of the Council at 70; and above all, one example that should make us all pause for thought—Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa at 75. That list demonstrates that persons holding elected office, whether nationally or locally, should not be excluded on the ground of their age alone. The restriction should therefore be removed. I commend the new clause to the House.
        Mr. Trimble: I shall speak to new clause 20, in my name. I regret that, due to the selection of amendments, I have not had the opportunity to speak to new clause 21, which was tabled at the request of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland to remedy an injustice to 4,614 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—but no doubt there will be another opportunity to address that issue.
        New clause 20 provides for the constitution of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. At present, that authority is appointed by the Secretary of State—period. There has been much debate about the extent to which it is proper for the Home Secretary to have some influence on the appointment of police authorities in England and Wales, and a provision has emerged which gives the Home Secretary a limited capacity to appoint one or two independent members to English police authorities.
        In Northern Ireland, the police authority is appointed entirely by the Secretary of State. It is true that the Secretary of State is obliged by the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to consult various bodies, and that he is directed to ensure that the body is representative—but representative as the Secretary of State sees it—and consultation is just that. Northern Ireland has purely an appointed body.
        I am pleased that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, is in his place on the Treasury Bench, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that the present situation is becoming untenable. New clause 20 provides a new basis
        228
        for the appointment of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, based on the provisions in clause 3(1) for the constitution of authorities in England and Wales in future, having 17 members—nine from local authorities, five independent and three magistrates. That is precisely reflected in new clause 20.
        The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke of the difficulty of balancing local authority representation, so he will be delighted to note that new clause 20 states:
        "it shall be the duty of the Association"
        of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland
        "to secure as far as practicable that the members it appoints are representative of the community".
        I emphasise that, because in the Northern Ireland context that phrase will mean not just geographically representative but representative in terms of shades of party political opinion. That will ensure that appointed councillors are representative of the whole community.
        As to the five independent members, I have not tried to replicate the detail in schedule 1 to the Bill but have carried forward some of the provisions of the 1970 Act.
        The provision for three magistrates causes difficulties in Northern Ireland. One cannot equate Northern Ireland justices of the peace with those for England and Wales. Northern Ireland JPs have not exercised any magisterial or judicial function since 1935. They are an entirely different breed and not comparable with JPs in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, resident magistrates exercise the judicial function, but the problem with drawing representation purely from resident magistrates is that there are so few of them.
        Consequently, I originally drafted the new clause to include others who exercise a judicial function, but I am not sure that that is entirely appropriate. I have not had an opportunity to consult the judiciary in that regard, and they may not be entirely happy with that proposal. It has been suggested to me that the field of selection could be broadened by taking account of lay magistrates, who are appointed to juvenile courts. That might be worth thinking about. I would accept criticism of subsection (3), but the principle that it enshrines—which draws on the precedent set for England and Wales—should remain under consideration.
        I repeat that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, knows that the present situation is untenable. We are in the process of appointing a new Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that, in previous months, bodies which must be consulted under existing legislation and which have been asked for nominations have declined to make any because they are dissatisfied with the present constitution and the envisaged future role. The right hon. Gentleman must also find a chairman for the authority. Moreover, he must do so urgently because the authority is due to meet tomorrow and if it does not have a chairman, it cannot meet.
        According to newspaper reports on Sunday, the Minister has already approached six people, but they have all turned him down. I understand that an announcement was made today. I hesitate to say that it is a matter of scraping the bottom of the barrel, because the individual in question is a constituent of mine—a professional quango man, whose appointment to a health authority I had occasion to comment on negatively in the House on an earlier occasion. I am tempted to say that his only apparent qualification for the police authority chairmanship, never

        229
        having sat on one before, is that he is most willing to accept direction from the Northern Ireland Office—but enough of that. The important issue is that there needs to be a rethink about the police authority's constitution. The provisions in new clause 20 would make it more representative and effective, and I tabled it to give the Under-Secretary of State the opportunity to carry public debate further.
        The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, speaking to new clause 5, commented on the absence of a police authority for London. He said that it was outrageous that there was no democratic accountability. I endorse that sentiment, but it is also outrageous that there is no democratic accountability in Northern Ireland. New clause 20 would go some way to remedying that.
        Mr. Charles Wardle: The purpose of new clause 18 is to require that the size of each police authority be settled individually before the new authorities are formed, and for the order doing so to be subject to affirmative resolution. It also provides arrangements for changing the size of police authorities subsequently in ways which seem more complex than those available in the Bill.
        There are some significant policy and technical problems in the drafting and effect of the new clause. The main difficulty that it presents results from the requirement to subject to affirmative resolution an order to settle the initial size of every police authority. That order could not be made until Parliament returns at the end of October. Appointments to police authorities could not be made until well after that date, and there would be particular delay in the case of independent members. Therefore, it would not be possible to set up the new police authorities in time for them to take the steps necessary for implementation on 1 April 1995, which is the relevant date.
        Implementation would have to be delayed for a year, thus prolonging the processes of change and the uncertainty in police forces and police authorities, and that would not be advisable. There are other difficulties. It seems strange that under new clause 18(5) the initiative for subsequent variations in the size of police authorities would rest exclusively with the new police authority. The Bill is deliberately silent on that matter: the initiative for enlargement may come from any interested party, and that must be right.
        The new clause provides an exhaustive list of grounds for varying the size of police authorities. The trouble with such a list is that, if an authority wanted to vary the size on some other ground, the new clause as drafted would rule it out and would be unduly inflexible. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
        Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are technical and deal with the practical consequences of the revocation or variation of an order to enlarge a police authority and are fairly straightforward.
        Amendment No. 22 relates to paragraph 4 of schedule 1B of the Police Act 1964, which is inserted by schedule 2 to the Bill. That paragraph sets out certain requirements as to the political balance between the council and members of police authorities. In some police areas, only one relevant council will make appointments to the police authority. In that case, the appointments are made by the council itself and will be required to reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of that council.
        230
        In police areas covering more than one relevant council, the appointments are made by a joint committee and must reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the relevant councils when taken as a whole. Thus, for example, in a police area covering three relevant councils, all of which have the same majority party, the appointments to the police authority would not automatically all come from that party: if there were significant minority parties on each of the councils, their members would have to be considered in assessing political balance. I am sure that the House will agree that that is right.
        We should not give the right to representation on police authorities exclusively to those in the majority party on the relevant councils. The amendment aims to do precisely that and seems to want to reflect only the majority party interest. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) goes wider than the South Wales police authority in the three Glamorgan counties, but the principle remains the same. The amendment is wrong and would not deal sensibly with political balance.
        I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Schedule 2 requires all police authority members to step down when they reach the age of 70. We had an interesting debate on that in Committee. The amendments would remove that limit and allow some police authority members to carry on indefinitely, regardless of age. I understand the strong feelings of some hon. Members on this issue, which was discussed at length in another place and in Committee.
        As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth rightly said, there is no hard and fast rule that a 69-year-old is fit and active while a 70-year-old is past it. We could all cite examples, as the hon. Gentleman did, of people who have contributed a great deal, in all walks of life, at advanced ages. Equally, we could cite examples of people who have carried on well beyond the age at which it would have been better to step down.
        There should be a clear indication of the age at which police authority members should be expected to step down because that is a fair, consistent and dignified way for people to retire from involvement in a police authority.
        Mr. Andrew Miller: The Minister spoke of a majority party having power under our amendment. The county of Cheshire is controlled by an alliance of the Conservative and Liberal parties, but the power brokers in that situation have chosen to appoint a Labour member as chairman of the authority. Under the clause, he would be disqualified. If the Minister is interested in local agreements, how can he say that such an appointment would be wrong? Should he not reflect further on that?
        8.15 pm
        Mr. Wardle: I do not think so. As I said earlier, the requirements are that the elected council members of the new police authority should fairly reflect the representation on the constituent councils. It will be up to individual councils to meet and discuss that in the light of the requirement that is placed on them. The requirement is straightforward and understandable. Above all, it is fair.
        Returning to the subject of the retirement age, I remind the House that magistrates are already required to step down from the bench when they reach the age of 70. That is why we chose that age for all police authority members.

        231
        It seems right that all such members should be on the same footing. The amendments would allow councillors and independent members to carry on indefinitely while their magistrate colleagues would be required to step down. That would be neither logical nor fair, although I understand the feelings that were expressed in Committee, in this House and in another place. The Bill is better as it stands, without the amendments.
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I am always glad to listen to advice from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I did so carefully when he spoke to his new clause 20, which seeks to alter the way in which members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland are appointed. It would allow the majority of the authority's members to be appointed by the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland.
        I am aware that there has been considerable discussion about the composition of, and appointments to, police authorities in England and Wales, but the circumstances in which the police and the police authority must operate in Northern Ireland are vastly different. In Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State appoints all the members of the authority. He is required to exercise his powers to ensure the appointment of individuals who are representative of various interests such as local authorities, commerce and child welfare organisations and also to ensure that the authority's membership is representative of the Northern Ireland community as a whole.
        That was the system recommended in the Hunt report, which has provided the model for policing structures in Northern Ireland since the establishment of the police authority in 1970. The system of appointment has served the Province well since then. The authority has shown commitment and fair-mindedness in performing its functions in the most difficult circumstances. It has sought to serve the whole community in Northern Ireland and for that it deserves the highest praise.
        Many of those who have served with such dedication have been local councillors and members of the political parties in the Province. The majority of the members of the authority that was appointed recently—on 29 June—were nominated by local authorities and other bodies; that fine tradition continues.
        The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the chairmanship. I am glad to confirm that the appointment of Mr. Cook—a distinguished solicitor—was announced today.
        I fear that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would endanger the tradition to which I have referred, while adding little in the way of electoral accountability. The Association of Local Authorities for Northern Ireland is a voluntary association with no statutory role in policing matters; nor does it represent all Northern Ireland's local authorities.
        I note that the new clause does not explain how the chairman and vice-chairman of the authority are to be chosen. The last thing that I would wish to see is an authority riven by party political considerations, or open to accusations of domination by one group or another. Policing in Northern Ireland must be for all the community, and I consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal a retrograde move away from that principle.
        232
        I am far from certain—the hon. Gentleman himself recognised this difficulty—that it would be appropriate for registered magistrates in Northern Ireland who are full-time, legally qualified members of the judiciary to be members of a body whose remit will inevitably involve it in questions with political and security overtones. Their position is different from that of local justices of the peace who serve on authorities in England and Wales.
        Finally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently published a document making proposals and inviting comments on the future of policing structures in Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the responses, including that of the hon. Gentleman's party—members of which I had the pleasure of meeting recently. Those responses will be considered very carefully.
        I suggest that this is not the proper time to make changes to the arrangements for appointing the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, and that the measures proposed by the hon. Gentleman are neither appropriate nor desirable—although I shall of course reflect on them very carefully.
        Question put and negatived.

    New clause 19
      COMMON RULES FOR GRANT-MAKING
      'After section 30 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
      COMMON RULES FOR GRANT-MAKING

        Common rules for determination of police grant
        30A. —(1) Any determination of the amount of grant to be made by the Secretary of State to each authority under the provisions of section 31(2)(b) below shall be governed by common rules which the Secretary of State shall issue no later than six months before the financial year to which the determinations relate.
        (2) Before issuing the common rules, or any revision of existing common rules, under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief constables of forces maintained by those authorities".'. — [Mr. Michael.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 63, in clause 16, page 11, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
        Government amendment No. 43.
        Mr. Michael: We seek to ensure that the legislation allows for fairness in the determination of grant for police authorities. This is a difficult issue and at various times it has been felt that there is some unfairness in the way in which the grant is allocated—not least in areas of south Wales such as Aberdare, Merthyr, Penarth and Barry, which are currently treated as rural areas. I am sure that improvements could be made, and that the method of distribution could be fairer.
        First, the new clause asks for the rules applying to the determination of grant to be common and to be applied fairly across police forces throughout England and Wales. Secondly, it asks that the rules should be understood. We propose that the Secretary of State should issue, no later than six months before the financial year, the common rules on which determinations will be made. Thirdly, we wish the Home Secretary to consult

        233
        "persons representative of police authorities and of chief constables of forces maintained by those authorities"
        before the common rules are determined. That seems eminently sensible and fair.
        We seek to delete the part of the Bill that states:
        "The considerations which the Secretary of State takes into account in making a determination…may be different for different authorities or different classes of authority."
        Some considerations may not apply to certain authorities—the difference between "urban" and "rural", and the nature of royal residences, large public buildings or venues for major events.
        Such considerations affect the policing of an area, however, and should therefore be taken into account in the authorities where they apply—but the rules should be common. The applicability of the rules may vary from authority to authority, but it seems wrong to leave the extensive discretion that seems to imply that the Home Secretary could more or less make it up as he went along, varying the rules applying to the determination of grant levels without real reason and almost at whim.
        In Committee, the Minister confirmed that the Home Secretary was being granted complete discretion on the distribution of grant. He said:
        "The Bill takes special care to avoid imposing such rules and specifically provides a discretion instead of a duty for the Secretary of State to use formulae or rules to allocate grant…The Bill is also designed to provide him with a power to apply any formulae or rules to part of the total grant only, and it allows him to treat different police authorities differently. That is for good reason."
        That is a matter of dispute. I have suggested a way in which flexibility could be introduced to allow recognition of the different responsibilities and burdens carried by different police authorities. Surely it is wrong in principle and practice to legislate for unfairness, which is effectively what the Home Secretary is trying to do.
        In Committee, the Minister alluded to work that was in hand on the
        "means of allocating grant to police authorities."
        That work should have been in hand for many years. I have been commenting for five or six years on the method of distributing grant, and I am sure that some hon. Members have done so for much longer. Everyone knows that work needs to be done and proper conclusions need to be reached.
        It should also be recognised that the work is effectively being conducted in private by a working group with no formal status. The Home Secretary is certainly not bound by the group's eventual recommendations; nor can there be any guarantee that the new formula for the allocation of police grant will fully accord with the formula used by the Secretary of State for the Environment to allocate police standard spending assessments.
        Even at this late stage, there is no clarity about the intended treatment of the Metropolitan police in the grant distribution formula. Do the Government intend them to be subject to the same formula, or will they be treated as a separate class of police authority with a separate formula?
        There is a glaring anomaly in regard to police authorities in Wales. When asked to give the SSAs of police authorities in England and Wales, the Home Secretary is able to provide those relating to England, but cannot give those for authorities in Wales; he refers that to the Welsh Office. Why does he not refer the SSAs for English authorities to the Department of the Environment?
        234
        I know from a conversation with the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, that in fact the SSAs are available in the Home Office. I do not understand the secrecy about information that is readily to hand and could be given by Ministers without delay. That, however, is an anomaly within an anomaly, rather than the main thrust of the debate.
        The Minister rightly recognised that it is
        "quite unlikely any formulae could succeed from day one in fairly allocating grant to all police authorities without some modification."
        He said:
        "We intend to introduce any changes gradually by mitigating to an acceptable level the year-on-year changes."
        However, that again calls into question the likelihood of a common formula being applied to both grant and SSAs.
        The Minister argued that the application of common rules
        "would result in police authorities suffering an abrupt and unacceptable change in funding."
        That is not necessarily the case. We would expect common rules to be drawn up covering both the distribution formula and any transitional damping mechanism required to mitigate its immediate effects. It should be within the competence of the Home Office to deliver such rules—in other words, common rules, and the means of moving from the present system to those rules.
        On consultation, the Minister argued that the requirement to consult formally on grant distribution would lead duplication and confusion if
        "the Government, through two Departments, were seen to be consulting twice on the same matter." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 May 1994; c. 294–95.]
        Elsewhere in the discussion, the Minister was keen to draw a clear distinction between the grant and SSA allocations. As I have said, in the case of relations with the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment the Minister is more than willing to act in completely different ways.
        The Minister cannot have it both ways—or, it seems, three or four ways. By putting the consultation on police grant on a similar footing to revenue support grant and SSAs—which is the purpose of amendment No. 116—greater consistency might be achieved. Those are simple, straightforward practical amendments, that seek to bring a degree of dependability and consistency to the way in which the grant to police authorities is calculated. I commend them to the House.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Charles Wardle: This is not a case of legislating for unfairness. We had a full debate on the subject in Committee and I made the Government's position absolutely clear. We believe that adopting common rules to allocate police grant would prevent us from funding the Metropolitan police in a suitable, satisfactory and adequate fashion, and from introducing funding changes gradually.
        I explained in Committee why we cannot accept an amendment saying that the Home Secretary's determination should be governed by common rules. Reference to common rules implies that the same rules must be applied to each police authority, and that cannot be squared either with the funding of the Metropolitan police, which we all agree requires additional funding for a range of national and capital city functions, or with introducing any funding changes gradually so as to avoid large swings in resource allocation.

        235
        The Bill specifically provides discretion rather than a duty on the part of the Secretary of State to use the rules to determine the allocation of grant. It lets him treat different police authorities differently. I appreciate that, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said, the provisions are wide, but they are essential to achieve the flexibility of funding necessary to accommodate both the funding of the London force and the gradual move to formula funding.
        The provision is practical and, for that reason, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I appreciate that the motivation behind the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State allocates police grant with the maximum possible input from those directly affected by the decision, but, as I have explained, there are real practical difficulties with the new clause. The proposed new section 30A(2) of the Police Act 1964 would require the Home Secretary to consult on the common rules.
        However, as the House knows, the Secretary of State for the Environment already consults local government on the amount of revenue support grant to be paid to local authorities. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned that. A similar, although not precisely identical, process is undertaken by the Secretary of State for Wales. Under the new police funding regime to be introduced by the Bill, the consultations will include the allocation of standard spending assessments to the new police authorities.
        There is, of course, a parallel between those allocations and the way in which Home Office specific grant will be distributed between authorities. If we were to consult on the distribution of police grant, that would duplicate an element of the consultation already undertaken within the Department of the Environment. Potentially at least, it would be a recipe for confusion if we were to consult twice, and even more so if, in each group, some of those consulted were the same as those in other groups and some were not. I hope that the House will appreciate that this is a difficult area, and we cannot give the commitments that the hon. Gentleman seeks, so I urge the House to reject the new clause.
        I shall now deal briefly with amendment No. 43, in the name of the Home Secretary. It would make a small change to clause 30, which provides for the new police authorities to receive initial financing grant before they take over their full responsibilities. Under clause 30, the Secretary of State will be able to make grants to the new police authorities during the current financial year. That will give them, once they are set up, the financing necessary to operate in parallel with the existing police authorities until April next year. It will also enable them to spend money on gearing up the police forces for whose maintenance they will assume full responsibility next April, and to fulfil their full management tasks.
        As currently drafted, clause 30 allows the Home Secretary to make the initial financing grants to the new police authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them, and it means that the grant cannot be made after the expenditure is incurred. We now consider that it would be prudent to ensure that grant can be paid where necessary before the expenditure in respect of which it is made has been incurred. For that reason, I commend the Government amendment to the House.
        Question put and negatived.

    Clause 1

      POLICE AREAS
      Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 1, line 19, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 48 and Government amendment No. 57, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—

      POLICE AREAS

        'Alteration of Welsh police areas on local government reorganisation
        21AA.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order made before 1st April 1996 make such alterations to police areas in Wales as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reorganisation of local government in Wales taking place on that date.
        (2) The alterations that may be made by an order under subsection (1) of this section include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of police areas, but not alterations that result in the division of any county or county borough between two or more police areas.
        (3) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1) of this section only after he has consulted every body within the following paragraphs which is in existence when the order is made—

        (a) the police authorities established under section 3 of this Act for the police areas altered by the order,

        (b) the police authorities which are to be superseded by the police authorities mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

        (c) the county councils which—

        (i) are the councils of counties wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order, and

        (ii) are to cease to exist on 1st April 1996 by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;

        (d) the councils of the counties and county boroughs established by virtue of that Act which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order; and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'

        Amendment (a) to amendment No. 57, in subsection (2), leave out 'a reduction or'.
        Amendment (b) to amendment No. 57, after subsection 3(d), at end insert—
        '(e) Members of Parliament representing constituencies which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;'.
        Government amendments Nos. 49, 58 to 60 and 50 to 55.
        Mr. Wardle: The amendments are necessary to enable us, after Royal Assent, to settle outstanding questions relating to the police boundaries in Wales. As the House will know, the Bill has been proceeding through Parliament at about the same pace as the Local Government (Wales) Bill. By convention, each Bill is drafted as if the other Bill did not exist, so as not to anticipate Parliament's decision on either Bill. The Welsh Bill is about to receive Royal Assent, so we now need to make an amendment to take account of the new local government boundaries to be created in Wales from 1 April 1996.
        As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) knows, for North Wales and Dyfed-Powys police areas that would be entirely straightforward, with only minor boundary changes. But the shape of the new boundaries in south Wales will require significant changes to the boundaries of the South Wales and Gwent police areas, because the Rhymney valley—the new Caerphilly

        237
        district—straddles the existing boundary between those two police areas. The boundaries of the new district were not finally settled until a late stage during proceedings on the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
        Although we have been discussing with the two police authorities and the two police forces the options available for settling the boundaries, those discussions obviously could not be brought to a conclusion until the boundaries of the new local government areas were settled. The changes affecting the South Wales and Gwent police areas are quite large, and it is obviously right that we should give sufficient time for all concerned to consider the available options. My right hon. and learned Friend would not want to impose a solution now, when there will not have been sufficient time for the police authorities—or, indeed, for my right hon. and learned Friend himself—to consider all the available information, including an assessment of the policing implications of the available options on the basis of the boundaries so recently, decided.
        The powers provided by the amendments will therefore require the Secretary of State, before 1 April 1996 when the Welsh local government changes take effect, to make an order—or if necessary more than one order, although that seems unlikely—settling the police boundaries in Wales. I can confirm that for North Wales and Dyfed-Powys we expect that the order will merely redefine the existing boundaries, in terms of the new Welsh local government areas, including some small but important changes in the north-east of Dyfed-Powys police area necessitated by the Welsh local government changes.
        I cannot, however, say what will need to be done in South Wales and Gwent. The position today is that my right hon. and learned Friend has not reached any decision on how to resolve the boundary problem affecting the South Wales and Gwent police areas. Discussions have been going on with the police authorities, on the basis of the available options.
        There are three options, any of which could be put into effect by means of the powers set out in the amendment. The first option is to put the whole of the new district covering the Rhymney valley into the Gwent police area, making the Gwent force somewhat larger than it is at present. The second option is to put the whole of the new district into the South Wales police area, which would make the South Wales force a little larger and the Gwent force somewhat smaller. The third is for the two police areas to be combined.
        The discussions already held with those concerned mean that we have committed ourselves to a process of consultation on the basis for those three options. Although we do not want prolonged uncertainty, my right hon. and learned Friend certainly will not rush into a decision; we want the policing needs of the area, and the wishes of those concerned in the area, to be properly explored. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have discussed that subject at some length—most constructively, I feel. The amendment includes a requirement for consultation, which in a sense is unnecessary because we have already made it clear that we are committed to that course.
        If those concerned in the area could reach agreement on a way forward on a basis that provides a solution that my right hon. and learned Friend regards as satisfactory in
        238
        policing terms, he would use the new power to give effect to that agreement. We certainly want to proceed on the basis of agreement if we possibly can. That has been the purpose of the discussions that have been going on locally. We have received welcome indications in the past few days, since the amendment was tabled, that agreement seems more likely. The two police authorities have asked for postponement of a meeting with Home Office officials, which was due to take place tomorrow, so that they can have more time to discuss matters between themselves; I welcome that development. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is aware of that and has been having discussions himself.
        The other, minor, amendments in the group are consequential and enable the necessary changes to be made to the schedule that defines the boundaries of the police areas, which will need to be amended to define Welsh police areas by reference to the new Welsh local government areas. They will permit transitional provisions in the order and deal with other minor and entirely consequential matters.
        Mr. Michael: I welcome both the spirit in which the Minister wrote to me about his intentions with regard to the amendments and the way in which he has introduced them today. I accept that most of the amendments in the group are minor and consequential and are intended to make two pieces of legislation fit together. I do not intend to take time on them. Instead, I shall come straight to one issue that is of major concern and on which, in the light of what the Minister said, I hope we may proceed in a spirit of co-operation. That issue is the impact on police authority boundaries of the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
        Will the Minister confirm that it is only in relation to local government reorganisation arising from the Local Government (Wales) Bill that those powers can or will be exercised, and that he will not seek to use the powers except as a consequence of the boundary changes which would make a change necessary?
        Mr. Charles Wardle indicated assent.
        Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the Minister's indication of assent. Will he also confirm that there are only two places where boundary changes are relevant to that extent? The first of those is the Llanrhaiadr-ym-Mochnant and Llanfyllin area. My understanding is that everyone agrees that that can be dealt with as a simple consequence and that there is no question of having to use powers to merge or vary police authorities to any great extent, but that any transfer of resources and responsibilities can be and will be dealt with by agreement in a fairly simple manner.
        Mr. Wardle indicated assent.
        Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating his assent on that point.
        That leaves the Rhymney and Islwyn area. The Rhymney area, currently in the South Wales police authority, and the Islwyn area, currently in the Gwent police authority, would come together to compose the new Caerphilly authority. Am I right in assuming that it is only in resolving the impact of that boundary change on police authority boundaries that any question arises, and that outside that, there would be no intention at all of using the powers? The Minister is indicating that that is where we have a problem, which is extremely helpful, because that

        239
        makes it easy for us to have a common purpose—to end up with an agreement on the right form of policing for that area.
        As the Minister rightly said, there have been meetings during the past week, and I was delighted when I met representatives of each of the four county councils—the three Glamorgans and Gwent—to find that the members and the leaders of those authorities are, indeed, keen to find common agreement which could lead to a recommendation to the Department.
        Obviously, it takes a little more work to reach a specific recommendation. However, I can tell the Minister that, at the meeting that I requested, which was held at very short notice in the past week, agreement was reached that the two clerks of the police authorities would write jointly to all members of both police authorities to call them to a meeting at which it is intended that the two chief constables will speak on the policing issues relating to the Rhymney and Islwyn area. That positive spirit gives us a possibility of reaching agreement.
        Any hon. Member—a number of Welsh colleagues have spoken to me—would be concerned about any suggestion that a merger was about to occur. The reassurance given by the Minister of State in another place was referred to earlier. He said:
        "My right hon. Friend has no intention at present of amalgamating anything, but it is perfectly possible in the course of the next 10, 20 or 30 years that amalgamations will have to take place." —[Official Report, House of Lords, Vol.551, c.324.]
        I take it that the Minister would be willing to reassure us that his intention in Wales is not to depart in any way from the spirit and substance of that earlier reassurance.
        The Minister will know of the sensitivity in relation to the Gwent police force and the Dyfed-Powys police force. There is also a feeling that we do not want the South Wales police force to become over-large. Indeed, the North Wales police force serves a considerable area. It is the area in which I was born and brought up, so I take a personal interest—as do hon. Members of all the parties represented in Wales.
        I have tabled three small amendments to amendment No. 57. The first would leave out the words "a reduction or". That would mean a retention of the same number of police forces in Wales or—I say with tongue in cheek—an increase in the number of police forces in Wales. For instance, the Minister may have it in mind to deal with the situation by splitting the South Wales police force in two, although he has not referred to such a suggestion.
        If we are talking of any reorganisation that is not simply consequential, we should look at all the options. If we ruled out the reduction in the number of police forces in Wales and established that there would be no intention of bringing it down from four, it would be extremely helpful. Obviously, I would be greatly reassured if the Minister would accept that amendment. If he cannot, a positive response, in the spirit in which I have moved the amendment, would be helpful.
        8.45 pm
        Secondly, I would insert as consultees the
        "Members of Parliament representing constituencies which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;".
        That would refer only to the South Wales police and Gwent police areas. Thanks to the Minister's courtesy in writing to me last week, I have been able to speak to large numbers of my colleagues in Gwent and in South Wales, and, in
        240
        doing so, have observed not only party boundaries in doing so. There is a great deal of interest among Members of Parliament in the policing of their areas.
        Sir Jerry Wiggin: None of them are here.
        Mr. Michael: I speak for them. The hon. Gentleman, who has wandered into the Chamber at a late hour, probably after a heavy dinner, ought to behave himself and listen to the debate, rather than interrupting in an unhelpful way.
        Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a great deal of interest in the matter. One Opposition Member has just come in, but when I came in—and I am not especially interested in the matter—there was a complete absence of Opposition Members of any kind. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to make such assertions when they are clearly untrue?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair obviously observes that interest can be measured either by quality or quantity.
        Mr. Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although we did not have much quality in that intervention. Throughout the Gwent and South Wales police authorities, my hon. Friends have taken part in constructive discussions on those issues outside the Chamber. I am conveying their composite views to the Minister, who has treated the matter seriously and with courtesy. The hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate does him no credit.
        Perhaps we may return to serious business. The interest of Members of Parliament has been constructive during the past few days and will continue to be so. We have arranged for an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss the issue in the hope that we, as well as the police authorities, may move towards a consensus. That would be helpful to the Minister, helpful to good policing in the area and helpful to the general atmosphere in which policing may continue.
        My third amendment asks the Secretary of State to use his best endeavours to proceed by consensus in making orders under subsection (1). The amendment was not selected, but I hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will confirm that he will seek the use of these powers only in the context outlined in the amendment—I hope that he can answer in that spirit—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would not be in order for the Minister to respond to amendment (c). It was not selected. Whatever spirit moves hon. Members outside this Chamber is for them to determine—but not now and not here.
        Mr. Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just want some idea of how the Minister will exercise the powers that this House is about to grant him; I am sure that that will influence the minds of right hon. and hon. Members when they respond to the Minister's request.
        I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has approached this issue. In return, I offer him a spirit of co-operation on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies throughout south Wales and in Gwent. If the matter is carried through in this atmosphere, I hope that we will be able to come up with a single proposal for the Minister which he will be able in turn to recommend to his right hon. and learned Friend.

        241
        I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to my points. Any reassurances from him will take us a long way forward.
        Mr. Jonathan Evans: The amendment caused some consternation in the Dyfed-Powys area, both on the part of the chief constable and on the part of the clerk to the police authority.
        I have been greatly reassured by the Minister's remarks today. I note that he has communicated with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Had the chief constable and clerk of the Dyfed-Powys police authority been notified, a great deal less activity than has taken place in the past three days would have been necessary. The Dyfed-Powys police authority runs a small force, and it has been anxious about the prospect of amalgamation or of changes to its boundaries.
        I note what my hon. Friend has said, and on the basis of his assurance that there is no intention to alter the Dyfed-Powys boundaries—apart from what has been outlined in respect of the changes in the north-east corner following on from the Local Government (Wales) Bill—I am content with his proposal.
        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I served on the Standing Committee that discussed the Local Government (Wales) Bill, and I, too, am relieved to hear that there are no immediate plans for amalgamations. During the passage of that Bill, five fire brigades and five ambulance services disappeared in Wales—their numbers were cut from eight to three—so I came here this evening with some trepidation, as did other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
        I am greatly reassured by the Minister's remarks, and greatly relieved that our four excellent police forces in Wales are to be fully retained.
        Mr. Charles Wardle: I hope that this debate will have provided the clarification sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I listened with care to what the latter had to say about amendments (a) and (b). Perhaps it will be convenient for the House if I add a few remarks about them. I hope that I can deal with them quickly and in a way that will provide the hon. Gentleman with the further assurance that he wants. Incidentally, I commend him for the constructive way in which he has participated in these affairs.
        The second amendment deals with consultation with Members of Parliament. I will always carefully consider any views expressed by hon. Members. In relation to the boundary problems between south Wales and Gwent, local Members, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, are well aware of the issues.
        The second amendment, in respect of north Wales and Dyfed-Powys, is equally unnecessary. Those police areas are in effect settled, as I am sure those concerned will confirm, when we begin to use the powers that the Government amendment will give us.
        On the first amendment, I have already made it clear that we will proceed on the basis of agreement if we possibly can. I suggest that adding an undertaking to the Bill would be unnecessary. We cannot guarantee to proceed by agreement or rule out the possibility of amalgamation until we know that agreement has been
        242
        reached between the parties, and that any agreement that they may reach represents a satisfactory solution in policing terms.
        As a result of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has had to say, and of what I have learnt recently, I am now more hopeful that these conditions will in due course be satisfied. But the House will acknowledge that they certainly have not been met yet. Until we can be certain that a satisfactory agreement can be reached, it would be wrong not to have powers that just might be needed. Without them, my right hon. and learned Friend risks being put in the impossible position of having no power to resolve an impasse between the authorities, or no alternative but to implement arrangements that he regarded as unsatisfactory in policing terms. That would not be a responsible way to proceed, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand. Given these assurances, I hope he will feel able not to move his amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3
      MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE AUTHORITIES ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
      MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE AUTHORITIES ETC.

        'Reductions in size of police authorities
        3B. — (1) This section applies to any order under subsection (2) of section 3A of this Act which varies or revokes an earlier order so as to reduce the number of a police authority's members.
        (2) Before making an order to which this section applies, the Secretary of State shall consult—

        (a) the authority,

        (b) the councils which are relevant councils in relation to the authority for the purposes of Schedule 1B to this Act, and

        (c) any panel (or magistrates' courts committee) which is responsible, or is represented on a joint committee which is responsible, for the appointment of members of the authority.

        (3) An order to which this section applies may include provision as to the termination of the appointment of the existing members of the authority and the making of new appointments or re-appointments." ' — [Mr. Charles Wardle.]

    Clause 13

      ALTERATION OF POLICE AREAS
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 7, line 40, after 'county,' insert—
      '() a county borough in Wales,'.
      No. 57, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—

      ALTERATION OF POLICE AREAS

        'Alteration of Welsh police areas on local government reorganisation
        21 AA. — (1) The Secretary of State shall by order made before 1st April 1996 make such alterations to police areas in Wales as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reorganisation of local government in Wales taking place on that date.
        (2) The alterations that may be made by an order under subsection (1) of this section include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of police areas, but not alterations that result in the division of any county or county borough between two or more police areas.
        (3) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1) of this section only after he has consulted every body within the following paragraphs which is in existence when the order is made—

        (a) the police authorities established under section 3 of this Act for the police areas altered by the order,

        243

        (b) the police authorities which are to be superseded by the police authorities mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

        (c) the county councils which—

        (i) are the councils of counties wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order, and

        (ii) are to cease to exist on 1st April 1996 by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;

        (d) the councils of the counties and county boroughs established by virtue of that Act which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;

        and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'
        No. 49, in page 8, line 8, after 'district' insert county borough'.
        No. 58, in page 8, line 43, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
        No. 59, in page 9, line 5, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
        No. 60, in page 9, line 24, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

    Clause 18

      APPEALS AGAINST DISMISSAL ETC.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 13, line 26, after 'rank', insert
      ', or made subject to a permanent ban on promotion, or is fined a sum exceeding one week's pay'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 67, in schedule 3, page 62, line 31, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 33 and insert
      'The costs of an appellant shall be defrayed out of the police fund of the relevant police authority unless the tribunal directs otherwise'.
      No. 69, in schedule 6, page 80, line 8, at end insert
      'nominated by the appropriate staff association.'.
      Mr. O'Brien: Here we seek to challenge the Government's view of how the Police Act 1964 should allow appeals. The Government suggest that appeals to the police appeals tribunal would be allowed only when an officer has been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank. An appeal to the tribunal would not be allowed when the officer was fined or subjected to a permanent ban on promotion.
      In my submission, this creates an anomaly. Let us consider an allegation of improper conduct made against an inspector and against a constable and based on exactly the same facts. Suppose that the allegation is proved in the first hearing, and the inspector is demoted. Suppose that the constable is fined £700. Both appeal to their chief constable, and are refused.
      The situation of the two officers then diverges, because the inspector is entitled to appeal to the police appeals tribunal. He wins. His demotion is reversed; but the police constable cannot appeal to the police appeals tribunal, so he has to pay the £700 fine. In effect, he remains convicted of that disciplinary offence. Such an unjust result cannot be sustained in all conscience. The matter should not be left like that. The amendment seeks equity and justice in police disciplinary rules. If he refuses to support the amendment, the Minister will have to justify allowing such an anomaly to exist.
      On amendment No. 67, the Bill reverses the current position whereby the appellant is liable to pay the costs, including his own, only if the Secretary of State should so direct and he is required to give a reason for doing so. The
      244
      effect of the Government's provision would be to discourage officers who have been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank—and who have therefore already suffered a severe penalty—from appealing to the police appeals tribunal. Many officers will be concerned that they will not be able to afford an appeal, which would undermine police confidence in the disciplinary system.
      Surely, my proposal is the best course of action. Where an officer has made a legitimate and arguable appeal, where there is a real case, his costs should be paid by the police authority; where the case is frivolous, the tribunal may direct that he loses his costs. The amendment would enable the police appeals tribunal to stop frivolous appeals and prevent waste of public money but, at the same time, it would allow officers to exercise their legitimate right to appeal.
      9 pm
      The Government's proposal creates injustice by deterring an officer from exercising his right of appeal. The clause contains no commitment even to pay an officer's costs when he wins a case.
      Amendment No. 69 seeks to place in statute the principle that staff associations will be represented on the police appeals tribunal. In principle, the Government do not demur from that suggestion and appear to accept it. If that is the case, let us include it in the Bill and ensure that staff associations have that safeguard. I therefore ask my hon. Friends and Conservative Members to support the amendment, the police and justice in police disciplinary rules.
      Mr. Shersby: I had intended that my name should appear on the amendments with that of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), but unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding in the Public Bill Office, that did not happen. I want to make it clear, however, that I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks on these important amendments.
      I want particularly to concentrate my attention on amendment No. 67, the purpose of which is to retain the existing position whereby an appellant's costs are defrayed out of the relevant police authority police fund unless the tribunal decides otherwise. I want that position to continue. The Bill will have the effect of providing that an appellant police officer shall pay the whole of his or her costs unless the police appeals tribunal directs otherwise. As the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North said, that is a reversal of the current position whereby the police fund meets the costs unless the Secretary of State is minded to direct otherwise.
      I greatly regret the proposed reversal of the present position and the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to introduce the proposal. The clear effect of the Bill's provision will be to discourage officers who have been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank, and who have already suffered a severe financial penalty, from appealing to the police appeals tribunal. Obviously, they will be deterred because they will not know whether they will receive their costs.
      Many officers will plainly be unable to afford the cost of an appeal, and that could have a serious effect on confidence in the police discipline system, which, as all hon. Members know, is vital to the way in which our police service operates. I must ask why my right hon. and learned Friend has made this proposal. To my knowledge, the

      245
      Government have not produced any evidence to show that the appeal system has been abused. If they had, we might have addressed our minds to the problem. I certainly have not seen any evidence of abuse.
      The House knows only too well that police officers face an inordinate number of problems on the street. Individuals are prone to making allegations for malicious purposes. Many villains have nothing to lose by making serious allegations against police officers, and they do so.
      By refusing to allow the payment of an appellant's costs, the Bill runs contrary to the spirit that has pervaded the relationship between the Home Office and the police for many years and adds to the pressures facing police officers. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a considerate colleague. He is regarded in all parts of the House as a great supporter of the police service. If he is unable to accept amendment No. 65, will he at least assure the House that costs will be awarded to an officer who wins his or her case?
      In other such cases, an individual might apply for and receive legal aid. A police officer cannot apply for legal aid and will not know until a case is completed whether his or her costs have been awarded. If an officer wins, it is only fair and reasonable for costs to follow. That would at least offer some assurance to officers who are genuinely worried by this small but significant change by the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North and me some assurance that will enable us to tell the Police Federation and other staff associations that the Government are mindful of the changes that the Bill will make if it is enacted.
      Mr. Charles Wardle: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), but I was not convinced by their arguments. I shall first address amendment No. 65 before dealing at greater length with amendment No. 67, on which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman dwelt.
      It was originally envisaged that the tribunals would provide police officers with access to external review in situations where employees have access to industrial tribunals.
      No one can argue that we have not listened to the arguments of the staff associations or Opposition Members. One example of our readiness to meet possible sources of genuine concern is the fact that we have already introduced a Government amendment adding reduction in rank to the matters that may be appealed to the tribunal—a matter which, in outside employment, might be interpreted by industrial tribunals as constructive dismissal.
      Amendment No 65. suggests that the review should cover a number of matters. A permanent ban on promotion is not a matter on which the Home Secretary can make regulations, so there is no need to consider rights of appeal. Fines, at whatever level, are essentially internal matters. If a large fine were to be imposed—I do not comment on whether fines will continue to be part of the pattern of police personnel arrangements—the officer could appeal to his chief constable that the amount concerned was out of all proportion to his offence. If the chief constable did not
      246
      agree, it would be fair to conclude that the officer's actions were regarded gravely by the management of his or her force and that the amount ordered was not unfair.
      I do not therefore see a role for the new police appeal tribunals in internal matters; nor, as a matter of practicality, would I wish to see such an elaborate and expensive system burdened with such relatively trivial issues that would prejudice and could delay the consideration of more substantive cases.
      Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours: I did not serve on the Committee that considered the Bill and therefore I am not aware of all the intricate matters that were debated in Committee, but I understand that last year 1,916 complaints were made alleging incivility by police officers, many of which were made in London. I understand also that as the acts of incivility committed by police officers were not criminal offences and were not in breach of codes of practice, they will no longer be referrable to the Police Complaints Authority. Instead, they will be dealt with by the police internally. There will be no civilian oversight. Is that in the public interest? Is it true that the Bill will have that effect when enacted?
      Mr. Wardle: In short, the answer to the hon. Gentleman, who has just joined us—I am glad that he has—is yes.
      I move on to amendment No. 67 and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North. An appeal is justified only if there is some substantial injustice to remedy. When appellants challenge the decisions of those who are appointed to take them, it is not unreasonable to require them to have sufficient confidence in the rights of their cases to be prepared to meet their own costs. No one is suggesting that they should bear the costs of the tribunal as a whole or those of the police force.
      The outlay for an appeal does not have to be substantial. The stronger the grounds of appeal, the less special skills are required to present them. Whatever the grounds, an appeal tribunal will be willing to listen to appellants if they appear by themselves or with a friend. If they choose to employ professional advice, that must be a matter for them. If an appellant has a substantial or complex legal point to argue, I think that the appeal tribunal—however that were done—would grant him or her costs. It would almost certainly do so if the case were good enough for the appellant to win.
      I cannot value highly the importance of any appeal in which even the appellant has so little confidence in the likelihood of winning that he or she is unprepared to fund the costs. If that is the position, I cannot understand why the appeal should be made. There must be a degree of commitment.
      The amendment would result in the appellant's costs being paid in every case where the tribunal did not direct otherwise. That means that anyone who had been dismissed, required to resign, or reduced in rank could appeal at virtually no risk of incurring any cost no matter how clear the evidence against him and irrespective of how heinous the offence for which he had been disciplined. It is obvious without me saying more that such an arrangement would have a tendency to encourage appeals. If someone has nothing to lose, why should he not lodge an appeal? That is what happens now.

      247
      In cases in which the appeal has been considered to be without merit, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has generally regarded the expectation that costs will not be given against the appellant as being so strong that it would be unreasonably harsh to make a direction as to costs. That is not to say that that will always be the position. In one recent instance the appeal tribunal advised that the appellant should be required to pay his own costs as the appeal was entirely without merit. As a result, the appellant's costs were not met by the police fund. That case serves to illustrate the point that is made in the present draft of the Bill. Two of the factors to which the tribunals should give their attention are costs and whether there is sufficient merit in the appeal to justify payment of the appellant's costs.
      The present draft of the Bill deliberately reverses the current expectation that an appellant's costs will always be met. In future, the appellant will pay his or her costs unless the tribunal directs otherwise. A tribunal would make a direction in any case where the appellant won his appeal, but it might do so in cases in which it considered that the appellant had had a substantial case to argue which it was valid to bring before the tribunal.
      The arrangement that we propose is not an unusual one. It is the normal practice at tribunals that appellants bear their own costs. Industrial tribunal cases are fought on the basis of the appellant's own costs, as are teachers' appeals against a barring order made by the Secretary of State for Education. That is the position in most other actions that are brought before tribunals. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
      I recognise that the purpose behind amendment No. 69 is to put it beyond doubt that the fourth member of the police appeals tribunal, whom we added recently to take account of the concern that we did not have the balance completely right, should be selected from a list provided by the staff associations. The argument has already been put to me on the basis of the English provisions and the amendment refers to the Scottish forces. As I have said, while the detailed provisions have not yet been finalised, we intend to work closely with the police authorities and staff associations in drawing up the appropriate procedures and we are confident that this process will suffice to address the concerns which underlie the amendment. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that the House will recognise that the Minister failed to deal with the anomaly regarding the inspector and the constable that I put to him. In addition, he was not prepared to give the assurance sought that persons who win their appeals will receive their costs.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 23

      GRANTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 50, in page 15, line 40, after 'district' insert county borough'.
      No. 51, in page 15, line 43, after 'district' insert county borough' .—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

    Clause 30
      INITIAL FINANCING OF NEW POLICE AUTHORITIES
      Amendment made: No. 43, in page 17, line 40, after 'incurred' insert '(or to be incurred)' —[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
    Clause 38
      POLICE AREAS IN WALES: ALTERATIONS UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 21, line 17, leave out from 'that' to 'is' in line 20 and insert 'no county or county borough'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
    Clause 46
      CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
      Amendment made: No. 70, in page 23, line 43, leave out from 'force' to end of line 45.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
    Clause 58

      OTHER AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ACT
      Amendments made: No. 34, in page 29, line 23, at end insert—
      '(3A) In section 24 (effect of amalgamation scheme on constables engaged in service other than with their own force)—

      (a) in subsection (1) for the words from "either" to "transferred force" there shall be substituted the words "a person is engaged in relevant service within the meaning of section 38A of this Act";

      (b) in subsection (2) for the word "overseas" in each of the three places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "relevant"; and

      (c) in subsection (3), the words from "and the expression" onwards shall be omitted.'.

      No. 35, in page 29, line 35, leave out from '(a)' to '; and' in line 38 and insert
      'in subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 38A(3) of this Act".'. —[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

    Schedule 2

      SCHEDULES TO BE INSERTED IN POLICE ACT 1964: POLICE AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 56, line 1, after 'district' insert county borough'.
      No. 45, in page 56, line 18, after 'paragraphs' insert
      '(and to the provisions of any order under section 3A(2) of this Act)'
      No. 54, in page 57, line 39, after 'district' insert county borough'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

    Schedule 4

      APPLICATION TO POLICE AUTHORITIES OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 81, in page 65, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
      '(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A after the words "joint authority", there shall be inserted the words "or a Police Authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964".'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      No. 46, in page 70, line 41, after 'authority"' insert '(a)'.
      No. 47, in page 70, line 43, at end insert and

      249
      (b) in paragraph (b) at the end there shall be added the words "or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964,".'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

    Schedule 5

      POLICE: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 24, in page 73, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
      '(2) In subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 53C(3) of this Act".'
      No. 25, in page 75, leave out lines 3 to 17.
      No. 26, in page 75, leave out lines 23 to 36 and insert—

      POLICE: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
        19A. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 15, for sub-paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
        "(b) was engaged on service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, being service in respect of which section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 had effect; or
        (ba) was engaged on temporary service in accordance with section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967; or".

        Overseas Pensions Act 1973
        19B. In section 2 of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 (which makes provisions for superannuation schemes as respects certain overseas service), in subsection (2), for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—
        "(d) a person who is—
        (i) a member of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 53C(1)(a), (c) or (e) of the Police Act 1964 (service under section 15A of the Police Act 1964, under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980), or
        (ii) a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 38A(1)(a), (c) or (e) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (service under section 12A of that Act, section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980),
        and who is incapacitated or dies as a result of an injury sustained or disease contracted during that service;".

        Police Pensions Act 1976
        19C. In section 7 of the Police Pensions Act 1976 (payment of pensions and contributions), in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
        "(b) an officer engaged on service pursuant to' an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;
        (ba) a person engaged on temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
        (bb) a person engaged on service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose service is or was for the time being service in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have or had effect;".
        19D.—(1) Section 11 of that Act (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
        "(a) service as an officer pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;
        250
        (aa) temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
        (ab) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have effect;".
        (3) In subsection (2)(b) after the words "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),".
        (4) In subsection (3)—

        (a) in paragraph (b) after the words after the words "subsection (1)(a)," there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),', and

        (b) after the words "body in" there shall be inserted the words "or with".'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

    New clause 23

      PENSION ETC. OF JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, JUSTICES' CLERKS AND STAFF IN INNER LONDON AREA
      '—(1) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] (which re-enacts certain provisions relating to the functions of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District with respect to pensions etc. of court staff) shall have effect.
      (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision with respect to pensions, allowances or gratuities payable to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.
      (3) An order under subsection (2) above may—

      (a) itself make provision with respect to the pensions, allowances or gratuities which, subject to the fulfilment of such requirements and conditions as may be prescribed by the order, are to be or may be paid to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff, or

      (b) provide that the civil service provisions are to have effect, with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, in relation to the payment by such persons as may be so prescribed, out of such funds as may be so prescribed, of pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.

      (4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (2) and (3) above, an order under subsection (2)—

      (a) may include all or any of the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972, and

      (b) may make different provision as respects different classes of persons and different circumstances.

      (5) Paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972 shall have effect, in their application for the purposes of this section, as if references to regulations were references to an order under this section and references to the Secretary of State were references to the Lord Chancellor.
      (6) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (which relate to increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971) shall have effect in relation to an order under subsection (2) above as they have effect in relation to regulations under that section.
      (7) The Lord Chancellor may by order repeal or amend any of the relevant enactments, whether or not he makes provision under subsection (2) above.
      (8) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above may make such consequential, transitional, incidental or supplemental provision (including provision amending or repealing any provision of this Act, the 1979 Act or any other enactment) as the Lord Chancellor thinks necessary or expedient.
      (9) Before making an order under subsection (2) or (7) above the Lord Chancellor shall consult—

      (a) the inner London magistrates' courts committee,

      (b) such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned,

      (c) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and

      (d) such representatives of other persons likely to be affected by the proposed order as appear to him to be appropriate.

      251
      (10) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      (11) In this section—
      "the civil service provisions" has the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967,
      "inner London court staff' means the justices' chief executive employed by the inner London magistrates' courts committee, any justices' clerk for the inner London area and staff of the inner London magistrates' courts committee,
      "the inner London magistrates' courts committee" means the magistrates' courts committee for an area consisting of or including the inner London area or, if there is no such committee, every magistrates' courts committee for any area which consists of or includes any part of the inner London area, and
      "the relevant enactments" means—

      (a) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to this Act, and

      (b) section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs) so far as it relates to the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii) of that section.'—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 72 to 74.
      Mr. Taylor: The inner London service of the magistrates is to be disengaged from the receiver of the Metropolitan police from April 1996. That move has the full support of the inner London service. These provisions are consequential upon that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 10
      OUTER LONDON AREA
      'After section 43 of the 1979 Act there shall be inserted—
      OUTER LONDON AREA
        Part IV Outer London area

          Strategic management of outer London area
          43A.—(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this section a strategic management board consisting of the following members—

          (a) one member chosen from amongst themselves by the elected members from the magistrates' courts committees for the outer London Boroughs,

          (b) one representative chosen by itself of the London Boroughs Association, and

          (c) one representative chosen by itself of the Association of London Authorities.

          (2) The chairman of the board shall be chosen from amongst themselves by its members.
          (3) The board may discharge its duties through such agents and sub-committees as it may see fit to appoint, whether or not those agents or the members of those sub-committees are members of the board.
          (4) It shall be the duty of the board—

          (a) to keep under consideration the strategic management of the outer London area as a whole by overseeing the management of the magistrates' courts by the magistrates' courts committees within the outer London area,

          (b) to give advice and submit recommendations to any magistrates' courts committee within the outer London area concerning its use of resources and funds,

          252

          (c) to give advice and submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the use of resources and funds by each of the magistrates' courts committees within the outer London area,

          (d) to give advice and submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the allocation of grants by him to the magistrates' courts committees within the outer London area, and

          (e) to submit reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the discharge of his duty under section 63(4) of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 in so far as the discharge of that duty is relevant to the outer London area.".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Paul Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 6, in clause 63, page 32, line 30, at end insert
          'about the making of an order under subsection (3) above and for the purposes of receiving from such magistrates, magistrates' courts committees and interested authorities proposals for the establishment of a strategic management board for the area to which the order relates comprising one representative from each existing magistrates' courts committee within the area to which the order relates.
          (5A) Where the Lord Chancellor receives proposals under subsection (5) above an order shall not be made under subsection (3) above for the area for which proposals have been received until three years has elapsed since the establishment of such a board and the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that—

          (a) the criterion specified in subsection (4) above has been fulfilled, and

          (b) that the making of such an order would be more likely to fulfil the criterion specified in subsection (4) above than the continued operation of the strategic management board for the area to which the order relates.

          (5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A) above it shall be the duty of a strategic management board—

          (a) to keep under consideration the strategic management of the area to which the proposals relate by overseeing the management of the magistrates' courts by the magistrates' courts committees within that area;

          (b) to give advice and to submit recommendations to any magistrates' courts committee within that area concerning its use of resources and funds;

          (c) to give advice and to submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the use of resources and funds by the magistrates' courts committees within that area;

          (d) to give advice and submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the allocation of grants by him to the magistrates' courts committees within that area; and

          (e) to submit reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the discharge of his duty under subsection (4) above.

          (5C) A strategic management board may discharge its duties through such agents and sub-committees as it may see fit to appoint, whether or not those agents or the members of those sub-committees are members of that strategic management board.'.
          Mr. Boateng: In Committee, the Minister chose to describe the magistrates and their courts, in a phrase which was as disingenuous from his lips as it was hackneyed, as the jewel in the crown of our criminal justice system. If that is the case—and we would not demur from that assessment—why do the Minister and the Government seek to replace the context of that jewel with a base metal? Why do they want, where they do not seek to cast away the jewel altogether, to replace it with a paste imitation?
          When one examines the context in which we tabled the amendments and the new clause, one sees that it is designed to give the Lord Chancellor the power to ride roughshod over the needs and concerns of local justices and local communities affected by his decisions—

          253
          decisions made in Whitehall, not on the ground where justice matters and where there is a wide cross-section of society which is the consumer of legal services. People care desperately about the independence of their local magistrates courts and their clerks, and the need to present local and accountable services to local communities.
          Why do the Government persist in refusing to accept the obvious fact that they have not satisfied the House and the wider community which is concerned about our deliberations that there is a need for clause 63, which our amendments and new clause would address and improve? In Committee, we asked the Minister time and time again about the rationale for the amalgamations that he and his Government propose with regard to magistrates courts committees: how had they arrived at the figure of between 50 and 60, and on what basis had it been determined that it was necessary to amalgamate the magistrates courts committees? The answer that we received was none. We were not told where the waste was; there was no quantification of the waste.
          We were not given any indication at all—let alone specific examples—of where the magistrates courts committees and their justices and clerks, and the administration of them, were falling down on the job. No explanation was forthcoming as to why clause 63 was necessary, save that—this is what was said—to date, no magistrates courts had come forward of their own volition with any proposals for the amalgamation of magistrates courts committees, and that that must mean that there is a need for reform and a change in the law. That does not follow.
          The Minister has not satisfied the Committee, the House, the profession and local communities about the rationale for Government policy in this area, save one matter that is clear to all: the propelling influence behind all that the Minister does which subordinates the interests of justice and the interests of local communities. The one propelling concern is not that of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Lord Chief Justice, the justices themselves, their clerks and the local communities but that of the Treasury.
          The Minister can search among his notes for an example, as he will tonight. We wait to see whether any missive is passed down to someone who might do the Minister a service in order to establish an example—all we want is one example—of some waste, some inefficiency, or something which needs to be addressed by this draconian power. I cannot say that we will be satisfied, but at least we will have a response.
          Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman will recall that a contrast was drawn in Committee between the small number of police authorities, through which efficient and effective police service is delivered, and the relatively extremely large number of magistrates courts areas. The implied question was why we needed so many magistrates courts areas. Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why we need so many?
          Mr. Boateng: It should not have escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) that there is a distinction to be made between police officers and justices of the peace. They have complementary but different roles. The onus is not on the Opposition to
          254
          explain why there should be the same number of magistrates courts committees now as has been the case: it is on the Government to justify the measure that they have introduced. The hon. Gentleman should be more diligent in asking the Minister to explain the basis on which the decision to bring about the amalgamations has been made. The Minister has been asked time and time again. Apart from saying, "Well, they have not brought forward any proposals themselves," he has given us no response.
          We had the argument in Committee and there is no point in rehearsing it here. By force of numbers, we lost. So we went away and reflected and we have come up with another proposal on Report. It is a modest proposal. It is far too modest for the taste of many of us, but we hope that if we make modest proposals there will be more chance of their being accepted by an all-too-modest Minister. That was our hope. We shall see what his response is.
          We propose in new clause 10 and amendment No. 6 that the Lord Chancellor should be required, before he imposes an, amalgamation, to allow the magistrates courts committees and the justices of the peace to make their own proposals. I cannot believe that there are many supporters among Conservative Members for imposed amalgamations of magistrates courts committees, because Conservative Members recognise—the hon. Member for Shoreham may be an exception—that there is strong local feeling about the committees. People feel that justices of the peace do rather a good job and have strong local ties. We are saying that the Government should give those justices of the peace, magistrates courts committees and the justices' clerks for whom they are responsible a chance to make their own proposals.
          The Government should provide an opportunity to see whether the strategic management boards that we propose in the new clause and amendment, work and deliver the goods. Give them a chance. Give them three years. If they do not bring about the necessary changes where changes are necessary in terms of practice or economies of scale that might be possible through amalgamation of specific magistrates courts committees, other proposals could be considered. It is possible to see how the sharing of computer and other facilities might bring positive advantages to the consumer, and we are all for that. If the strategic management boards are capable of delivering the goods, there will be no need to enforce the amalgamation.
          Mr. Stephen: May I renew the challenge that I made to the hon. Gentleman in Committee? Will he commit any future Labour Lord Chancellor, in the unlikely event that he and his hon. Friends ever again formed the Government and if the clause had been accepted without amendment, to repeal the clause and leave a Labour Lord Chancellor powerless to order any amalgamations if no voluntary proposals had been made by magistrates?
          Mr. Boateng: My response to that challenge is that no one should be under any illusion about the fact that an incoming Labour Government will carry out a root-and-branch reform of the Lord Chancellor's Department with a view to replacing it with a Minister of Justice and altering fundamentally the role of the Lord Chancellor. Let me make that absolutely clear. That is my response to the hon. Member for Shoreham and I do not intend to give way to him again. Let our policy be understood once and for all. He must understand—
          Mr. John Greenway: The rabbit is out of the hat.
          9.30 pm
          Mr. Boateng: The rabbit was let out of the hat in Committee. In fact, it was not even confined to a hat. The rabbit has been running amok for many years. That reform is part and parcel of our policy and, make no bones about it, we intend to implement it. When we do, we will have debates in the House in which the person responsible for legislation will answer questions from the few Conservative Members who will be left on the Opposition Benches. We will be only too happy to do something that the Lord Chancellor currently does not do—answer to this House, under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we do not have the Lord Chancellor, we have got his valet and I will deal with him tonight.
          We want to know from the Minister the basis upon which these propositions are brought forward. We want to know the basis upon which he opposes our modest proposal, which does no more than provide a statutory basis for what already exists in outer London. It proposes that the draconian powers that the Lord Chancellor seeks to draw unto himself in relation to the amalgamation of magistrates courts committees should be frozen until such time as it has been established that that which works in outer London, is seen to work and is seen to have the support of the Lord Chancellor's Department, is given an equal opportunity to work elsewhere in the jurisdiction.
          Why should those magistrates courts committees in the constituencies of Conservative Members and of my hon. Friends face forced amalgamation without the opportunity to come forward with the same proposals as their outer London colleagues enjoy?
          The Government have done that for outer London, so they can do it for the rest of the country and put it on a statutory basis. It is on that basis that we press our modest proposals. We wait, if not with bated breath, for a response from the Minister.
          Mr. John M. Taylor: On behalf of the Lord Chancellor, my hon. Friends and valets everywhere, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
          First, I must sound a salutary note to the House, one which we cannot escape or deny. When the now famous Le Vay scrutiny of the magistrates service reported in 1989, I am afraid that it said this of the service:
          "There is no coherent management structure for the service. It is impossible to locate clear management responsibility or accountability anywhere in the structure."
          I am talking about the administrative side of the service, not about the judicial side—the extremely valuable role that magistrates play in our judicial system.
          That lack of management, accountability and control is not a matter of no consequence; it is a matter of £350 million of taxpayers' money per annum. If anything goes wrong with that expenditure, or if it is thought not to be used wisely, there is no point in my getting up in this House or the Lord Chancellor getting up in another place to say, "I am sorry, but we have got no powers over this money. All we do is write out a cheque. We cannot cope with it if anything goes wrong." That is patently entirely unsatisfactory.
          Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister give one example of something that has gone wrong? Will he identify one instance—
          Mr. Taylor: Yes.
          Mr. Boateng: Good. Will he identify one instance of the misappropriation or the misplacing of funds by a magistrates courts committee or its justices' clerk?
          Mr. Taylor: I am very careful of the sub judice rules, and I have duties of care when matters are not concluded. I had better write to the hon. Gentleman, when I will tell him the jurisdiction and what we think.
          Mr. Graham Allen: Put it on the record.
          Mr. Taylor: No, I shall not put it on the record now. There are times when it is imprudent to do so. I am describing the example, but I will not specify it. I give my word as a Member of this honourable House that I am aware of such a case, and I ask the House to take my word for it.
          Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend is suggesting that, because £350 million of taxpayers' money is at stake, we must have something called a coherent management structure. Some of us might be a bit sceptical about the benefits of introducing coherent management structures. Is it not the case that, through the cash limits exercised through his Department, my hon. Friend has absolute control over that expenditure? He does not need to amalgamate committees or have major reforms to impose strict financial discipline over the whole structure at present.
          Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the formula—which, incidentally, is under review. But we are talking about accountability in the service for the administrative functions, as distinct from the judicial functions. At the moment, there is none. We need line management from the magistrates courts committees, which are the ultimate authority in the matter, through the justices' chief executive to the rest of staff on administrative matters. I shall not yield on that. It is clearly necessary, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are impotent to answer to the House on any criticisms of those areas.
          Mr. Maclennan: The difficulty which some of us have had in accepting what the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor say is that they are drawing a distinction between the administrative function of the Lord Chancellor and the judicial function as though that were quite simply and easily done, and saying that by making changes in the administrative structure, one does not impinge upon the judicial function. That is plainly not true, and it is not a defensible distinction in those terms.
          Mr. Taylor: I invite the hon. Gentleman to revisit clause 72, where the areas which are legally protected as independent are clearly set out. We shall come to those on a later amendment. The £350 million will not go away, and there is an accountability to Parliament and to the Public Accounts Committee. [Interruption.] The silent ones have asked me to move on, and it may be for the convenience of House if I do. [Laughter.] I know who is in charge around here.

          257
          In the context of outer London, I want to tell the House about a letter which was received from Mr. Graham Chamberlain, the chairman of the outer London magistrates courts action group. A consultation was set up between the Department and the outer London group to achieve an outer London solution. The letter, sent in the middle of May, said:
          "Dear Lord Chancellor, I am delighted to confirm to you personally that the Outer London Magistrates Courts Service has been unanimous in our acceptance of the proposals you sent to us at the beginning of May. Not only did the 20 MCCs accept, but also the 20 Justices' Clerks, the Greater London Association of Magisterial Officers, supported by AMO, nationally"—
          and he might have included the local authority associations as well. The letter continued:
          "Finally, may I thank you my Lord Chancellor for your patience and understanding during the past eight months. Your faith, which we shared, that we could achieve a mutual agreed solution, has been rewarded."
          That is the position in outer London. The system is non-statutory, and that is its virtue. It is flexible and capable of review, and all sides wish to look at it in the context of review.
          To try to transmit the system to the provinces beyond outer London is frankly barmy. If there was to be a strategic management body, there would have to be one representative from each magistrates courts committee on it. If two provincial magistrates courts committee areas wished to come together, the amendment would force them to have a strategic management board with two members—one from each area. It is mad, and I do not know who drew the plan up.
          Mr. Maclennan: The House is impatient to conclude the debate, but I am conscious that when amalgamations start to roll individual hon. Members will be the first to cry out—and as many Members on the Government Benches as on the Opposition Benches will be raising objections about the use of the powers that the Lord Chancellor is taking.
          The Minister places great reliance on what happened in outer London. That is how he should proceed if he wishes to bring about change—using existing powers. If changes are self-evidently needed, the Minister does not need draconian powers to force them through against the wishes of magistrates' authorities. He said that there had been no amalgamations during the present Lord Chancellor's tenure or even some time before that.
          Mr. John M. Taylor: There have been no voluntary amalgamations in the 45 years since the powers were brought in.
          Mr. Maclennan: I am not aware either that there has been any great pressure from the present Lord Chancellor or his Conservative predecessors to bring about amalgamations. That certainly has not been ventilated in this Chamber as a matter of high importance in the past. Had there been such a debate, we might have listened with much greater sympathy to arguments in favour of the draconian and unaccountable powers that the Lord Chancellor seeks to take upon himself.
          The truth is that the noble and learned Lord and his office are a singular anomaly. He presides over a judicial system as the senior judge of the realm, and sits in the Cabinet as a political figure whose shots are called in many cases by the Treasury. We all know that the driving force
          258
          behind the provision that the amendment seeks to alter is economy—it has nothing to do with the fair discharge of justice by magistrates. I am fond of the Lord Chancellor—he is a splendid man, but he came to politics having cut his teeth on other jobs, and he is finding it exceedingly difficult to deal with pressure from his Treasury colleagues. That is why we are faced with this abusive measure.
          I hope that the amendment will be accepted. The Government would have done well to withdraw their proposals, so as not to need to bother with compromises of the kind ingeniously invented by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). In the absence of Government willingness to think again, the amendment should certainly have our support.
          Sir Roger Moate: I speak more to expose the dilemma in which I and, I suspect, other hon. Members find ourselves than to offer a solution. My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised that I am totally sceptical about the Government's proposals, but I do not believe that the Opposition's solution of more strategic boards is attractive.
          Perhaps some of us are to blame for the fact that we do not have before us proposals which would allow us to secure greater control for the House over undesirable streamlining of the voluntary system of local justice. I am sceptical about enforced amalgamations because they progressively undermine the precious concept of local justice. The smaller the courts and court committees, and the more local the magistrates, the better that system of justice works.
          I fear that compulsory amalgamations will inevitably lead to compulsory closure of a large number of magistrates courts throughout the country. Anyone who has doubts about that should reflect on the words of my hon. Friend the Minister who spoke of the system of management which flows directly from the Lord Chancellor and controls the money right through the committees and down to the courts. Ultimately that power of management will bring pressure to close a large number of local magistrates courts. That is what it is about.
          9.45 pm
          The Government have been quite clear: there will be many amalgamations. We in Kent have nothing to fear because, according to the map that I have seen, there is no proposition to disturb the magistrates court committee in my county. Kent is a large county with a large committee. We have already seen the power that the Department and the Treasury have brought to bear on those committees by way of cash limitations, and that has resulted in the closure of local magistrates courts.
          When there was a proposal for such a closure in my constituency there was no support from anywhere to resist it. That was a highly efficient small court doing a first-class job, but the power of money led to its closure. In many constituencies the consequence of what we are debating will be the closure of local courts. On the ground of efficiency one could probably just about justify that, but in the interests of justice I do not think that it can be justified. I say "just about" because I do not believe that we are really talking about large sums. The Minister cited a figure of £350 million, but 95 per cent. of cases which come to

          259
          court are dealt with by the unpaid magistracy. I suspect that that is the best bargain justice anywhere in the world. We get tremendous value for that £350 million.
          When challenged, the Minister did not produce examples of wastage. Perhaps, quite rightly and circumspectly, he did not want to refer to individual cases, but if there were wholesale wastage he would have been able to tell us about it. I do not think that there is such waste. Therefore, forcing amalgamations and, ultimately, forcing the closure of local courthouses will not bring enormous economic gain to the country.
          Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we live in a world in which the resources available for the administration of justice are unlimited and that there may never be a strong argument for the amalgamation of magistrates courts in the national interest and over which the Lord Chancellor needs statutory power?
          Sir Roger Moate: There is no evidence to suggest that that is necessary. If there is evidence of wastage and inefficiency and proof that we need such statutory powers, let us hear it. It is easy to develop theories about management, but the taking of powers should be justified and I have not seen any justification. When a court closure is proposed in my hon. Friend's constituency he might say, "I protest, I want to prevent this."
          Mr. Stephen: We should always look at the national interest.
          Sir Roger Moate: I suggest that my hon. Friend would have a legitimate local interest and would go to the rather large regional committee which is quite remote from his area. But he will be told, "I am sorry but we have cash limits imposed by our new, highly efficient chief executive who is operating the cash limits imposed by the Treasury."
          I do not say that that is necessarily wrong, but I wish that the House could have the power to resist that trend and to help my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when they experience the undesirable closure of courthouses. It has started and it will continue. The Government are seeking to take a further power to undermine the sort of local justice which means a great deal to hon. Members and to local magistrates who serve unpaid and do sterling work.
          I fear what we are doing: I think that we have got it wrong and I hope that there will be future opportunities to try to redress that. I do not think that the Opposition amendment helps us particularly in that respect, burl hope that we shall be able to find other opportunities in future to try to correct this error.
          Mr. Boateng: There was nothing in the world to stop the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) from tabling his own amendments if he was so dissatisfied with ours. Perhaps the fact that he did not is an indication of his interest in these matters, but I am disappointed that we have not had the opportunity to consider his amendments.
          I hope that the last two speeches had a soporific and desensitising effect on the Minister, who was becoming a little carried away earlier, and that he will answer the case that we have put in a rational way. What aspect of the current proposals for outer London involving a strategic management board makes such arrangements unsuitable
          260
          for the rest of the country? They would deal with the two critical issues with which the Le Vay report was concerned—greater efficiency and better management.
          The Lord Chancellor now has the power to ensure that the inspectorate is brought to bear on improving efficiency. He has the power to control the budget of the magistrates courts committee, to demand management information statistics and to call for reports on a whole range of issues. What further power does he seek? Why does he seek it? We still have not had answers to those questions.
          We are not satisfied with the Minister's response. He throws up his hands in shock and horror, but he should not be surprised that we are not satisfied: that is one thing which ought not to surprise someone of his experience. He knows how things work. Oppositions tend not to be satisfied by Ministers' responses, and in this instance we have every reason not to be satisfied. The Minister's objections to these modest amendments are bunkum, and he knows it. We want to hear more, but in the interests of he House we shall not push the matter to a Division.
          I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
          Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
          Amendment made: No. 72, new schedule—Continuing Functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in Relation to Pensions etc. of Court Staff—
          1. In this Schedule—
          "court staff' has the same meaning as in section 59 of the 1979 Act,
          "the inner London magistrates' courts committee" has the same meaning as in section [Pensions etc. of justices' chief executive, justices' clerks and staff in inner London area] of this Act,
          "the Receiver" means the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and
          "responsible authority" has the same meaning as in section 55 of the 1979 Act.
          2. The Receiver shall pay out of the metropolitan police fund any superannuation benefits payable in respect of justices' clerks and other officers employed by the committee of magistrates or the inner London magistrates' courts committee under any enactment or instrument applied to those clerks or other officers by regulations having effect in accordance with section 15(9) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, other than benefits payable by the London Residuary Body, and any superannuation contributions and other payments for which the inner London magistrates' courts committee may be liable as their employer under any such enactment or instrument.
          3. Nothing in paragraph 2 above shall require the Receiver to incur any expenditure or make any payment which would cause the net cost to him in any year of the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 below to exceed the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined by the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 5(b) below.
          4. The Lord Chancellor may out of money provided by Parliament pay to the Receiver grants towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year—

          (a) of the Receiver's functions under paragraph 2 above, and

          (b) of the Receiver's functions corresponding to those of responsible authorities under regulations made, or having effect as if made, under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 with respect to court staff.

          5. The amount of any grant under paragraph 4 above towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year of the matters mentioned in that paragraph shall not exceed 80 per cent of whichever of the following is the less, namely—

          (a) that net cost, and

          (b) the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor.

          6. In subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 59 of the 1979 Act (grants by Lord Chancellor to responsible authorities)—

          261

          (a) references to that section include references to this Schedule, and

          (b) references to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of that section include references to the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 above.'—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 63

      ALTERATION OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEE AREAS
      Amendments made: No. 77, in page 33, line 27, at end insert—
      '(bb) a county borough council,'.
      No. 78, in page 33, line 34, at end insert—
      '(12) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of -unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

    Clause 72

      INDEPENDENCE OF JUSTICES' CLERK AND STAFF IN RELATION TO LEGAL FUNCTIONS
      Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 39, line 42, after 'peace', insert 'or'.
      We will be dividing the House on this amendment very shortly. It goes to the heart of our debates, dealing with a question that remains unaddressed by the Government—the independence of the judiciary, and the basis on which justices' clerks will be able and required to carry out their functions. Those functions, which lie at the heart of our justice system, are threatened by the Government's failure to produce an adequate safeguard for their independence.
      The amendment seeks to make it clear in statute that there must be a guarantee of independence in relation to the three separate and important functions that a justices' clerk is called on to perform—the discharge of statutory duties, the giving of advice to the magistracy and the handling of individual cases. Those three essential elements must be protected. They were identified by the Lord Chief Justice and by a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Ackner, in the other place.
      Those elements are threatened by a Government who, while introducing legislation that superimposes the powers of the Treasury on those of justices and their clerks, subordinate the interests of justice to those of the market and a Treasury determined to claw back the deficit created by the Government. As it stands, the legislation fails to preserve the necessary independence. There is nothing more important than that, and we shall return to the matter on Third Reading. There is nothing more important than the independence of the judiciary, and the independence of the justices' clerks in the context of the administration of justice.
      We are not satisfied with the clause as it stands, we seek to strengthen it, and we shall divide the House in order to do so.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: The amendment is interesting; it is called "or". The Opposition desire to put into clause 72, between the word "peace" and the word "in", the simple word "or". The very essence is or. The amendment sounds innocuous—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has not grasped it."] Yes, I have grasped it. It sounds innocuous, but I realise that it is not as disingenuous or innocent as it appears; actually, it is rather sinister.
      Clause 72 deals with the independence of the justices' clerks and staff in relation to legal functions. As drafted, it specifies two important areas in which the justices' clerks are protected in the independence of their legal function. One, set out in subsection (2), consists of a catalogue of functions deriving from the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. I shall not weary the House with that catalogue.

      263
      The other area of work in which the justices' clerks enjoy independence in their legal functions is in
      "giving advice to justices of the peace in an individual case".
      If the word "or" were inserted the provision would read:
      "When exercising the functions specified in subsection (2) below or giving advice to justices of the peace or in an individual case".
      We should then have made an extra category that is legally independent, and in which nothing can be said. The justices' clerk would have an inviolate aura round him and could not be instructed in any way.
      In other words, we should have given legal independence and the ability to be clear of any instruction, in matters concerning the use of the car park—that is, legal independence concerning the use of the car park, and concerning security and accommodation arrangements, the stocking of the library and the location of the waste paper basket.
      The amendment is misguided and, with its single word "or", it is a wrecking amendment. I reject it.
      Mr. Boateng: The location of the waste paper basket is one thing that the Minister should know, because that is where he should put his whole rotten Bill. Upon that basis, and upon the basis of his woefully inadequate grasp of the amendment, we shall divide the House.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 291.

      Division No. 285]

      [9.58 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Church, Judith

      Ainger, Nick

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Alton, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Coffey, Ann

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cohen, Harry

      Ashton, Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Corbett, Robin

      Barnes, Harry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Battle, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cummings, John

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beggs, Roy

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bell, Stuart

      Dafis, Cynog

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Darling, Alistair

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Davidson, Ian

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Betts, Clive

      Denham, John

      Blair, Tony

      Dewar, Donald

      Blunkett, David

      Dixon, Don

      Boateng, Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Boyes, Roland

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradley, Keith

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

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

      Eastham, Ken

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Enright, Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Etherington, Bill

      Byers, Stephen

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fatchett, Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Flynn, Paul

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Foulkes, George

      264

      Fraser, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Fyfe, Maria

      Maxton, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Meacher, Michael

      Galloway, George

      Meale, Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Michael, Alun

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Milburn, Alan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Andrew

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Graham, Thomas

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hain, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Hall, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Hanson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Murphy, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Olner, William

      Hinchliffe, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hodge, Margaret

      Parry, Robert

      Hoey, Kate

      Patchett, Terry

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Pendry, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Radice, Giles

      Hutton, John

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ingram, Adam

      Redmond, Martin

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Rendel, David

      Jamieson, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jowell, Tessa

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Keen, Alan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Simpson, Alan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lewis, Terry

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Livingstone, Ken

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Soley, Clive

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spearing, Nigel

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spellar, John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McAllion, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McCartney, Ian

      Stevenson, George

      Macdonald, Calum

      Straw, Jack

      McFall, John

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McKelvey, William

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Timms, Stephen

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tipping, Paddy

      McMaster, Gordon

      Turner, Dennis

      MacShane, Denis

      Tyler, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Madden, Max

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Mahon, Alice

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marek, Dr John

      Watson, Mike

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      265

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alexander, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Dover, Den

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Duncan, Alan

      Amess, David

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Ancram, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Arbuthnot, James

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Eggar, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Elletson, Harold

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Evennett, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Faber, David

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bates, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forman, Nigel

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Booth, Hartley

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gallie, Phil

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bowis, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gill, Christopher

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Butcher, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butler, Peter

      Hague, William

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carttiss, Michael

      Harris, David

      Cash, William

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hawkins, Nick

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clappison, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hicks, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Congdon, David

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Conway, Derek

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Horam, John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Cran, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunter, Andrew

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jack, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      266

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jessel, Toby

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Key, Robert

      Sackville, Tom

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knox, Sir David

      Shersby, Michael

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sims, Roger

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Legg, Barry

      Soames, Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lidington, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lightbown, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Sproat, Iain

      Lord, Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Luff, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stephen, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stern, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Allan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sykes, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Marlow, Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thomason, Roy

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mills, Iain

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend, Michael

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Norris, Steve

      Ward, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Whittingdale, John

      Pawsey, James

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Pickles, Eric

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Willetts, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Timothy

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Richards, Rod

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Riddick, Graham

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

    Clause 76

      ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR MAGISTRATES' COURTS
      Amendments made: No. 79, in page 44, line 14, at end insert—
      '(bb) a county borough council,'.
      No. 80, in page 44, line 17, at end insert—
      '(11) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of "unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'—[Mr. Howard.]

    Schedule 7
      MAGISTRATES' COURTS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 86, line 20, at end insert—
      MAGISTRATES' COURTS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        'Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967
        24A. In section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs), in subsection (1)(a)(ii), for the words from "or other officer" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words ", as a justices' chief executive for that area or as staff of the magistrates' courts committee for that area".

        Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
        24B. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 47, at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added the words—
        "or as staff of such a committee; or
        (c) service as a justices' chief executive."
        24C. In Schedule 6 to that Act (employments relevant to section 13(2) of that Act), in paragraph (d) after the words "for that area" there shall be inserted the words "or by any magistrates' courts committee whose area includes all or part of that area".'
        No. 74, in page 87, line 47, at end insert—

        'Local Government Finance Act 1992
        32. In section 46 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (special items for purposes of section 45), in subsection (2)(d) for the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words "the probation service in the inner London area or the functions referred to in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994".'—[Mr. Howard.]
    Clause 87

      COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 49, leave out lines— 7 to 11 and insert—
      '(3) The following provisions of this Act—

      (a) section 3 and Schedule 2, so far as they relate to

      (i) the power to make orders under the section inserted by section 3, or

      (ii) the power to make regulations under paragraph 11 of the Schedule entitled Schedule IC set out in Schedule 2,

      268

      (b) sections [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.] and [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc. (Scotland).],

      (c) sections [Police officers engaged on service outside their force] and [Constables engaged on service outside their force], subsections (3A) and (6)(a) of section 58, and paragraphs 19A to 19D of Schedule 5, so far as they relate to service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and

      (d) section 41, so far as it relates to paragraphs 19A to 19D of Schedule 5,

      shall come into force on the passing of this Act.'
      No. 39, in page 49, line 22, after '1964' insert '("the new police authorities")'.
      No. 40, in page 49, line 23, after 'supersede' insert '("the old police authorities")'.
      No. 41, in page 49, line 23, after 'them' insert
      ', for the performance by the old police authorities, before the new police authorities come into existence, of functions prescribed by the order'.
      No. 42, in page 49, line 25, leave out from 'application' to end of line 26 and insert
      'in relation to them of provisions of this or any other Act or of any instrument);'.
      No. 38, in page 49, line 27, leave out 'of property' and insert
      'and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation of'.
      No. 75, in page 49, leave out line 38 and insert—
      '(a) for the transfer and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation of rights and liabilities;'.—[Mr. Howard.]

    Schedule 8

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 27, in page 88, line 20, at end insert—

      '9 & 10 Geo. c. 17.

      The Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.

      Section 2(1), (1A) and (2). Section 3(1) and (2).'

      No. 28, in page 89, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
      'Section 43(1) to (3). In section 43(5) the words "and "police regulations" " onwards.'
      No. 29, in page 89, line 25, column 3, at end insert—
      'In Schedule 9, the entry relating to The Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'
      No. 36, in page 89, line 49, column 3 at end insert—
      'In section 24(3) the words from "and the expression" onwards.'.
      No. 37, in page 89, line 56, column 3 at end insert—
      'Section 38(1) to (3). In section 38(5), the words from ""police regulations""onwards.'
      No. 30, in page 90, line 7, column 3, at end insert—

      269
      'In Schedule 4, the entry relating to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'
      No. 31, in page 90, column 3, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert—
      'Section 2.'
      No. 32, in page 90, line 38, at end insert—

      '1976 c. 35.

      The Police Pensions Act 1976.

      In Schedule 2, paragraph 1, in paragraph 5 the words "43(1) and" and in paragraph 6 the words from "1948" to "in both".'

      No. 33, in page 90, column 3, leave out line 42 and insert—
      'Section 11.'
      No. 55, in page 93, line 43, at end insert—

      '1994 c. 00.

      The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

      Section 24.'

      No. 76, in page 94, line 4, column 3, leave out 'and 4' and insert 4, 7 and 1 l' —[Mr. Howard.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      10.12 pm
      Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We are delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to the debate. We know that he has been heavily preoccupied. We know that there have been many demands on his time. We know, in particular, that he has been obliged to spend many hours redrafting his policy document on tackling crime because his party's policy makers thought it inadequate. According to the Independent on Sunday, the Labour party's Equality Commission has asked for extra paragraphs to be inserted into the hon. Gentleman's document on crime prevention and racism. It also stressed:
      "It is essential to make the point that crime does not only affect the poor but all sections of the community."
      There we have it. The Labour party's spokesman on home affairs has to be told by his party's Equality Commission that crime affects all sections of the community. It is little wonder, then, that his party's opposition to the Bill, as to all our reforms, has been so utterly muddled.
      The Bill's central objective is to strengthen the police in their fight against crime. It will lay the foundations for a police service that can enter the 21st century confident that it will remain the finest in the world. The Bill will provide for a service with improved organisation and effectiveness and one that is more accountable to the community that it serves. It will ensure that the 16,000 extra police officers and 16,000 extra civilians recruited to the service since the Government took office can be mobilised to the maximum possible effect. Above all, it will ensure that we get the best value for money for the £6 billion that taxpayers spend every year on the police service.
      The attitude of the Labour party has been to seek to frustrate those objectives at every turn. Labour has not expressed an ounce of regret for its appalling history. In 1979, the police service was hopelessly undermanned, badly paid and on the verge of a strike. Labour local authorities and some Labour Members queued up to undermine the police at every turn, not least during the
      270
      miners' strike, and have shown bitter hostility to every measure that we have taken since 1979 in the fight against crime. So much for Labour being tough on crime.
      The Labour party, we are told, has finally seen the light—another general election, another defeat, another Opposition spokesman and a new policy. Let us take the hon. Member for Sedgefield at his word for a moment. Let us assume that he means what he says. He has been his party's home affairs spokesman for more than two years. Last month, he delivered the annual Police Foundation lecture—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Home Secretary has given us enough preamble; he should now return to Third Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. Howard: The points that I am about to make are directly related to the Bill.
      The thoughts that the hon. Member for Sedgefield uttered on that occasion are directly relevant to the attitude that the Labour party has taken to the Bill. He informed us:
      "self respect can only come through respect for others."
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell us what clause the Home Secretary is addressing?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a point of order out of the back pocket: it meant nothing.
      Mr. Howard: The Bill deals with the objectives that are to be set for the police, and these matters are highly and directly relevant to those objectives.
      Most of us learned what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said the other day when we were in short trousers. The same applies to other things that he has said. For instance, he told us:
      "the police are part of the community and they must work closely with the community to deal with crime."
      I have yet to find anybody who disagrees with that. Next, he delved into a bit more detail:
      "We need a Police Service that is close to the public, but has at its disposal the latest in modern technology."
      I do not suppose that one hon. Member disagrees with any of those remarks.
      As the hon. Member for Sedgefield delivers these banalities, he contrives to give the impression not only that he has discovered the ten commandments but that he personally received them from the Almighty. It is as though no one had spoken of community before him, no one had recognised the need for tough action on crime before he pretended to do so, and no one had called for partnership between the police and the public—which this Bill is all about—before he did.
      The hon. Gentleman has even suggested:
      "the right has disregarded the importance of creating a society of opportunity."
      Where has he been for the past 15 years? Can he so totally have forgotten the part that he played in attempting to thwart the opportunities that the right has created?
      During his first general election, the hon. Gentleman supported the abolition of the opportunity for council tenants to buy their own homes—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are setting a great example of law and order in the House tonight. The Secretary of State must return to Third Reading. I have already drawn his attention to the need to do so; I do not want to have to do so again.
      Mr. Howard: I entirely understand why the Opposition are so sensitive about their history and about the history of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I am—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not sensitive: I am concerned about the debate. Once again, I tell the Secretary of State that he must confine his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. Howard: I am directing my remarks to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not suggest that you are sensitive, but—[Interuption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to know whether the Secretary of State is in order when there is so much noise in the Chamber.
      Mr. Howard: I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we shall hear much more about the sensitivity of the Opposition to their history, and especially to the history of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The truth is that they have nothing to offer, on policing or anything else. It is the Government who are tackling the real problems.
      At present, the police service suffers, first, because there are too many detailed Home Office controls on their operations-controls on police numbers, controls on local capital projects and controls on allocations of budgets. The Bill will sweep away those controls.
      Secondly, local communities do not have enough input into local policing priorities. The Bill will put that right. Local policing plans will be drawn up by the police authority in consultation with the chief constable. There will be a duty to consult local communities before that is done. The new plans will give local police commanders a clear focus for their efforts and the freedom to use their budgets to achieve their objectives.
      Thirdly, there is a need to strengthen the accountability of local police forces to their local communities. The Bill will achieve that accountability. It is because I want to see greater accountability that the Bill will create strengthened police authorities, not just committees of the council but strong, free-standing organisations. Independent members—independent of the council and of the Home Secretary—will greatly add to the range of experience of the new authorities. As they will be local people, they will ensure, together with elected members, that local concerns are at the forefront of the authorities' workings.
      If accountability is to operate, local communities will need to have some sense of how well their police authority and service are doing. Local priorities, important though they are, cannot provide a complete picture. Without national objectives, how can one force ever be compared with another? If that comparison cannot be made, how can local communities have a full sense of how effectively the local fight against crime is going? In time, national objectives will be an invaluable way of driving up standards throughout the police service to the level of the best.
      If we are to reform any great public service—whether it is the police, the national health service or any other service—objectives need to be set for that service and there needs to be proper public accountability for the achievement of those objectives. The so-called Labour modernisers are apparently content, as we have seen during the passage of the Bill, for the producers of public services to monitor themselves, with no right for the public to be informed. The hon. Member for Sedgefield would not
      272
      reform public services to make them better. He would merely say to those responsible for delivering those services, "Set your own targets, measure your own performance and don't bother to publish the results."
      That is why the Opposition have no time for the practical reforms that are contained in the Bill. For all its talk of modernisation, the Labour party remains firmly stuck in the past. It attacks our proposals for police authorities but has no clear view of its own. It used to favour directly elected authorities, but now it says that it does not.
      Does it favour strengthening the work of police authorities by giving them independent status? It cannot or will not say. Does it object to our proposals for national objectives for the police service, increasing detection rates for burglaries, maintaining or if possible improving detection rates for violent crimes, targeting crimes that are a particular problem locally, providing high visibility policing and responding promptly to emergency calls from the public? To which of these objectives do the Opposition object? Which objective does the Labour party find offensive? Which objective undermines good policing practice? The truth is that the Labour party has no answers. It offers only destructive opposition.
      The Bill will strengthen the links between the public and the police. It will free the hands of police commanders and it will powerfully assist the police in the fight against crime. It is an important measure which needs to be passed, and I commend it to the House.
      10.24 pm
      Mr. Blair: This Bill has occupied many days of debate in Committee and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and to the officials of the House for their hard work.
      The Bill was savaged in the other place, it came back to us and it still has absolutely no support anywhere outside the Conservative party. It is not supported by the police, the magistrates or independent commentators.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Blair: No, I am sorry.
      What is more, not only does the Bill fail to do what the Home Office and the Home Secretary have said, but it takes policing in the opposite direction to that in which we wish it to go. If the Home Secretary wants local community policing: the measures in the Bill do not simply fail to support that local community policing: they actually undermine it.
      The Bill undermines local community policing in three ways. First, the composition of police authorities is to be changed so that central Government end up appointing key members of police authorities. That is a centralising measure. It has no support. It does not even have the support of many Conservative councillors—or at least the few who remain in local government.
      Secondly, not only does the Bill centralise the authority and the composition of its members, but when the Home Secretary refers to the national objectives that he is going to set, the objection is not to setting objectives, but to him setting them rather than local people. The difference between the two of us is that, while the Home Secretary wants objectives to be set centrally by central Government, the police, the Opposition and virtually everyone else believe that they should be set by local people.
      Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Blair: No, I am not going to give way.
      Thirdly, not only does the Bill centralise the composition of the police authorities and ensure that the objectives are to be taken over and set by the Secretary of State even when they are in conflict with local objectives, but it provides for a wholly new mechanism of amalgamating police authorities. Conservative Members should think very carefully before supporting a Bill which includes those provisions.
      In virtually every other situation, and certainly in the law until now, where there has been an amalgamation of a police authority, it has been subjected to a proper public inquiry. The proposals will allow the wholesale amalgamation of police authorities without any element of public inquiry. While even minor property developments are to be subjected to a public inquiry in which views can be put, something as central to local communities as the status of their police authorities will be removed from the public inquiry process altogether. That is a centralising measure.
      There were debates in Committee about the nature of amalgamations. Ministers tried to pretend that nothing was further from their minds than such a notion. In fact, the gloss to the provisions was given in a recent Conservative research department briefing.
      Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Blair: No, I will not give way, as many other hon. Members wish to speak.
      That research briefing stated that—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen to this as I am referring to a briefing from their own research department. The briefing states:
      "There are no current plans to amalgamate police forces. Amalgamations will only happen when the time is right."
      Many people in the police service and elsewhere believe that the time will be right when the Bill and its problems are out of the way. There will then be a wholesale amalgamation of the smaller police services. That will remove local policing further from local people when there is no evidence that it will create a more effective police service.
      Not merely is policing to be centralised; the magistrates courts are to be centralised as well. Time and time again in Committee, the case was made against the wholesale amalgamation of magistrates courts areas, yet that is precisely what will happen in the Bill.
      The Bill, which is a centralising measure opposed by everyone other than the Conservative party, is a wasted opportunity. When the previous settlements were formed in the Police Act 1964, it was preceded by a royal commission. It was discussed, debated and properly consulted on. Where amalgamations occurred, they occurred as a result of public agreement. This Bill has had no such commission and no such prior consultation. The representations that were made have been entirely ignored. Not one authoritative body consulted on these measures has agreed to them. In fact, the authoritative bodies disagree with them, yet they will go through.
      Only today, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said that the review of the police core functions—which is an integral part of the Bill—could
      "end with us being forced to withdraw from the vital social services role which the public tell us they value so much."
      274
      If modern policing is about partnership, shared responsibility and local people having control over local services, the Bill runs against every aspect of local democracy which it is possible to contemplate. When we need that local partnership more than ever, the Bill will not improve the fight against crime. It will undermine the fight against crime. That is not the view simply of Labour Members; it is the view of the police as well.
      Why could not the money that is to be wasted on this—the millions of pounds to be spent—be better spent on crime prevention measures locally? Why could it not be better spent on a drugs education programme for young people? Why could it not be better spent in the fight against crime?
      The Bill is a measure of dogma. It is not supported by the people of this country, and it is not supported by those who admire our public services and our police. It has no support anywhere and should be rejected by the House.
      10.31 pm
      Mr. Miller: It was fascinating to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill. Labour Members recognise that the role of the police and magistrates in our society is under attack as a result of the measures incorporated in the Bill. Both the police and magistrates hold a special place in our society, and it is with great regret that I share the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about the dogma incorporated in these measures.
      In all our proceedings, no progress has been made on flushing out what is clearly behind the Government's statements about the number of police forces which were launched by the previous Secretary of State, now Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one has denied that his office was responsible for floating the number of police forces and suggesting that we would have only half the present number. The previous Secretary of State's sticky fingers were on that, as they were on a number of other aspects of the proceedings. It is clear that he is still having an influence on what is going on.
      In an earlier debate under the heading of local partnerships to promote crime prevention, great opportunities were missed. The Government failed to recognise the importance of police officers serving in our communities, working towards education and helping with crime prevention measures. When the Government failed to recognise the importance of our amendments relating to local partnership, they missed an ideal opportunity to raise the status of police officers working in such fields.
      The rejection of those important amendments will make it more difficult for police officers in such categories of work to have their important activities recognised by the police authorities which they serve. There is no doubt that officers who work in exercises such as the one that took place a few weeks ago in my constituency under the general heading "Kidsafe" play a vital role in our society. It is important that the service of such officers is recognised. The Government's approach will undermine that.
      We have dealt with matters relating to private security. The Minister referred to cowboys in the industry—a recognition that there are some cowboys in the industry. How on earth does the Minister expect to regulate cowboys

      275
      without introducing some proper regulation? If they are not members of proper organisations, how can he expect to control them?
      The Minister said that access to criminal records for vetting purposes for employment was being reviewed. It is interesting that that is under review, yet local authorities have recently been told that they will not have access to such information when employing people to become engaged in activities in which young people are involved. There seems to be a certain amount of double standard in that. The review is under way, yet changes have already taken place and at the same time the Government put up a stone wall on private security licensing.
      There is no question about the importance of local justices as the proper vehicle for summary justice in our society. The Home Secretary gloats over the comments about outer London, yet he failed to comment on the closures of local courts that have been forced on magistrates committees by the failure of his Department properly to fund some areas within our community. I referred to one such area in Committee. We have had no answer from the Government.
      The Home Secretary has not referred to the pressures that currently impinge on our society to close local court offices. A public consultation is being held in my area on that matter at this very moment. There was no mention of that or of the important public service that the local court offices provide.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the Lord Chancellor has all the powers he needs in terms of financial control. My goodness, he can exercise them now, let alone with the powers that would be vested in him by the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) is not in his place just now. He let the cat out of the bag because he referred to a map. It is interesting that Conservative Members have a map showing the future structure of magistrates committees, but that that information has not been made available to members of the Committee or Opposition Members. The House is entitled to see such a map if it exists. If it does not exist, perhaps it was merely in the mind of the hon. Member for Faversham.
      In a great piece of theatre, one of the Ministers referred at length to the importance of the word "or". The Government's rejection of that particularly important word in the amendment moved by my hon. Friends gives the game away. It is clear that the Government are determined to centralise powers. They have no intention of allowing people in our communities to have control over the process of summary justice. Nor do they have any intention' of allowing any exercise of control over the management of many of the other services connected with the committees.
      In his diatribe, the Home Secretary said that our opposition—
      Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is flattering the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Miller: That is true.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that our opposition to the Government's reforms was muddled. Had he spent just one minute in Committee, he would know that that is far from true. We attempted to have structured debates about the important issues, but, because of the dogma behind the Bill, the Government simply rejected all our proposals.
      276
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by referring to the envisaged changes in police numbers and capital budgets, and it is clear from his comments that the previous Home Secretary, in his new guise, will have his sticky fingers all over those budgets and their implications for police numbers. The Home Secretary said that the Bill is designed to liberate, but it will do no such thing. It gives more centralised powers to a centralising Government, who do not believe in giving people in our communities the freedom to make decisions that affect them. On that basis, the Bill must be rejected.
      The Government have a disastrous record on crime prevention, and the Bill is yet another abysmal failure. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Government's short-sighted attempt to centralise and undermine still further services that are so important to our communities.
      10.40 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I had not intended to speak, but I cannot allow what we have heard from Opposition Members, in particular the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), to go unchallenged.
      I appreciate that the hour is late and that the House is weary, but, frankly, the country is weary of the level of crime. Throughout tonight's debate and in Committee, the Opposition complained bitterly that the Government were doing nothing about crime. The Bill contains important reforms to help the police to tackle crime all the better, but all that the Opposition want to do is to deny the Government the opportunity to do something about crime and to strengthen the police service.
      The hon. Member for Sedgefield argued that the Bill has no friends. I wish that he had attended the meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs just three weeks ago, when the head of the National Crime Intelligence Service gave evidence to our Committee during its inquiry into international organised crime, which is sweeping not just this country, but Europe and the western world. The hon. Gentleman would have heard that man say that too many forces exist and that we need national strategic objectives to fight crime. That is what the Bill provides.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recognises his responsibility to take the lead in tackling crime. That is why it must be right to set a national objective for policing. Throughout the many months of debate on the Bill, the Opposition have sought to suggest that by setting such an objective the Home Secretary is undermining local policing. That is total rot. Local policing is about creating proper relations between communities and their local police. Police authorities do not achieve that. That is why the policing of a neighbourhood is never an issue at local council elections. The issue is what the Government are doing nationally about crime. That is why the Bill is so right in its provisions. We achieve local objectives and policing not through police authorities, but through the police liaison panels which were set up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We need to see more of those.
      There is much more that I could say, but I have received a glare from the silent one in the Committee. I refer hon. Members to some of the things that were said in Committee which were recorded in the Hansard report. It is total bunk for the Opposition to suggest that we lost the

      277
      argument in the Committee. We certainly did not. We won the votes then, we will win them tonight and we will take the country with us in the fight against crime.
      The Home Secretary was extremely modest in what he had to say tonight, because it would appear from what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said that my right hon. and learned Friend had no friends in the police service at all. The truth is that the chairman of the Police Federation has said that the Home Secretary's policies on law and order are more in tune with the Police Federation than those of any Home Secretary for 30 years. That is another good reason why the Bill should be supported.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: If the Home Secretary was modest, he has—in the words of Winston Churchill about Clement Attlee—much to be modest about.
      The reality is that the Bill is the misbegotten progeny of the ill-fated report of Sir Patrick Sheehy. The scrapings of that report were mixed up and submitted to another place. They were mangled there, and have been brought to the House in an almost unrecognisable form. The Bill does nothing to tackle the problems of crime which preoccupy and concern so many of our citizens. The Government have failed to tackle crime throughout their 15 years of office, and throughout the tenure of more than five Home Secretaries. They change with such frequency that it is scarcely surprising that there is no consistency of purpose to be found in that Department.
      The core reason for the Home Secretary bringing forward the Bill appears to be that he thinks that if he is to convince the public that he is doing something about crime, he must bring a fairly substantial piece of legislation before the House. We are asked to suspend our judgment about its contents and merely to recognise that there are lot of clauses before us, regardless of whether they are apposite to deal with the matter. When their provisions are called into question, it is treated as captious opposition.
      The pity is that the Bill did not follow a proper in-depth analysis of the role of the police in society and the needs of modern policing. Such analysis has always preceded the major police Bills which we have had in the past. We did not have a royal commission report to consider. We had a report the evanescent effect of which will go down only as a reminder of how not to tackle the problems of the police.
      The philosophy behind the Bill has never been concealed by the Home Secretary—not even tonight. The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the reality was that he wants to control the police. He wants to draw into his own hands the authority to tell the police what to do. The most obnoxious aspect of the Bill is the provision that enables him to set national objectives. To defend that, as the right hon. Gentleman did tonight, in terms of its being impossible to judge the effectiveness of the police other than by conformity with those objectives, is to fail to recognise how policy is conducted most effectively on the ground and that the police are an institution admired throughout the world.
      The political control that the Home Secretary seeks to exercise is democratically dangerous and ineffective in reducing crime. Local policing means much more than the hon Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested. It means involving the local community with the police in the
      278
      fight against crime. It means accepting the local community's targets as those of the local police in brace. It does not mean translating targets set by the Home Secretary into some kind of local priorities—quite the reverse.
      There are crime problems common throughout the country, but we live in a highly diverse nation, with different problems in different parts. The problems of inner cities and drugs are not those experienced in constituencies such as mine. My constituency is not a crime-free zone, but to impose on my constituents—and the Bill deals with Scotland—the priorities considered appropriate for Liverpool, Rochdale or the London suburbs is simply nonsense. That is what national objectives are about.
      We know that the national objectives trial has not been greeted with great enthusiasm or acclaim by the police. Despite national concern about drug-related crime, there has been issuance of that from the Home Office as a national priority. I suppose that next year we will hear from the Home Secretary that crimes related to drugs must be treated as national priority. That will be hailed as a great new initiative—just as in the past there were new initiatives such as dangerous driving Bills and other ad hockery presented as a fight against crime. The Bill is a cover for the vacuity of the Home Secretary's approach.
      My second principal objection to the Bill's contents is the way in which the Home Secretary has tampered with the independence of police authorities. Public confidence in the police rests historically on their understanding that police authorities are local and not the creatures of Whitehall. The Home Secretary has tampered with that in a foolhardy fashion.
      It is true that, in another place, some of the Home Secretary's worst excesses were stopped in their tracks by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and a number of former Home Secretaries, who have more sense that the right hon and learned Gentleman. There remains, however, a flawed approach to the construction of police authorities.
      The dangerously unhistorical approach to the amalgamation of police authorities demonstrates the Home Secretary's urge to control, politicise and answer demands relating not to the delivery of justice or the criminal justice system but to Treasury requirements. We heard constantly about value for money, but little about the merits of the criminal justice system.
      I fear that the amalgamations will be pushed through—not as in the 1960s, when my noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead had responsibility for such matters. Far greater changes in the structure of the police force took place in 1966–67 than have been admitted by the Home Secretary. At that time, those great changes were not unacceptably held up by local public inquiries. Such inquiries took place, but the process of justice was not damaged and confidence in policing was retained. The locality of policing was strengthened and its effectiveness and efficiency were secured.
      The Home Secretary is drawing the strings of power further into his hands. As a consequence, he will be held more directly responsible for future policing failures than is desirable for a Home Secretary. It will be said that his objectives have not worked, that they are wrong, and he will bring into contention matters that would be much better left for resolution at local level. He should have underpinned and not undermined the tripartite system, which is our police system's unique safeguard.

      279
      The final part of the Bill dealing with magistrates courts is also unloved, but it has been largely gutted by amendments in another place. Here again, there are dangerous centralising tendencies and a dangerous removal of democratic control, but not with an eye to strengthening our criminal justice system. Our magistrates system, which is cheap and efficient compared with the systems in other countries, and which is locally accountable, is being put at risk by Treasury pressure that the Lord Chancellor is quite unable to resist. It is being done in the name of spurious accountability. There has not been public criticism of our magistrates courts system to merit such changes.
      People visit this country from all over the world to see how our magistrates courts system works and how local justice is delivered efficiently and effectively and gives value for money. This is a bad Bill and the House should have no hesitation in rejecting it.
      10.57 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Perhaps the Secretary of State's reluctance to speak about the Bill stems from the defeat visited upon his previous piece of legislation in the other place only this evening. I found particularly bewildering the reference to the accountability of police authorities to their local communities. That bewilderment stemmed from the fact that as a citizen of this great city and having the privilege to represent a London constituency, I found that in the Bill, as in other legislation, London has been denied an overall police authority.
      In my constituency, crime has increased by 8 per cent., and a crime is committed every 20 minutes. We are to lose 22 police officers, there is to be a reorganisation of divisions, but there is nothing in the Bill to reassure me or my constituents that crime and criminal activity will be reduced.
      It has been well established, not only in Committee but in the House, in debates on the seemingly unstoppable rise in crime, that the war will not be won if the only weapon that is sent in against the criminal is the police force. We will defeat crime only by the combined efforts of the police, local authorities and citizens. In my local authority area of Camden, there was a particularly successful example of that tripartite approach to defeating crime—Operation Welwyn. That was a perfect example of the way that efforts to defeat crime and criminals should be moving.
      There is nothing in the Bill or in any other piece of legislation presented by the Secretary of State that enforces or reinforces the will of every law-abiding citizen—and, despite the crime figures, such people comprise the majority of our citizens—to harness themselves in concert with their local authorities and their police forces to defeat crime and criminals.
      One of the main causes of concern in my constituency is fear of crime, particularly among women. The largest single group in my constituency are pensioners, and the majority of them are women. They are caused grave disquiet as much by the fear of crime as by the actual crimes that we know are being committed. They believe—and I believe—in the deterrent power of a uniform, but nothing in the Bill or in the plans that the Home Secretary
      280
      has presented to the House leads me to believe that we shall have the deterrent provided by a policeman on the beat, now or in the future.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke of police force numbers. It is possible to visit any part of London now and observe that, although there is indeed more than one police force, there is also an increase in the number of advertising hoardings announcing that estates, individual properties and commercial premises are being guarded by private security firms. If that is the path that the Home Secretary wishes policing to follow, it will be of little comfort to my constituents or the country as a whole.
      The people who experience crime should be able to make an important contribution in regard to the way in which criminals are defeated and crime is prevented. Nothing in the Bill deals with crime prevention, although it must surely be an integral part of the defeat of criminals.
      I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. Let me end by saying that my constituents are only too willing to support the police, greatly admire their local police and are well aware that an essential part of policing is not simply the catching of criminals but—as the police themselves say—the time, care and consideration that they can devote to victims of crime. They realise that the Bill will remove that aspect, and—most important of all—the essential, basic trust that is so vital if crime is to be defeated. That will be lost by the Bill, and I strongly urge all hon. Members to vote against it.
      11.3 pm
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: It was Mogadon man who forced me to my feet. I could not bear to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) say that he resented the fact that a British Home Secretary might have more control over the powers of the police, given that his party wants to give more and more control to an international organisation in Brussels.
      The hon. Gentleman also objected to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has refused to accede to a large number of the Sheehy proposals. I remember the hon. Gentleman's saying that he himself was against those proposals. No doubt he supported the slimming away of some of the fat in the middle of the police force: indeed, I think I recall his saying on some other occasion that he did. Yet that is in the Bill, and he is opposed to it.
      The hon. Gentleman has not even been anywhere near Scotland in the past two years, although his constituency is there. If he had, he would have seen that in Scotland over the past two years the Government have brought down the rise in crime. It is beginning to fall in Scotland, as it has been falling in England over the past 12 months. There has been a 16 per cent. reduction in the number of burglaries in London; the figures for Manchester, Cambridgeshire and parts of Wales are 17 per cent., 26 per cent. and 27 per cent. respectively.
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: Since when?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with the facts of law and order. He has not bothered to find out that for the last 12 months there has been a fall in crime. [Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who is shouting at me from a sedentary position, exactly why that has happened. It has happened because the police forces are

      281
      freer now to target particular burglars, and because the courts have been sentencing and removing from circulation for longer periods those who have been targeted for burglary. As a result, burglary has fallen—and it has fallen because of the activities of the Government and the Home Secretary.
      As for policing, when one considers what has gone wrong with law and order over the past few years, one sees that we have given more powers to the police and the courts, and more money for law and order. Everything that we have done has been dedicated to reducing the rise in crime, yet still it has not been effective. Until fairly recently, crime has risen and the police have been making fewer and fewer arrests.
      What is the answer? Anybody with even the smallest connection with business will know that the problem was lack of organisation and lack of management. The Bill is all about improving the organisation and management of the police force, and freeing the chief constables—the local chiefs of police—so that they can deploy the money as they think fit to target the burglars and support the courts.
      There has been a development almost in anticipation of the success that the Bill will have in freeing the police forces and giving more powers to the people who really matter—that is, the local policemen, in response to the local people. Under the provisions of the Bill, the business men whose shops are burgled and ram-raided, and the local householders, will be backed by the local police force. Almost in anticipation of that, in the past 12 months the police force has taken a grip on itself and responded to the promise that there would be legislation to give local police chiefs more power and freedom.
      All that nonsense about the Government presiding over rising crime over the past year or so can be brushed to one side, because crime is falling.
      Mr. Maclennan: No, it is not.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland goes to his constituency, he will find that crime is falling there, as it is everywhere else. If that is not happening, it may explain why that extraordinary constituency has for so long been represented by such an extraordinary Member of Parliament.
      The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) disappeared for a week or two to prepare his speech for this debate. He was sighted here, but he has now gone, no doubt to prepare his acceptance speech. But if—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ruled earlier, when the Home Secretary was speaking, that I wanted to hear about the Third Reading of the Bill, not about personalities or individuals.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I listened with great care to the Third Reading speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and if that is the best that he can do, the Conservative party has nothing to worry about.
      11.7 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I venture to suggest that most Conservative Members who vote tonight will be unaware of one of the changes resulting from the Bill that will affect
      282
      them in the conduct of their duties as Members of Parliament. I refer to the changes proposed to the revised powers of the Police Complaints Authority.
      The authority was set up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to deal with investigations against police officers and matters referred by police officers, and to decide on disciplinary matters. I understand that it is now expressing grave concern about the practical effects of the proposal that misconduct procedures can be considered only when an officer might have committed a crime, or breached the codes of practice in such a way as to have a detrimental impact on a member of the public. That could result in behaviour that now breaches the police discipline code being dealt with in future as unsatisfactory performance.
      When the allegation resulted from a complaint from a member of the public—many such cases go through our hands—such cases would be dealt with entirely by the police force concerned, with no involvement of the Police Complaints Authority. That has major implications for us as Members of this House because certainly some of us, during our time as hon. Members, have had to advise our constituents on how to seek address for the grievances which they have raised in our surgeries. We are seeing a change. The responsibility to carry out inquiries in many of those areas will move from the independent Police Complaints Authority to an internal police disciplinary procedure.
      During 1993, the Police Complaints Authority considered 1,916 complaints alleging incivility by police officers. Since that is neither a criminal offence nor a breach of the codes of practice, such cases will in future be handled entirely by the police with no civilian oversight at all. Taking a more serious example, the authority dealt with 1,830 alleged failures of duty during 1993. Many of those did not constitute breaches of the codes of practice and would not, therefore, be considered as misconduct under the new system. However, they raise concerns about the grey area between clear-cut performance failures and acts of misconduct.
      The Police Complaints Authority fully supports the objective of making police managers more clearly responsible for the performance of their officers. However, that aim must be balanced against the need to ensure that the public's complaints against police officers will be thoroughly and objectively investigated. That is why the authority was set up.
      The standing of the Police Complaints Authority will be undermined if the public see that a number of their complaints are to be excluded from its considerations. That is why the Police Complaints Authority has consistently argued that there should be a right of review in such cases. Where a divisional commander, possibly after a limited initial inquiry, determines that a complaint from a member of the public is to be considered under the performance procedure, the authority proposes that the commander should write to the complainant, setting out his decision and explaining how the matter will be dealt with. He should also indicate that, if dissatisfied, the complainant would have, say, 21 days in which to exercise his right to have the police decision reviewed by the authority. Failure to respond will be taken as acquiescence in the force's decision. The only decision to be taken by the authority would be whether a complaint would be correctly regarded as one relating to performance or whether it should be dealt with as misconduct.

      283
      The authority already hears some criticism that the police power to determine whether to record a complaint undermines the independence of the system from the very outset. I had a complaint in my constituency in the case of a Mrs. Steele in Workington, which I did not believe had been dealt with correctly by the police. It should be the subject of the fullest possible inquiry, yet I cannot get it to be considered in the police complaints procedure. The existence of a review power in performance cases would provide reassurance against similar criticisms that the police could keep potentially serious complaints away from civilian oversight. However, in doing so, it would not interfere with the responsibility of police managers for the performance of their officers.
      Confidence in the system of provision of information to the general public by the Police Complaints Authority depends largely on the authority's ability to explain the action that it has taken to ensure that a complaint has been thoroughly and impartially investigated. That ability is severely constrained by the impact of section 98 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose information about a case, except in a summary or other general statement made by the authority, which does not identify the person from whom the information was received or any person to whom it relates. The authority frequently has to tell complainants—our constituents—and their legal advisers, and Members of Parliament, that it cannot meet our reasonable requests for more information because of the requirements of section 98. That leaves the authority looking like a secretive body, unable to explain the strength of a case in public.
      I believe that this matter should have been dealt with in the Bill. I understand that the legislation is to go on to the other place for further discussion. If so, I appeal to their Lordships to reconsider the issue, and the revised powers as they relate to the PCA. Unless they do so, I believe that Members of Parliament will find themselves embarrassed in their surgeries in the future.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I had not planned to speak in this debate, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said something that must be answered. I have heard Conservative Members quote the chairman of the Police Federation, Mr. Richard Coyles, before, and the hon. Gentleman only half-quoted him.
      Mr. Coyles's comment deserves to be put in context. That context is his strong opposition to this Bill. He would want me to place on record the fact that the Police Federation is not in the pocket of any political party; it is a non-partisan organisation, and it is certainly not in the pocket of the Home Secretary and party who brought us the Sheehy report, this Bill, and the review of police core functions.
      In the past decade, crime and the fear of crime have increased right across the country. Burglaries in Warwickshire have trebled and car thefts there have quadrupled since 1979. In the face of all this, have the Government supported the police and enhanced their morale? No, they have not.
      In the past two years, the police have faced three challenges from the Government. First, there was the Sheehy report, which sought to destroy the terms and conditions of most police officers. It aroused greater anger
      284
      among them than anything this or any other Government have done in more than a century. The Government half backed down on the report, but the fag end of it remains in this Bill.
      The second challenge came in the form of this Bill. The concern of the police and of their federation was that the Bill would centralise and politicise the police. The Police Federation and other police organisations conducted a lobbying campaign in another place to challenge the Bill's worst aspects. They feared that the Government's agenda was to implement the fag end of Sheehy, to prepare the ground for the amalgamation of constabularies, and to put Home Office placemen in police authorities—in short, to centralise and politicise the police. Fortunately, their Lordships amended some of the worst aspects of the Bill, but much remains that is dangerous and must be opposed.
      The third challenge created for the police by the Government is still in process, for the Bill in some ways prepares the way for it. I refer to the Home Office review of the core functions of the police, scheduled to report by the end of the year. The general secretary of the Police Federation, Lyn Williams, not a man given to exaggeration—besides which his comments have been backed up by academic studies—believes that the review is likely to reduce the number of full-time police officers from the current 126,000 to 80,000 by the end of the decade—a drop of 46,000. That is why the Home Secretary will not have the federation or any police officer in his pocket.
      The Bill should be rejected because it has more to do with dogma than with fighting crime. It undermines police morale. If the Home Secretary was really concerned to fight crime and boost police morale, why did he not listen to the police? Why did he reject police requests for changes to disciplinary rules? Why did he reject police requests for the regulation of private security organisations and the criminals who, on occasion, are infiltrating them and putting themselves forward to guard people's homes and factories? Why has he sought to undermine the role of the chief constable, about which the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers have expressed concern? If the Home Secretary supports the police, why did not he listen to them and ditch the Bill?
      11.19 pm
      Mr. Tony Worthington: It was with much sadness that I served on the Standing Committee. I do not think that the Government understand what they are doing, or, if they do, what they are doing is completely reprehensible. They do not understand the difference between a public service and a market decision. The Government's response to the problems of the police is to call in a private sector guru, Sir Patrick Sheehy, to analyse what is wrong, if there is anything wrong, and then to apply private sector nostrums.
      I wonder how many visits Sir Patrick Sheehy has from people abroad wishing to listen to him. I doubt whether he has many. Yet the British police are visited by people from all over the world, seeking to understand what is so special about the British police system. It does not matter which part of the world one is talking about; there is a realisation that there is something worth learning from the public service element and the sense of community to be found in the British police. Sir Patrick Sheehy does not have visitors

      285
      from all over the world because British private industry is not admired in the way the the British police service is admired. That is true.
      The total anti-local authority perspective of the Bill is also sad. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be disappointed by the performance of certain local authorities. Some local authorities will not be so good as they could be. But when one talks of community, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have done during the Bill's passage, it is impossible to see any way in which the fulness, the richness and the overall quality of community can be fulfilled without local authorities being at the centre of it. The introduction of the private sector is about atomisation, individualisation and marketisation.
      One needs to see the potential for developing community in a much fuller way. There is no doubt that such community development can come only with an improved local authority at its heart. If we and the the Home Office have learnt anything during the past few years it is that crime is too big and important for the police alone to cope with. It is the local community and the departments of the local authority that can tackle crime by preventing it.
      The Government have not fully understood the sensitivity of what they are dealing with—the tripartite relationship between the chief constable, the local authority and the Government. For instance, the background literature from the Home Office said that the primary object of a police force is the prevention of crime. I doubt whether any hon. Member would quarrel with that. If crime does not occur, that is a total achievement. But when one sets national objectives, the primary objective of a police force is not the prevention of crime. The prevention of crime is the one thing that cannot be included in a performance target. One simply cannot measure the prevention of crime. It is impossible to measure whether it has occurred. Yet we are to have performance indicators.
      Let us consider one of those performance indicators—the number of violent crimes detected per 100 officers. There is not a chief constable in the country who could not achieve a high rate of success against that measurement. It would be easy for a chief constable to find enough violent criminals to increase his figures. He would act like a world cup referee who has to give out yellow or red cards. Crimes figures are among the most creative and least natural statistics in the world. They are compiled each year using a complicated social process. Any chief constable who knows that he is being measured against the number of violent crimes detected in a year will achieve that target.
      Finally, I wish to deal with how the Bill has been dealt with from a Scottish viewpoint. The Conservative party in Scotland is in dire straits and is now supported by 10 per cent. of the electorate. If the Government want to know why they are doing so badly—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The situation facing the Conservative party in Scotland has nothing to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. Worthington: Part II of the Bill applies to Scotland, yet it has not been discussed and no policy documents have been issued. The Minister with
      286
      responsibility for policing in Scotland has not made a public statement on why the changes are necessary. That is contemptuous.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) spoke of the fall in crime in Scotland. That cannot have been achieved as a result of the Government's policies in Scotland, because no one knows what their policies are. The Minister responsible has not spoken for the past two years on crime in Scotland. I doubt whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton can even tell me who the Minister is. There is a vacuum here.
      The partnership in Scotland between local authoritie—the Scottish police Minister has now emerged—and the police force, which was called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) but which this Bill will seek to break up, has begun to succeed. That is one of the reasons why I feel so sad about the introduction of the Bill.
      11.27 pm
      Mr. Boateng: This is a hapless and friendless Bill, which may explain why the Home Secretary has such a close affinity with it. He sees in it a kindred spirit. The danger is that the Bill is likely to be around considerably longer than he is.
      That is why we heard from him what passed as a plea in mitigation—it could not be described as anything else. I know his past, and the criminal law was never one of his strong suits: planning, yes—crime, no. He would have done well to leave the plea in mitigation to someone else, not least because a lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client, and that was never truer than in relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      It is clear—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary misdirects himself as I have nothing to defend. It is he and the Government who have brought forward this monstrous Bill and he should be under no illusions. We are fighting it because it is a creature of dogma and a centralising measure, whether in relation to the Home Office or to the Lord Chancellor's Department. We are fighting the Bill because it is ineffective and will not aid the cause of crime prevention. It will not lead to one fewer crime being committed. It will not further the interests of justice, whether of the civil or criminal law. It will do nothing for the consumer of legal services. For these reasons, we are fighting the Bill.
      The true nature of the Government's purpose in bringing forward the Bill was revealed by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). In a characteristically trenchant way—bullish he was in every respect—he gave the game away. The purpose is to impose business on the police and the magistracy. The so-called disciplines of the market are to be imposed on the administration of justice and on those who seek to ensure that crime is defeated and law and order upheld.
      We say that the market has no place in that area, because the police are and should be a public service and because the magistracy seeks to serve the public. The Bill is hapless and friendless because they believe that it will do nothing to further the cause of justice. It will do nothing to further the cause of crime prevention. That is why we oppose it.
      In Committee, the Government were prepared to make only one concession in respect of the magistracy. Only one amendment were they prepared to accept in that area. Interestingly enough, it was an amendment which sought to remove from the Bill the only reference to the Treasury.

      287
      That amendment they were prepared to accept. I can well understand why the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was prepared to take that course. He must feel, as surely as the magistrates and the justices' clerks do, the Treasury incubus on his back. The magistrates and the justices' clerks know, just as Lord Justice Purchase knows, along with those in another place who rightly criticise the Bill, that it is the Treasury and not the interests of justice that predominates in the considerations that lie behind the measure.
      The Lord Chancellor's Department has failed in its duty to uphold the interests of the citizen. The Home Office has failed in its duty to uphold the interests of the police and the citizen. That is why we shall oppose this measure root and branch, now and in the future.
      11.33 pm
      Mr. John M. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the determination with which he and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for , the Home Department have sustained the momentum of the vital police measures set out in the Bill. They are not least about priorities, performance, objectives, targets and achievements.
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in the context of the magistracy, talked about the indicative map as though it were secret. It was not secret—3,500 copies were printed and sent to the magistrates service.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was robust, vivid and forceful, but I would not accuse the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of any of those things. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who often produces more heat than light, tonight was incandescently obscure.
      For my part of the Bill, I yield to no one in my admiration for the magistrates and their justice. For my part of the Bill, I seek only to improve the administration that supports them. I wish the Bill a Third Reading.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 253.

      Division No. 286]

      [11.34 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Alexander, Richard

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Amess, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Ancram, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Ashby, David

      Bowis, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Atkins, Robert

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Baldry, Tony

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Burns, Simon

      Bates, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butcher, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Butler, Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butterfill, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      288

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hendry, Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cash, William

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Horam, John

      Clappison, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Congdon, David

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jack, Michael

      Cran, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knox, Sir David

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Legg, Barry

      Eggar, Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Elletson, Harold

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Faber, David

      Lord, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forman, Nigel

      Maclean, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Madel, Sir David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Malone, Gerald

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Mans, Keith

      French, Douglas

      Marland, Paul

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Gale, Roger

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gallie, Phil

      Mates, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Merchant, Piers

      Garnier, Edward

      Mills, Iain

      Gill, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gorst, Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hague, William

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Norris, Steve

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hannam, Sir John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Harris, David

      Page, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Paice, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      289

      Pickles, Eric

      Sumberg, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Sykes, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Richards, Rod

      Thomason, Roy

      Riddick, Graham

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Trend, Michael

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Trotter, Neville

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Sackville, Tom

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Walden, George

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Ward, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shersby, Michael

      Watts, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wells, Bowen

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Whitney, Ray

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whittingdale, John

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wilkinson, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Willetts, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sproat, Iain

      Wolfson, Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Steen, Anthony

      Stephen, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Stewart, Allan

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Streeter, Gary

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Allen, Graham

      Cann, Jamie

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Church, Judith

      Ashton, Joe

      Clapham, Michael

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ann

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Cohen, Harry

      Bell, Stuart

      Connarty, Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blair, Tony

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Blunkett, David

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dafis, Cynog

      Boyes, Roland

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Keith

      Darling, Alistair

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

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

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Byers, Stephen

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Denham, John

      290

      Dewar, Donald

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dixon, Don

      McAllion, John

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dowd, Jim

      McCartney, Ian

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McFall, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McKelvey, William

      Eastham, Ken

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Enright, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Etherington, Bill

      Maclennan, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Fatchett, Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McWilliam, John

      Fisher, Mark

      Madden, Max

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahon, Alice

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mandelson, Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marek, Dr John

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Fraser, John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Martlew, Eric

      Galbraith, Sam

      Maxton, John

      Galloway, George

      Meacher, Michael

      Gapes, Mike

      Meale, Alan

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michael, Alun

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Milburn, Alan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Miller, Andrew

      Graham, Thomas

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hain, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Hall, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Hanson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Murphy, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Olner, William

      Hinchliffe, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hodge, Margaret

      Parry, Robert

      Hoey, Kate

      Patchett, Terry

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Pendry, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pike, Peter L.

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pope, Greg

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Radice, Giles

      Hutton, John

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ingram, Adam

      Redmond, Martin

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Rendel, David

      Jamieson, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keen, Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Simpson, Alan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lewis, Terry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Litherland, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Livingstone, Ken

      Soley, Clive

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spellar, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      291

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Straw, Jack

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Worthington, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wray, Jimmy

      Turner, Dennis

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Tyler, Paul

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Vaz, Keith

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mr. Eric Illsey and

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. John Cummings.

      Watson, Mike

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

  Section 11 Funding (Bradford)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I am extremely pleased to introduce this short debate on section 11 funding in Bradford, which is of considerable concern not only to all Bradford Members but to hon. Members representing many parts of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) are both in their places.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who is ill, is unable to be here tonight. He asked me to read the following statement from him:
  "Having visited schools in my constituency where up to 95 per cent. of the roll are of ethnic minority origin, I know how important this issue is, and that is why I was glad to have an opportunity of discussing it with the Minister for Inner Cities just a few weeks ago.
  An understanding of English and an ability to use the language are vital prerequisites to the learning process. Any child who lacks those basic skills is bound to be at a serious disadvantage and to start losing time which can never be made up.
  Our objective must be to ensure that every child starts his or her schooling with an ability to make the most of what it can offer. To that end more Section 11 money should perhaps be devoted to the pre-school sector and to working with parents who, in most cases, are very anxious to give their children a good start in life but who may be poorly equipped to do so.
  All too evidently, the problems are here and now. Money spent today, if wisely used, will certainly be repaid in the future by cutting the cost of tomorrow's unemployment and tomorrow's social disadvantage.
  I hope that Bradford will combine with Government to put together a bid within the context of the Single Regeneration Budget which, among other things, clearly addresses the problems which section 11 was intended to resolve, and which also provides good value for taxpayers' and Council Tax payers' money.
  'Few challenges are of greater significance in terms of individual development and the future of our communities generally."
  The fact that it is a matter of general concern is demonstrated by an early-day motion, which has been signed by more than 70 Members. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, the problem is here and now in Bradford. By the year 2000, one in every two pupils in schools in Bradford will be of ethnic minority origin. At present, nearly 82,000 pupils are on roll, 27 per cent. of ethnic minority origin.
  The parents charter from the Secretary of State for Education recently flopped through all our letter boxes. It states:
  "You have a right to a good education for your child. This means that you have a right to expect the school to do its best to make sure every child does as well as he or she possibly can.
  The Government's education reforms are designed to support schools' and teachers' efforts to achieve that."
  In Bradford, that means that some children need help to speak, write and understand English. That is essential if they are to meet the requirements and demands of the national curriculum. That, sadly, is not the case today.
  Continuous monitoring of 20,000 ethnic minority pupils in Bradford suggests that, on leaving first schools aged nine, 27 per cent. of those pupils have still not achieved national curriculum level 2. That has an impact on subsequent achievement, because assessment records show that 59 per cent. of ethnic minority pupils entering upper schools, aged 13, have not yet achieved national

  293
  curriculum level 4. The proportion of Bradford students who do not achieve GCSE grade C or above is the highest in the country.
  Bradford still has a number of pupils and students who arrive at school with no English. Of the September 1993 intake, there were 177 such children in first schools, 114 in our middle schools and 48 in our upper schools. Although most of our children are second generation, few have parents who were educated in Britain. There is a still a propensity for a spouse in an arranged marriage to come from overseas, often speaking little or no English. It is not surprising that those parents cannot teach their children English at home. Because of the number of parents who cannot speak English, there is a significant need for more adult literacy provision. I know that the Minister is concerned about that, and I hope that he will say something about it.
  Nearly all our children in Bradford live in areas of high stress and social and economic deprivation. The need for literacy development to meet national averages is high. Many Asian children are bilingual and some as young as six, seven or eight are multilingual. Although they achieve such proficiency in languages, they are given little or no credit. If those same children spoke English, German, Italian or French, we would all say, "What clever children." They would win enormous recognition and credit. Because they speak Urdu, Punjabi or Pushto, little or no credit is given to them.
  Given support, tuition and the support that section 11 offers to many schools in Bradford and in other parts of the United Kingdom, those children can be given the support and education that they not only deserve but to which their parents are entitled—not just through the parents charter but as taxpayers and council tax payers. That is, sadly, not the case today.
  In November last year, the Home Office announced that section 11 funding would be transferred to the Department of the Environment and administered regionally through the single regeneration budget; popularly known as the SRB. Initial guidance indicated that section 11, a revenue-based grant, would not sit easily in the SRB which is largely a capital-based programme.
  From April 1995, Bradford city council will no longer receive section 11 funding. To sustain its current level of service commitment, it will be required to identify more than £4 million against the context of further budget reductions. Bradford city council now employs 587 section 11 staff in 19 projects. The full effect of the £4.2 million budget reduction will be the loss of nearly 300 staff.
  Every project faces serious staff reductions, and community-based projects will be devastated. Those projects currently employ 121 staff, of whom 82 are on fixed-term and sessional contracts. In school-based projects, 320 teachers and other staff are employed, of whom 142 are on fixed-term contracts. Of all the projects, the most dramatic impact will be felt in nursery and first schools where 47 per cent., or 91 staff, are on fixed-term contracts.
  I wish to end—my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North and for Bradford, South wish to intervene briefly—by asking the Minister a number of questions. First, I should be grateful to know whether he is in
  294
  principle prepared to meet with an all-party delegation to discuss the problems which I have been outlining this evening. I requested such a meeting some time ago.
  Secondly, will the Government consider extending section 11 for another two years, administered by the Home Office, to assist places such as Bradford which were advised by the Home Office to submit three-year section 11 bids which end next April? A number of metropolitan districts which submitted five-year bids will be able to bid for SRB allocations, and that strikes many of us as extremely unfair and anomalous.
  Alternatively, if my suggestion to the Minister is unacceptable, will the Government consider grants for education purposes available through the SRB being administered by the Home Office and the Department for Education? If the Government decide that section 11-type initiatives are to remain within the SRB, that would need to be earmarked within the budget so that there are clear criteria distinguishing capital and revenue grants.
  Finally, recognising the importance of section 11 funding in places such as Bradford, will the Government provide additional resources to support section 11 work in schools, either through the SRB or in some other way? The hon. Member for Keighley mentioned in his statement that he recently met the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction. It is interesting to note that the Minister, when replying to a debate on housing and urban regeneration and referring to section 11 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South whom he had met recently, said:
  "We do understand the issue and we will do what we can to find a way through."—[Official Report, 29 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 909.]
  That admission is interesting, and I hope very much that, when the Minister of State replies, he will be able to give some indication of what thinking is going on in Whitehall. The matter is presided over by three Departments, and there seem to be major internal contradictions in the policy that is emerging. I hope that those contradictions can be resolved, because the victims of them are many thousands of children throughout the country who deserve the best education that we can provide. I hope that ways will quickly be found of ensuring that those resources find their way to the children of this country.
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: There is cross-party recognition that the loss of section 11 funding is turning the Government's policies on their head. Section 11 funding has been successful in respect of nursery education. This evening, we are concentrating on Bradford because it suffered the double blow of losing SSA support for ethnicity. Funding must be continued. Bradford's bid was reduced from five years to three, and the loss of SSA meant a cut of £18.3 million.
  Initiatives such as city challenge and the urban programme were the result of problems in inner-city areas. We do not want to return to the days of a lack of funding to provide equality of opportunity.
  Over the past three years, Bradford has provided £4.2 million from mainline funding to support section 11 programmes, but it cannot continue to do so after an SSA cut of £18.3 million. The Government must concentrate on what they are trying to achieve. If that is not done, they will create problems and defeat their own projects.

  295
  As a minimum, section 11 funding of earmarked schemes must be protected for at least a further two years, making five years. If that cannot be done, the Government must acknowledge the need to do something. In areas such as Bradford and most other metropolitan authorities, there must be greater concentration on section 11-type schemes to support people in dramatic need.
  12.2 am
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Two years ago, together with my hon Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and our late hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, I had a meeting with Home Office and Education Ministers about the future of section 11. Strong advice from the Home Office meant that bids were for only three years—with the promise of close co-operation and advice, to assist the authority when projects came up for renewal. The single regeneration budget came as a bombshell after all the promises that we were given.
  One problem is that Bradford has never had a race riot. If it had been otherwise, large sums of money might have followed, as happened with Bristol, Toxteth and Brixton. Fortunately, we have never had such happenings, and part of the reason for that is the extensive and profitable use of section 11 funds in the youth service and in further education. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to our case, and I hope that we shall hear some good news.
  12.3 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for raising the subject and for speaking so knowledgeably about the good work that is carried out under section 11, especially in Bradford, and about the continuing need there for instruction and practice in English for those members of the community, especially the younger members, for whom English is not the first language.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West for bringing the message from my hon Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I am glad that the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) stayed to add their voices to the debate.
  I regret that this year's reduction in section 11 funding was necessary in the overall Exchequer retrenchment, but we should acknowledge that, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the grant was rapidly increased and reached high levels in recent years. Even at the reduced level of £110 million, the amount provided under section 11 compares favourably with the £33 million that was made available in 1979 –80, and the £88 million paid out in 1988–89.
  As soon as I was aware that it would not be possible to sustain the grant at the level to which it had risen, I got my Department to write to local education authorities to give them some 16 months' notice, so that they could have the maximum time for the difficult task of planning how best to manage the reduction. Following that and the result of extensive consultation with local authorities and their associations, we also changed the basis on which the grant was distributed, using a straight cash grant allocation to each local authority rather than distributing funding as a percentage of the cost of each approved project. That was
  296
  because that method meant that funding would be lost if local authorities were unable to increase their contribution to each project.
  I am glad to say that more than 60 per cent. of LEAs that have reported their decisions to us plan to make up the shortfall and keep all existing projects going. We have yet to hear from 23 per cent. of LEAs, but I am glad that Bradford is among those that have been able to maintain section 11 spending this year. At £4.2 million, Bradford still has the third largest section 11 grant in the country.
  The hon. Members for Bradford, West, for Bradford, South and for Bradford, North also expressed particular concern about the absorption of Bradford's section 11 money into the single regeneration budget. I can understand that that worry is heightened by their knowledge that Bradford's projects are all three-year ones and are due to end this year. Responsibility for the SRB to which section 11 is being transferred lies not with the Home Office but with the Department of the Environment.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction met the hon. Member for Bradford, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, together with representatives of ethnic groups in Bradford, to discuss these issues last month. My right hon. Friend tells me that he found the meeting useful. The hon. Member for Bradford, West has asked to see me and a ministerial colleague from the Department for Education with other hon. Members to discuss these issues. I shall endeavour to arrange such a meeting before the recess, so that we can look more broadly at the issues.
  Although responsibility for the SRB does not lie with the Home Office, I should like to make some observations. The SRB conforms to the kind of integrated model recommended by a large number of independent organisations—the local authority associations and many voluntary organisations as well as the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office. This new arrangement marks the end of what the Audit Commission has referred to as
  "a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasies".
  It is surely sensible to have regeneration programmes put together as near as possible to the areas benefiting and at a point where local organisations can most effectively bring their own ideas and priorities to bear.
  The management of the budget through the 10 Government offices for the regions will ensure the involvement of people who are much closer to the concerns of local communities and better equipped to form judgments on local needs than are Whitehall Departments. It is an essential ingredient of the whole initiative that resources should be allocated on the basis of local perceptions of need and not just according to the priorities that are set nationally.
  The hon. Members for Bradford, West, for Bradford, North and for Bradford, South painted a clear picture of the position in Bradford. From my knowledge, it is similar in many respects to the situation in many other parts of the country with substantial ethnic minority populations. But Bradford also has its own heritage, characteristics, circumstances and needs which deserve, and have, to be identified and addressed in their own individual fashion. Decisions about Bradford should be reached on the basis of those, not some general blueprint.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West asked for section 11-type projects to be ring-fenced or "earmarked" to ensure their protection. I am afraid that ring fencing would

  297
  undermine the very purpose of the SRB, which allows local organisations the greatest flexibility in how they bid for and spend money from central Government.
  The opportunity is there for local authorities, training and enterprise councils and others—in Bradford and elsewhere—to submit applications under the SRB for funds to meet the particular needs of their areas. Most promisingly, in view of the hon. Gentlemen's concerns, the SRB means that initiatives aimed at ethnic minorities can be considered in the context of wider regeneration programmes. Members of ethnic minorities should no longer feel that they are being treated differently, or being marginalised, as some have certainly felt they were in relation to existing programmes.
  As sponsor Minister for three city challenge programmes in the west midlands, I have seen the achievements that are possible through local authorities, TECs, the private sector and voluntary organisations working closely in partnership—achievements which I suspect would not have been possible otherwise. Something else that I have learnt from my experience as a sponsor Minister is that education, and training in English for those who do not speak it—especially those just entering education—is soon identified as a key priority for those who wish to regenerate parts of our urban areas containing minority communities who do not speak English as a first language.
  Nevertheless, I have heard anxieties voiced by some groups—which lay behind all that the hon. Gentlemen said—that large regeneration programmes such as the SRB, or to a lesser extent city challenge, tend to target economic revival and regeneration over and above all other aspects. However, if economic regeneration is to be possible and local people are to be adequately trained for the employment opportunities that regeneration will create, it is vital for them to be able to speak English and have sufficient command of it to take up those opportunities in training and in work.
  In that way, many city challenge projects have realised the importance of investing in education as a vital part of their overall programme. If they think through their priorities sensibly, the regional offices and those bidding for funds will realise the key role that education plays in urban regeneration, and will see the need to target their bids accordingly.
  The Home Office is emphatically not bowing out of the process, although we do not have departmental responsibility for it. We remain the Department responsible for promoting the interests of the ethnic minority communities. For the first time, senior Home
  298
  Office officials will be based in each of the Government regional offices; they will pay particularly close attention to the way in which bids and programmes are being designed, and the impact that they will have on the communities concerned.
  Most important, all projects will be monitored after implementation to ensure that the benefits that this expenditure brings have reached the ethnic minorities, and the other communities and groups that are most in need. Such monitoring is vital. It will apply to all SRB initiatives, not just to those that are recognisable as the kind hitherto funded under programmes such as section 11. That will create a substantial opportunity to ensure that, in future, the ethnic minorities benefit more fully from a wider range of Government spending than they have in the past.
  We are certainly aware in the Home Office—and, I believe, in the regional offices—of the particular issue relating to section 11 funding in Bradford to which the hon. Member for Bradford, West and his hon. Friends have referred. The SRB is intended to support a wide range of local regeneration activity, and to encourage locally devised and implemented initiatives. It would be wrong for the Government to predetermine the outcome of any of the bids, but I believe that the outcome of the bids can be more effectively targeted than Opposition Members may think, on the areas on which they would like them to focus
  Matters are still at an early stage. Potential applicants have been invited to let the regional government office have an outline of their proposals as a basis for dialogue and negotiation; I understand that Bradford has sent its outline proposals to the Yorkshire and Humberside office. The regional offices are currently considering the draft bids that they have received, and have been getting in touch with potential applicants to discuss them—although I understand that the Yorkshire and Humberside office has not yet had such a feedback meeting with Bradford.
  Much further work will then need to be done before 7 September, the closing date for applications. At that stage, when it has been possible to consider proposed initiatives in greater detail, and with the necessary flesh on the skeleton outline, it will be for the Government offices to make properly informed recommendations to Ministers about the bids on the table.
  I am glad to have had the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Bradford, West to develop some thoughts on that crucial subject, and I look forward to meeting him and other colleagues in the near future to consider the matter a little more fully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gravesend Bench
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the breakdown by party political affiliation of members of the Gravesend bench.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The political balance of magistrates on the Gravesham bench, which covers Gravesend, on the latest information available is as follows:

  Number

  Conservative

  24

  Labour

  13

  Liberal Democrat

  6

  Independent/Not Known

  10

  Pre-trial Issues Working Group
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement concerning the pilot study of recommendation 92 of the inter-agency working group on pre-trial issues.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The pilot study has now been evaluated and the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have received a report setting out its results. The inter-agency pre-trial issues steering group, which set up the pilot study, has recommended that the system under which magistrates' courts, when committing defendants to the Crown court for trial, fix a date upon which the case will be listed for a plea and directions hearing in the Crown court should be introduced on a national basis.

  We, together with the Lord Chief Justice, welcome the report as a significant step towards a reduction in the number of cases which are listed for trial, with witnesses attending to give evidence, but which are not contested on the day. The percentage of such cases fell from 31 per cent. before the pilot to 18 per cent. during the pilot. The Lord Chancellor's Department is establishing an inter-agency implementation group to carry forward the implementation of the recommendation. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Courts Service
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce computerisation into the county court service; how many county courts these plans will affect; how many will not be so affected; and what account he will take of whether a court has been computerised in deciding whether it should be closed.
  106
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I are committed to improving the efficiency of the court system by providing court staff with computer support where appropriate. To achieve this, all county court offices are already provided with some form of computer support in the areas of warrant production and control and of the handling of suitors' cash. Those systems are currently being upgraded. A project is also under way to extend the range of functions to which computer support can be given. The criteria applied in deciding whether it is appropriate to close a county court do not include the existence of computer support.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria he applies when deciding which of the functions of the courts service are appropriate for contracting out and which are not.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The first and paramount criterion is the preservation of the independence and probity of the judicial process. If that is not at risk, general issues relating to the effective and efficient operation and management of the courts in providing a good-quality service to their users and value for money for the taxpayer would be taken into account.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to identify a core of activities of the courts service that are not appropriate for contracting out.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is exploring the matter with the senior judiciary. Each activity will be considered on its own merits, bearing in mind the paramount need to maintain the independence and probity of the judicial process.

TREASURY

  Political Parties (Funds)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if funds drawn in the form of either interest or capital from a capital sum held abroad by a political party are subject to United Kingdom taxation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Political parties are chargeable to corporation tax or income and capital gains tax on their profits or gains depending on their status and organisation. Whether sums drawn in the form of interest or capital from a capital sum held abroad are subject to United Kingdom taxation will depend on whether those sums represent profits or gains, and on the particular circumstances in which the sums are drawn.

  Visible Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken internationally to reduce Japanese and German surpluses on visible trade.

  Mr. Nelson
  Trade surpluses reflect, in the main, structural factors, such as Japan's high domestic savings ratio and relative cyclical position. At last year's G7 summit in Tokyo, Japan undertook to implement fiscal and monetary measures to ensure sustained non-inflationary growth contributing to the goal of significantly reducing external imbalances.

  Fonds Commun de Placement
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the benefit to United Kingdom investors and financial institutions if the tax treatment of fonds commun de placement with undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities certificates is changed so it is practical to market them in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have made no such assessment. I understand, however, that fonds commun de placement are mutual funds set up in other member states of the European Union by financial institutions established in those states. It is not clear to what extent changing the tax treatment of those funds to enhance their marketability in the United Kingdom would beneift financial institutions in the United Kingdom as opposed to those of other member states.

  Corporation Tax, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the yield from corporation tax in Northern Ireland each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not possible to provide a reliable geographical analysis of the yield of corporation tax. The tax is charged on total profits of a company, including income received from abroad. A company may surrender tax losses to another company in the same group anywhere in the United Kingdom and thus reduce the latter's tax charge.

  Dividend Payments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was repaid by the inspector of foreign dividends or his equivalent to foreign holders of United Kingdom dividends, warrants etc. in relation to tax credits or to tax withheld in regard to their dividend payments in each fiscal year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: Payments to foreign residents of tax credits on United Kingdom dividends under double taxation agreements made either at source by the company paying the dividend or by the inspector of foreign dividends are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1985–86

  440

  1986–87

  490

  1987–88

  480

  1988–89

  510

  1989–90

  550

  1990–91

  490

  1991–92

  480

  1992–93

  550

  1993–94

  470

  Note:

  Excludes payments to sovereign immune bodies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action he has taken against the auditing firm and partners criticised in the inspectors' report on Rotaprint plc; and what has been the outcome;
  108
  (2) what action he has taken against the auditing firm and partners criticised in the inspectors' reports on Sound Diffusion; and what has been the outcome.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4 July 1994,Official Report, column 11.

  Electrical Appliances (Plugs)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to make regulations requiring electrical applicances to be supplied with a correctly fused plug; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 will be laid before Parliament shortly, and from 1 February 1995 most domestic electrical appliances manufactured in, or imported into, the United Kingdom must be supplied with a correctly fused plug.

  Fatalities and injuries occur each year because of incorrectly fitted electric plugs. These regulations represent an important step forward in consumer safety for the British public.

  Slate
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conveniently available figures he has for the import of slate into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the topic is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his assessment of the benefits that the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 has brought to home buyers;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991; and what plans he has to amend it.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Act was introduced to deter estate agents from making inaccurate statements about property. It has had practical effect only since April 1993, when the Property Misdescriptions (Specified Matters) Order 1992 came into force. It takes time for new legislation to settle and it is too soon to be able to judge how effectively the Act and the order are operating.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many convictions there have been under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991;

  (2) how many prosecutions have been brought under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As of 29 June 1994, the Office of Fair Trading had been notified of six prosecutions under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, all of which resulted in convictions.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many applicants in each region of the United Kingdom have been rejected for regional selective assistance because of a failure to meet new guidelines;
  109
  (2) what recent changes have been made in the guidelines relating to the disbursement of regional selective assistance; and from when they took effect.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Teampace Holdings Ltd.
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the report from the receivers to Teampace Holdings Ltd.; what factors led the Department to decide against further investigations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The administrative receivers' report was received by the disqualification unit on 5 April 1993 and identified as meriting further investigation on 11 May 1993. Because of the need to prioritise the unit's resources, the matter was not taken forward, as I explained in my speech in the House on 29 June 1994,Official Report, columns 920–22.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what legal advice he has received on the implications of change in ownership of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) which options in regard to the United Kingdom Patent Office have been ruled out; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the option which Price Waterhouse has been requested to provide covering the future of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) how many representations he has received on the future of the Patent Ofice in the last 12 months; how many of them were in favour of the status quo; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will consider making an interim announcement in regard to the Patent Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are still considering the report by Price Waterhouse which was commissioned as part of the review of the Patent Office's performance as an agency and of its options for the future. The review covers a range of possibilities from abolition to maintenance of the status quo. It is also required to address the scope for contractorisation or privatisation. The review has thrown up a number of complex legal and policy issues, which we are considering. I should emphasise that no decision on the future of the office has yet been taken. An announcement will be made as soon as the review is complete.

  Company

  Inspectors

  Accountant inspectors costs (inc support staff and VAT) £ (000's)

  Legal inspectors costs (inc support staff and VAT) £ (000's)

  Cost of inspection/inspection to date £ (000's)

  Guinness Plc

  Mr. D. Donaldson QC

  1,794

  482

  2,276

  Mr. I Watt FCA, formerly of

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Graylaw Holdings Ltd.

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  431

  43

  474

  Link Service Stations Ltd.

  Mr. P. Foss FCA,

  British Anzani Plc

  Moore Rowland

  Bank Street Securities Ltd.

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  152

  20

  172

  Medway Secondary Metals Ltd.

  Mr. P. Foss FCA,

  85

  15

  100

  Pennine Comnmercial Holdings Plc

  Moore Rowland

  352

  35

  387

  110
  Around 80 representations have been received regarding the future of the Patent Office. These reflect a wide range of issues.

  Post Office Workers (Dog Attacks)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post office employees received injuries caused by dog attacks while delivering letters and parcels in 1993; how many work days were lost as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The handling of Post Office staff matters is the responsibility of Post Office management. However, I understand that in 1993 the total number of incidents involving animal attacks on Post Office employees was 6,040, of which 694 were sufficiently serious to require sick leave, amounting to a total of 4,527 working days.

  Inspectorate AG and Omni Group
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to investigate the activities in the United Kingdom of subsidiaries or companies related to the Inspectorate AG and Omni Group between 1987 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  It is not my Department's policy to comment on the affairs of individual companies. If the hon. Member has information to suggest that an inquiry would be appropriate, my officials would be pleased to consider any information forwarded in the usual manner.

  Company Inspections
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, for each of the investigations authorised under the Companies Acts, where inspectors have been appointed and the investigation is in progress or the final report remains unpublished, he will publish a table showing the cost of to date, the business connections of the inspectors, the manner in which costs have been disbursed to each of the inspectors, the total number of hours for which his Department has been charged and the basis of fees.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The table below covers all current Companies Acts inspections where the inspection has been announced or, if completed, the report has not yet been published or a decision whether to publish has not been taken. Further information on costs is commercially confidential and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 July 1993,Official Report, column 132.
  111

  Company

  Inspectors

  Accountant inspectors costs (inc support staff and VAT) £ (000's)

  Legal inspectors costs (inc support staff and VAT) £ (000's)

  Cost of inspection/inspection to date £ (000's)

  James Ferguson Holdings Plc

  Mr. L. Ziman

  4,180

  1,558

  5,738

  Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd.

  Nabarro Nathanson

  Mr. W. Hoffman FCA,

  Baker Tilly

  Consolidated Gold Fields Plc.

  Mr. P. Heslop QC

  3,415

  384

  3,799

  Mr. R. Lewis FCA,

  Kidsons Impey

  Atlantic Computers Plc

  Mr. E. Hamilton QC

  4,643

  1,849

  6,492

  Atlantic Computer Systems Plc

  Mr. J. Scott FCA,

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Wace UK Holdings Ltd.

  Mr. A. Robertshaw

  282

  Tinsley Robor Plc

  Mr. C. Mayhew

  European Colour Plc

  both Departmental officers

  Mirror Group Newspapers Plc

  Mr. J. Thomas QC

  4,331

  1,003

  5,334

  Mr. R. Turner FCA,

  Neville Russell

  Chancery Plc

  Mr. R. Chandler,

  86

  203

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Mr. A. Robertshaw

  Mr. M. Deveson

  Mr. A. Fausset

  all Departmental officers

  Queens Moat Houses Plc

  Mr. P. Phillips QC

  724

  180

  904

  Mr. A. Burn FCA,

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Euroscan
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint inspectors to investigate the liquidation of Euroscan.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I cannot comment on the affairs of individual companies. I am prepared to consider any information the hon. Member may provide in the usual way.

  Corporate Communications
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint inspectors to investigate the liquidation of Corporate Communications.

  Company

  Date of publication

  Accountant inspectors costs (inc support staff) £ (000's)

  Legal inspectors costs (inc support staff) £ (000's)

  Total £ (000's)

  Cornhill Consolidated Group Ltd

  31 December 1980

  —

  —

  (i)

  Burnholme and Forder Ltd

  17 July 1979

  —

  —

  (i)

  Dowgate & General Investments Ltd

  14 May1979

  —

  —

  (i)

  CST Investments Ltd

  Words in Action Ltd

  22 February 1979

  —

  —

  (ii)

  Ashbourne Investments Ltd

  31 July 1979

  245

  82

  327

  Darjeeling Holdings Ltd

  30 April 1980

  155

  28

  183

  The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd

  Data Investments Ltd

  Vivella Ltd

  Bandara Investments Ltd

  Bandarapola Ceylon Company

  112
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  On the basis of the information currently before me, I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate case for the appointment of inspectors.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the amount paid to each of his Department's inspectors for the reports published between 1979 and 1985.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table. The figures for costs include expenses incurred by the inspectors.
  113

  Company

  Date of publication

  Accountant inspectors costs (inc support staff) £ (000's)

  Legal inspectors costs (inc support staff) £ (000's)

  Total £ (000's)

  Brayhead Ltd

  17 July 1979

  —

  —

  (i)

  Larkfold Holdings Ltd

  7 June 1979

  66

  18

  84

  Kina Holdings Ltd

  24 March 1981

  218

  22

  240

  Scotia Investments Ltd

  22 January 1981

  270

  83

  353

  North Devon Railway Company Ltd

  22 February 1979

  —

  —

  (ii)

  AEG-Telefunken (UK) Ltd

  6 September 1979

  42

  5

  47

  Credit Collections Ltd

  Norwest Holst Ltd

  23 June 1982

  69

  63

  132

  Gilgate Holdings Ltd

  8 September 1981

  628

  28

  656

  Rayborne Group Ltd

  Calomefern Ltd

  Desadean Properties Ltd

  Aveley Laboratories Ltd

  19 May 1981

  17

  6

  23

  Peachey Property Corp Ltd

  30 January 1979

  —

  —

  (i)

  Peek Foods Ltd

  8 December 1981

  —

  —

  (i)

  Orbit Holdings Ltd

  23 December 1981

  30

  6

  36

  Ozalid Group Holdings Ltd

  13 March 1980

  84

  22

  106

  The United Industrial Company Ltd

  17 March 1981

  83

  7

  90

  Fourth City and Commercial Investments Trust Ltd

  27 January 1982

  268

  44

  312

  Systematic Tooling Ltd

  Excelads Ltd

  Cambramain Ltd

  Ozalid Group Holdings Ltd

  13 March 1980

  84

  22

  106

  Ramor Investments Ltd

  22 March 1983

  651

  109

  760 (iii)

  Derritron Ltd

  (interim)

  Saint Piran Ltd

  4 December 1980

  —

  —

  191 (iv)

  (interim)

  16 April 1981

  (final)

  Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd

  5 August 1980

  —

  —

  (ii)

  Dunlop Holdings Ltd

  17 February 1981

  —

  —

  (ii)

  (interim)

  House of Fraser Plc

  9 August 1984

  —

  149

  149

  (i) Cost information no longer available.

  (ii) Inspectors were Departmental officers and the cost of their investigation is not available.

  (iii) Costs are total costs of the investigation.

  (iv) Detailed cost information is no longer available.

  Accounting Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will launch an independent inquiry into the affairs of Coopers and Lybrand following the DTI report on the company;

  (2) if he will initiate an independent inquiry into the regulation of the major accounting firms by the Institute of Chartered Accountants;
  114
  (3) if he will launch an independent inquiry into the affairs of Grant Thornton following the DTI report on the company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing by standard industrial trade classification two-digit division the
  115
  industries whose share of exports by the main manufacturing countries has declined since 1979 as a result of lack of investment in new plant and machinery.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Multi-level Marketing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposal he has for updating legislation in relation to multi-level marketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are preparing proposals for changes to the present legislation, and hope to publish a consultation paper shortly.

  Parcels
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 630, what is the position in relation to VAT exemption for parcels sent via a privatised company by franked or account postage rather than by the purchase of a stamp.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This issue is discussed in the Government's Green Paper "The Future of Postal Services" (Cm. 2614) published on 30 June. If the Government decide to proceed with privatisation or part-privatisation of the Royal Mail and Parcelforce, they will consider, in the light of EC law, the appropriate VAT treatment for non-obligatory parcels services provided by the new company. Such services would include those offered on account to commercial companies and other organisations, in competition with services from other parcels carriers.

  Unfair Consumer Contracts
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make it his policy to receive a delegation led by the hon. Member for Macclesfield to discuss the provisions of the European directive on unfair consumer contracts and its implications for British industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: If my hon. Friend contacts the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, I am sure that my noble Friend will be pleased to meet with him.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 254, when he expects to complete the compliance cost assessment in relation to the European directive on unfair consumer contracts; which trade associations and individual companies have been consulted specifically in connection with that assessment; and if he will list all those provisions likely to prove onerous to industry which his Department succeeded in having deleted from the European directive on unfair consumer contracts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: A compliance cost assessment is being prepared on the proposals to implement the EC directive on unfair terms in
  116
  consumer contracts and will be published shortly. All trade associations and companies that received the Department's consultation document were invited to make an estimate of the compliance costs. Provisions in earlier drafts of the directive which were considered likely to be onerous to industry included extension of the scope of the directive to all contract terms, whether negotiated or not; inclusion of a blacklist of terms which would be unfair in all circumstances; and an attempt to harmonise sale of goods legislation.

  Universal Postal Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will make the definition of the exclusive services which will be offered to the operators of the universal postal service, under the proposed reserved services directive of the European Union.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: The maximum scope of the reserved area is likely to be defined at Community level, and member states will be free to establish smaller reserved areas if they wish.

EMPLOYMENT

  Barnsley/Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current training targets for the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The training and enterprise council's corporate plan for 1994–1997 sets out local targets which it has agreed with key players in education and training, to contribute towards the achievement of the national education and training targets. The TEC's corporate plan is available in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what internationally recognised qualifications are obtainable through the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The qualifications which are obtainable through the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council are nationally recognised qualifications. A second EC directive on mutual recognition of qualifications has been adopted which will give national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications currency throughout the Community.

  Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what the amount of Government expenditure on training the existing work force has been in each year since 1979 at 1993 prices;

  (2) how much Government expenditure has been spent on overall training in each year since 1979 at 1993 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Expenditure by the Department on training, education, enterprise, employment measures and labour market services in Great Britain is detailed in the table. Information relating to other Government expenditure on training is not available to this Department. The Employment Department group is offering a total of 1.5 million opportunities for unemployed people in 1994–95, the same as 1993–94's record level.
  117

  £ million

  Cash

  Real terms (1993 prices)

  1979–80

  878

  2,091

  1980–81

  1,324

  2,664

  1981–82

  1,452

  2,663

  1982–83

  1,645

  2,817

  1983–84

  2,067

  3,383

  1984–85

  2,203

  3,433

  1985–86

  2,420

  3,572

  1986–87

  2,969

  4,259

  1987–88

  3,217

  4,381

  1988–89

  3,137

  4,003

  1989–90

  3,008

  3,589

  1990–91

  2,871

  3,170

  1991–92

  2,779

  2,885

  1992–93

  2,692

  —

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his most recent estimate of the amount spent on training by(a) private employers, (b) public employers, (c) Government and (d) individuals.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates from the "Training in Britain" study of 1986–87 of the amount spent on training in Great Britain by private sector firms with 10 or more employees, public sector employers, Government and individuals are shown in the table:

  £'000 million

  Private sector firms with 10 more employees

  9

  Public sector employers (excludes armed services)

  5

  Government

  7

  Individuals

  8

  It is estimated that British employers currently spend over £20,000 million a year on training and developing their employees.

  The estimate of Government expenditure includes expenditure by the then Manpower Services Commission on training programmes and the costs of post-compulsory education outside schools. Expenditure in 1992–93 by the Department on training, education, enterprise, employment measures and labour market services in Great Britain was £2,692 million. The estimate of expenditure by individuals consists mainly of earnings forgone by those in post-compulsory education.

  1992–93 (£ million)

  Percentage of aid allocable by sector

  Percentage of total United Kingdom bilateral aid to developing countries

  Health and Population

  48·9

  8·6

  3·8

  Basic Education1

  15·8

  2·8

  1·2

  Water and Sanitation

  25·8

  4·5

  2·0

  1Basic education, including primary education, some teacher training and adult literacy, is estimated to be 15 per cent. of the total ODA spending in the education sector.

  In addition, in 1992–93, £150 million of emergency aid was provided. Most of this goes to meet basic human needs in time of crisis.

  Financial Services Industry
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of relative wage levels in the financial services industry in(a) London, (b) Dublin and (c) Luxembourg; and what implications this has for employment opportunities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Reliable information is not available at this level.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the total cost of external consultancy fees in relation to market testing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: As reflected in information already provided to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee as part of its inquiry into the civil service, during the period 1 April 1992 to 31 December 1993, the total cost of external consultancy fees incurred by the Department in relation to market testing was £845,319. The Employment Department group's market-testing programme is being developed within existing resources.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Bilateral Aid
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid spending is focused on basic needs provision; and if he will set out separately figures for spending on health, primary education and clean water provision(a) in cash prices and (b) as a percentage of the United Kingdom's total bilateral aid spending.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is estimated that a minimum of £111 million of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid was focused on basic needs provision in 1992–93. Some £13 million of this was provided as block grants to non-governmental organisations and £8 million was provided as a grant to the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

  The sectoral figures shown in the table are included within the £111 millon:

  Nigeria
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 525–26, if he will list those practical initiatives in Nigeria which his Department is funding in support of a democratic transition in that country; if he will indicate the amount of funding

  119
  for each project; and if he will make a statement indicating specifically what steps his Department intends to take to assist the work of the National Constitutional Conference in Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since April 1993, we have provided office equipment and literature to organisations concerned with democracy and human rights—£40,000—help towards the running of and participation in human rights conferences—£12,000—and support for monitoring of the June 1993 election—£10,000. Further initiatives totalling up to £75,000 in 1994–95 are being considered. In addition, we have helped the work of the National Constitutional Conference by providing its library with books and journals on legal, political and constitutional issues, including copies of the democratic constitutions of several Commonwealth countries—£5,500.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Forensic Pathology
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidelines to prevent the use of photographic or other material gained in the course of forensic pathology for public entertainment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Prisoners, Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Northern Ireland prisoners have received transfers from England and Wales to Northern Ireland since 1 January 1993; and how many were(a) permanent, (b) temporary, (c) male, (d) female, (e) loyalists and (f) republican transfers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1 January 1993, three male prisoners have been permanently transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland and eight male prisoners have been temporarily transferred. In addition, four male prisoners previously temporarily transferred have been granted further periods of temporary transfer in Northern Ireland. No female prisoners have been either permanently or temporarily transferred during this period, and one of the prisoners transferred was convicted of a terrorist offence. It is our policy not to comment on the past or present political affiliations of prisoners.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the greatest, the shortest and the average length of time between application for transfer and notification of the decision to accept or reject the application for temporary or permanent transfer from England and Wales to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Transfers of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions have been effected since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. The information requested could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long a prisoner whose application for transfer from England and Wales to Northern Ireland is rejected must wait before reapplying.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A prisoner may apply for transfer to another United Kingdom jurisdiction at any time. Each 120
  application will be considered individually and on its own merits under the criteria announced to Parliament on 23 November 1992.

  Colin Ivor Dunning (Appeal)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 456, if he has now considered the representations submitted in February 1994, on behalf of Colin Ivor Dunning, together with earlier representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret that our consideration of those representations is not yet complete and it is possible that some outside inquiries may have to be made before a decision is made on whether to refer Mr. Dunning's conviction to the Court of Appeal or to take any other action. I will ensure that the hon. Member is informed as soon as there are any further developments.

  Aldington Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases staff shortages at Aldington prison have been the reason for the non-production of prisoners in court in the past 12 months.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of occasions in the past 12 months on which staff shortages at Aldington prison have been responsible for the non-production of prisoners in court.
  Aldington is a small prison which receives few requests to produce prisoners for court appearances. Other establishments are advised not to send to Aldington prisoners who will need to be produced at court. Until recently, there has been no system at the prison for recording such requests. It is known that the obligation to produce prisoners for Crown Court appearances has been fulfilled without exception. In the absence of any statistics, however, it is not possible to give any precise figures about productions at Magistrates courts.
  A system of recording all requests for production, including the reasons for any cancellations, has now been introduced at Aldington.

  Police (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 458, (1) if he will provide the evidence available to him on the extent to which benefits may accrue (a) to the organisation and (b) to the individual; and what assessment he has made of the benefit to the public of introducing performance-related pay;

  (2) if he will list the specific benefits that will accrue to the police service as a result of performance-related pay and the defects resulting from the present system which he aims to correct;

  (3) if he will list his targets for the improvement in the performance of police officers (a) in terms of specific activities and (b) in terms of improvement sought.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have made it clear on a number of occasions that police pay should be related to
  121
  overall performance. This does not mean judging performance against crude indicators such as numbers of arrests or crimes cleared up. The introduction of an element in police pay related to overall performance will enable the police service, in a tangible way, to distinguish the especially good performance from the average performance, which is not possible under the current pay system. Together with the other police management reforms being introduced by the Government, performance-related pay will assist in the process of improving quality and increasing efficiency by providing a sensible incentive to police officers and a better basis for managing police pay, which constitutes some 80 per cent. of all money spent on policing.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 627, on how many occasions United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. has received warnings in relation to its management of Blakenhurst prison; what was the nature of the warning on each occasion; and what was the outcome.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the warnings United Kingdom Detention Services have received in relation to their management of Blakenhurst prison.
  Excluding the occasions mentioned in the earlier reply where default notices have been issued against the contractor and the one occasion where payment was withheld, the Controller has on six occasions required the Director of United Kingdom Detention Services to improve specific areas of service delivery. These warnings related to a number of matters including contingency arrangements, supervision of visits, visits by the Director to the segregation unit, the timely discharge of prisoners with adequate clothing, provison of regime monitoring information, and cleanliness. All the warnings were acted upon by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd and no further action proved necessary.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current reinstatement value of Blakenhurst prison; how it is calculated; and how often it is reassessed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the reinstatement value of Blakenhurst Prison.
  The current reinstatement value of Blakenhurst Prison is estimated at £91 million. This valuation is based on an estimate of the new replacement cost of the buildings, using current construction costs, from which deductions are made to allow for age and condition. The valuation also includes an estimate of the value of the land in its existing use.
  122
  This valuation is in line with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors guidelines on asset valuations and will be reviewed and adjusted annually.

  Immigration Act 1971
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) prisons, (b) detention centres and (c) police stations used to detain persons under the powers of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended; and what is the number of persons currently detained at each individual establishment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: On 29 June 1994, people were detained under Immigration Act powers at the following locations:

  Immigration Service

  Number

  Campsfield House

  165

  Harmondsworth

  95

  Gatwick Beehive

  16

  Queens Building

  15

  Stansted

  7

  Port Detention

  7

  Newhaven

  6

  Prison Service

  Aberdeen

  2

  Belfast

  1

  Belmarsh

  8

  Blakenhurst

  10

  Brinsford R C

  6

  Bristol

  4

  Bullingdon

  1

  Brixton

  4

  Canterbury

  33

  Cardiff

  1

  Chelmsford

  4

  Dover

  23

  Durham

  2

  Edinburgh

  1

  Elmley

  1

  Erlestoke

  3

  Exeter

  6

  Feltham

  4

  Glen Parva

  1

  Gloucester

  1

  Greenock

  9

  Haslar1

  128

  High Down

  13

  Holloway

  11

  Hull

  4

  Leeds

  4

  Lewes

  3

  Liverpool

  3

  Norwich

  5

  Pentonville

  21

  Reading

  1

  Risley

  1

  Rochester

  1

  Shrewsbury

  2

  Strangeways

  9

  Swaleside

  1

  Swansea

  1

  Wandsworth

  7

  Winchester

  8

  Winson Green

  40

  The Wolds

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  6

  Police Stations2

  43

  Total

  749

  1Haslar Holding Centre is primarily an Immigration Detention Centre, although managed by the Prison Service.

  2The numbers held in individual police stations are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when it is proposed that probation boards will begin to exercise executive functions and powers;

  (2) what appointment procedures will be set in place for constituting the membership of probation boards; and when such procedures will be published.

  Mr. Maclean
  Primary legislation is required to enact the probation board proposals and the timing of this depends on an appropriate legislative opportunity. Details of the procedures proposed for appointments to boards will be confirmed at that time.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether representatives of voluntary bodies who are either tendering for or involved in partnerships will be eligible to be members of probation boards.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of probation committee members have active links with voluntary sector organisations which are, or may be, involved in partnerships with the probation service. Although those links should not be a bar to probation committee membership, it is important that committees have in place procedures to avoid any conflicts of interest which may arise. Similar considerations are likely to apply to probation boards in due course.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which probation services in England and Wales will be reducing staffing levels in the financial year 1994–95; and what will be the consequent effect on probation work loads.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for each probation committee to decide how the resources available to it should be used to best effect; and the Home Office does not have information about committees' plans for the remainder of the present financial year with regard to numbers of staff in post.

  Third-country Nationals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the free movement of legally resident third-country nationals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government do not support the extension of European Community rights of free movement to third-country nationals and consider that the admission of third-country nationals should remain a matter for individual member states. We are discussing with our European partners a proposal in the draft external frontiers convention which would exempt third-country nationals who are legally resident in another member state from any visa requirement for a short visit. This proposal would make travel within the Community easier but would give no automatic right of free movement to resident third-country nationals.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers and passengers were summoned for travelling without a seat belt in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.
  124
  Mr. Maclean
  There were 10,145 prosecutions for not wearing a seat belt in England and Wales in 1990, 12,156 in 1991 and 11,258 in 1992. Statistics for 1993 are not yet available.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for a firearms licence have been refused in England and Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is published in Home Office statistical bulletin "Firearm Certificate Statistics, England and Wales 1992", issue 23/93, a copy of which can be found in the Library. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans he has formulated for co-ordination between police forces in the United Kingdom and Interpol in respect of computer pornography and other obscene material if the obscene publications branch at Scotland Yard is closed down.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No proposals about the future of the obsecne publications branch have yet been made, but the Metropolitan police have given assurances that its work will continue whatever the recommendations of the current headquarters and specialist units' review.

  Escort and Custody Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are currently on court escort and custody service in the Metropolitan police district; and how many staff will be on this service when Securicor is operating all of this service in July 1995.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of staff currently employed on the court escort and custody service in the Metropolitan Police area and the number of staff who will be employed on this service when Securicor are operating the whole of it from July 1995.
  It is not possible to make a simple comparison of this kind because of the difficulty of comparing like with like. The service has hitherto been provided by the Metropolitan Police and Prison Service but not by staff exclusively dedicated to it. Therefore, calculating the overall resources devoted to the work was difficult. To overcome this problem the number of staff so employed was calculated on the basis of full time equivalent posts. It has been calculated that the Metropolitan Police employed 271 full time equivalent police officers and 47 full time civilian staff on court escort and custody work. This excludes the time deployed on the work by more senior officers. Using a similar methodology it was calculated that the Prison Service employed 335 full time equivalent prison officers. These figures exclude time spent by drivers of private hire vehicles, where these are used for escorting.
  These staffing levels reflected the level of activity in the 1992–93 financial year. Since April 1993 there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the remand population and this would have resulted in an increase in staff time utilized had the police and Prison Service continued to provide the service.

  125
  Securicor intend to employ 815 uniformed staff, consisting of 738 basic grade prisoner custody officers and 77 supervisors. This figure includes vehicle drivers who are certificated prisoner custody officers and who will be carrying out escort duties at court.
  The number of staff to be employed by Securicor reflects the increasing number of remand prisoner movements to and from court for which they will be responsible.
  The cost of the contract over five years is £96 million or just under £22 million, exclusive of VAT, for a fully operational year. This compares with an estimated annual cost under the previous arrangements of approximately £28 million.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decisions his Department has taken in respect of TECs over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement with TECs over the same period.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 30 June 1994]: Officials from the Home Office and United Kingdom Passport Agency have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Central London TEC and Investors In People (UK) Ltd. Passport agency officials have also met the TECs for the areas in which the agency's regional offices are located. There have also been meetings between officials of the Immigration and Nationality Department and the South London TEC; the Fire Service college and Gloucestershire TEC; and the Forensic Science Service with Birmingham TEC. All those meetings have been in connection with the Home Office commitment to the Investors in People—IIP—initiative; none of them has involved particular decisions. In addition, there have been meetings between representatives of a number of Prison Service establishments and their local TECs concerning the development of both staff and prisoner non-vocational qualifications, and steps towards IIP accreditation. In the context of developing local policies to help offenders and ex-offenders to find employment, the Home Office has advised chief probation officers to seek agreements with TECs.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will define the role of the private sector forum on market testing, its terms of reference and the criteria used for issuing invitations to attend;

  (2) if he will list the names of the individuals and companies of those invited to attend, and those who actually attended, the January meeting of the private sector forum on market testing;

  (3) what safeguards exist to prevent those individuals and companies invited to take part as members of the private sector forum from financial gain from contracting out of Government services as a result of their membership of the forum;

  (4) if he will list the names of the individuals and companies of those invited to attend the July meeting of the private sector forum on market testing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The role of the private sector forum is to provide a channel of communication on "Competing for Quality" issues between the private sector, central Departments, and other Departments and agencies.
  126
  There are no formal terms of reference. The forum will provide an opportunity for the Government and the private sector to exchange experience on the "Competing for Quality" programme and to identify best practice which could be more widely adopted. No specific contracting opportunities will be discussed, and the forum will not provide a means of redress for companies which have failed to win competitions. Those matters must be discussed between bidders and individual Departments in the normal way. Invitations have been issued to a broad and representative range of those industries participating in the "Competing for Quality" programme.

  The meeting in January was called to discuss with contractors and consultants the Government's intentions, as announced in the next steps review in December 1993, to publicise prior options reviews of agencies and to invite views from interested parties. Those present were:

  John Allen, BET Group

  John Barker, Kleinwort Benson

  Richard Benton, Capita Group plc

  Norman Biddle, Symonds Facilities Management plc

  Mark Call, QDM Limited

  Charles Cox, Hoskyns Group plc

  Peter Farmer, Ernst and Young

  Kit Farrow, Merchant Bank Association

  Paul Fuller, Touche Ross

  Marc Gillespie, 3i Group plc

  Peter Holmes, SEMA Group

  Richard Nicholls, Serco Group plc

  Francis Plowden, Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Elizabeth Ransome, KPMG Peat Marwick

  Marwan Rifka, EDS-Scicon

  Peter Rowley, Grant Thornton

  Steven Unsworth, Price Waterhouse and Co.

  Vincent Watts, Andersen Consulting

  David van den Woude, Mackwood Finance

  Mathew Young, Y&S

  Of those companies invited, only Owens Associates was unable to attend. There is no prospect of any of those individuals and companies securing financial gain by virtue of their attendance at the forum. Should any of the companies bid for work under the "Competing for Quality" programme, they will do so under the same competitive conditions as other bidders.

  The following private sector representatives are expected to attend the private sector forum on 8 July.

  Rod Aldridge, Capita Group

  Maggi Bell, Manpower plc

  Norman Biddle, Symonds Facilities Management plc

  Gerry Bunn, Hunting Aircraft Ltd

  Tom Butler, EDS United Kingdom

  Charles Cox, Hoskyns plc

  Ian Downey, Serco Group plc

  John Hall, Business Services Association

  Peter Holmes, SEMA Group

  John Jack, PROCORD Ltd

  Brian Neylan, Securicor Group plc

  John Owens, Owens Associates

EDUCATION

  Parents Charter, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the parents charter were distributed in Nottinghamshire; and what was the cost of publication and delivery.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Every household in England is receiving a copy of the updated parents charter. Figures provided by the Royal Mail show that some 459,200 copies
  127
  of the charter are being distributed in Nottinghamshire. The total cost of publication and delivery in that area is approximately £46,000.

  EC Councils
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the outcomes of the Council of EC Youth Ministers and the Council of EC Education Ministers held on 6 and 21 June, respectively.

  Mr. Boswell
  The main item of business for the Council of Youth Ministers was the Commission proposal to extend the "Youth for Europe" programme for a third phase. The programme will continue to support a wide range of exchange-based activities for young people and youth workers in the Community, with an emphasis in the third phase on activities for the disadvantaged. The Council of 6 June reached a common position which the United Kingdom could accept. A budget of 105 million ecu, approximately £82 million, over five years—1995–99—was agreed.

  The Council of Education Ministers considered the Commission proposal for an EC education action programme, SOCRATES. Ministers reached a common position on the proposal. A budget of 760 million ecu, approximately £580 million, over five years—1995–99—for the programme was agreed. The programme will amalgamate and expand the existing ERASMUS—European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students—and Lingua programmes and will introduce Community activity at school level for the first time, through support for joint projects undertaken by schools in at least three member states. In addition, the programme will support the education of migrant workers', gipsies' and travellers' children and the dissemination of information about the education systems of member states, as well as trans-national co-operation on the in-service training of teachers, open and distance learning and adult education.

  Ministers also agreed conclusions on the cultural and artistic aspects of education and discussed a presidency note on the education of the children of migrant workers.

PRIME MINISTER

  Stephan Adolph Kock
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason Stephan Adolph Kock has special branch protection; and what other names he uses or has been known by.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not in the public interest to disclose whether any person has received official protection or not. There is no ministerial responsibility for names by which Mr. Kock is known or has been known.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from relatives of those killed in Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on the need to make inquiries about the statements attributed to Youssef Chaabane, accused of murdering a Jordanian diplomat in a Beirut court; and what response Her Majesty's Government have made.
  128
  The Prime Minister
  The Lord Advocate has received one letter from a relative of a Lockerbie victim, inquiring about the Crown Office response to the statement attributed to Chaabane. She has been told that, although it appears that what Chaabane said was very far from being a claim of responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103, the Crown Office will pursue any further investigation which may be necessary.

ENVIRONMENT

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the landfill sites licensed by local authorities in the United Kingdom that are situated closer than 200 m to human habitations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment does not keep records of individual landfill sites. That information can be obtained from the waste regulation authorities. The Department gives guidance, in waste management paper No. 27, on the safeguards required for developments near landfill sites. In addition, planning law requires a local planning authority to consult the relevant waste disposal authority about certain planning applications within 250 m of a waste disposal site.

  Brixton City Challenge
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the P and O Property Group in relation to its participation in Brixton city challenge projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been no such discussions with the P and O Property Group. Brixton city challenge has kept the Department informed of developments.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to produce a definition of hazardous waste for use in the United Kingdom which is consistent with the definitions in the Basle convention; and if he will make a statement on progress towards such a definition.

  Mr. Atkins
  The hazardous waste directive, 91/689/EEC, defines hazardous waste, inter alia, as waste featuring on a list to be drawn up by reference to the annexes to the directive. The annexes are similar to annexes included in the Basle convention. The Council is likely to consider the list in the autumn. The probable revised implementation date for the directive is July 1995.

  Water Byelaws
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his proposals for taking action on the replacement of water byelaws by regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is intended to issue a consultation paper which considers the scope, format and enforcement of provisions to replace the water byelaws during the summer.

  Lavatory Cisterns
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the British Bathroom Council in respect of the retention of byelaws relating to siphons and overflows in lavatory cisterns.

  Mr. Atkins
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the construction industry was briefed on that matter on 16 June at one of his regular fortnightly meetings with the construction industry.

  Listed Churches
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he applies in deciding whether to hold a non-statutory public inquiry when notified by the Church Commissioners that they propose to demolish a listed church where reasoned objections to the proposal are given by English Heritage, the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, the local planning authority or a national amenity society.

  Mr. Baldry
  Each case is considered on its merits in the light of the information supplied by the Church Commissioners, the views of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and English Heritage, and any representations made by local authorities or other interested parties.

  Construction Industry
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information known to his Department as to the likely date for completion of the European standardisation programme as it affects the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Some 2,700 European standards for construction material are currently in preparation by the European Committee for Standardisation. I expect the first harmonised standards to be available early next year and the major part of the current programme to be completed by the end of 1997.

  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has in relation to likely increased activity in the construction industry in 1994 as it affects slate products; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Deliveries of slate in the first quarter of 1994 were 11 per cent. higher than in the previous three months and 21 per cent. more than during the same period a year ago. This reflects the recent improvements in the volume of new construction orders. My Department's consultations with the construction industry indicate that a period of modest but sustained growth is expected. The slate industry is well placed to take advantage of that recovery.

  Council Tax Banding Appeals
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by council tax collection authority area, the number of outstanding banding appeal cases and the proportion that they represent of all liable properties in that area, as at 1 April.
  130
  Mr. Curry
  I am placing in the Library a list that shows, for each billing authority in England, the number of outstanding council tax banding appeals as at 31 March 1994 and the percentage of dwellings in each area this represents.

  Tributyl Tin
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to extending the ban on the use of tributyl tin on small craft to include all vessels.

  Mr. Atkins
  Tributyl tin use on large vessels is an international concern which is being addressed by the marine environment protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation. Members agreed in 1990 to consider appropriate ways of prohibiting totally, in the future, the use of tributyl tin compounds in anti-fouling paints for ships and the need for this was confirmed at the intermediate ministerial meeting of the North Sea Conference in December 1993. At the March 1994 meeting of the MEPC, however, the Committee recognised that at the present time alternative systems were not available whose cost could be justified by the benefits.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures are being taken to protect marine wildlife from the effects of tributyl tin;

  (2) what plans the Government have to restrict the use of tributyl tin.

  Mr. Atkins
  Controls introduced in the United Kingdom in 1987 preventing the use of anti-foulants containing tributyl tin compounds on small boats and aquaculture equipment have resulted in significant improvements in water quality. Monitoring suggests that even the most sensitive species, the dogwhelk, is beginning to recover in many areas. Dockyard operations involving removal and application of anti-fouling paints containing tributyl tin compounds will become subject to integrated pollution control and require authorisation by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution from 1995.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out on the effects of tributyl tin on shellfish and marine wildlife.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have undertaken a substantial amount of work since 1982 on the effects of tributyl tin compounds used in anti-foulants, both within their own laboratories and through contracts with the Natural Environment Research Council and other organisations. Initially, the research was aimed mainly at establishing the nature and extent of toxic effects in non-target organisms and the results justified the regulation of anti-foulants containing tributyl tin compounds in 1987. Subsequent research has monitored the effectiveness of the regulations by assessing levels of contamination in, and the recovery of, commercially important shellfish and other components of the marine ecosystem including the dogwhelk, the most sensitive species.

  Slate
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is planning in 1994 to limit imports of inferior quality slate; and if he will make a statement.
  131
  Sir George Young
  It is not appropriate to limit imports of slate products directly. However, slate used in the United Kingdom should be suitable for our climatic and atmospheric conditions as well as for their specified purpose. The appropriate requirements are set out in a British standard, BS680, satisfaction of which will ensure compliance with building regulations where applicable. My Department is seeking to ensure that the benefits of the British standard are carried over into harmonised European standards.

  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures of export assistance his Department will undertake in 1994 to help the slate industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  In conjunction with the DTI, my Department maintains building materials exports task forces for France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and North America. My Ministerial colleagues and I plan to have taken export missions to eight countries this year. All those activities are open to the United Kingdom slate industry. I would be happy for them to discuss any specific needs with my officials.

  Canada Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underlay the issue of licences for the killing of Canada geese in London parks; which parks these licences are valid for; and what methods are permitted.

  Mr. Atkins
  Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides that licences to control birds may be issued for reasons which include conserving wild birds, preserving public health or public safety. It was for these reasons that licences have been issued for the control of Canada geese numbers in London parks. Information that would identify the applicant for a licence is normally regarded as confidential. Licences provide that birds may be killed humanely using any method not prohibited by the 1981 Act.

  Ecolabelling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out the evidence which led the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board to arrive at the conclusion that no other EU country considers animal testing should be part of ecolabelling; and if he will list all those EU members who have taken a public position on this issue;

  (2) what factors led the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board to conclude that there is no basis for agreement in the United Kingdom about including animal testing in ecolabelling; what percentage of the organisations consulted by the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board on this issue were not environmental or animal welfare groups; and what percentage of the organisations consulted were opposed to inclusion of animal welfare in ecolabelling.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board was established under the European Communities Act 1972 to administer and promote the EC ecolabelling scheme in the United Kingdom. These questions are 132
  matters for the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board and I have, therefore, asked the board to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the total cost of external consultancy fees incurred by his Department in relation to market testing.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: As at March 1994, the total cost of external consultancy fees paid by the Department and its agencies in relation to market testing amounted to approximately £1,177,000.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: My Department is committed by its green housekeeping policy statement to preserve natural resources and so, where possible, press notices are sent to media outlets by electronic mail. Those hard copies which are required and all written answers are printed on recycled paper with the exception of the press release header page which is printed on paper from managed forests.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the implications of the publication by the United States Department of Energy on 27 June of details of the use of United Kingdom origin reactor grade plutonium in a nuclear test explosion in 1962, on Her Majesty's Government's policy of not commenting on the details of any nuclear weapons tests which may have been carried out.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Official Report, 4 July, column 82.

  Fire Consultants
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last consulted with the Association of Professional Fire Consultants.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: My Department has become aware only recently of the Association of Professional Fire Consultants. The association made representations to the inter-departmental scrutiny on fire legislation and enforcement. The association will be included in any future consultation on building regulation fire matters.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory basis.
  133
  Sir John Wheeler
  A list of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments which have a statutory basis is as follows:

  Advisory Committee of the Therapeutic Professions Allied to Medicine

  Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

  Central Dental Advisory Committee

  Central Medical Advisory Committee

  Central Nursing Advisory Committee

  Central Personal Social Services Advisory Committee

  Central Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics Services Advisory Committee

  Clinical Imaging Services Advisory Committee

  Committees for the Employment of Disabled People

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

  Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee

  Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  Laboratory Services Advisory Committee

  Northern Ireland Water Council (NIWC)

  Poisons Board

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR)

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult prior to legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is consulted when legislative proposals affecting human rights are published; a formal response by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is issued when the Commission's annual report is laid before Parliament.

  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is required to consult the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland before its legislation proposals. However, it is not required to publish its response to any advice supplied by the council.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports;

  (2) if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested can be obtained from the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland is required to publish its final recommendations, which are laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. The Northern Ireland Higher Education Council and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights are each required to produce an annual report, which will ensure that the outcome of the advice to Government is made widely available.
  134
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Sir John Wheeler
  Only one advisory body has been set up by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993"—the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland Advisory Panel.

  Police Authority
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made for the appointment of a new Police Authority for Northern Ireland following the expiry of the term of office of the previous authority on 28 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have appointed Mr. David Cook as chairman, Mr. Pat Armstrong CBE as vice-chairman and 18 members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, for a term of three years from 29 June 1994. In making the appointments I have, as required by statute, consulted organisations and persons representative of the community in Northern Ireland. I welcome the positive response that was made by almost all those consulted. As a result, the authority's members are drawn from a wide cross-section of the community, including the district councils, voluntary organisations, agriculture, industry and commerce. Continuity is provided by the reappointment of many individuals for a second term.

  The police authority has a vital task to perform in securing the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force. It also has a very important role to play in enhancing the relationship between the police and the public whom it serves. The authority has the additional challenge of helping to develop new structures for policing in Northern Ireland. I believe it will make a significant contribution in all those sectors.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Wernher Rey
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches have been made to him by the Swiss authorities in relation to Mr. Wernher Rey and the affairs of Omni Corporation, Inspectorate AG and related companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the Swiss authorities contacted our embassy in Berne in 1991, to inquire about Mr. Rey's nationality. I am not aware of any other approaches.

  Nigeria
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the inauguration by the Nigerian authorities of a National Constitutional Conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following the inauguration of the National Constitutional Conference in Nigeria on 27 June,
  135
  proceedings were adjourned until 11 July. We look forward to expressions of intent by the Nigerian authorities being translated into real progress towards civilian rule.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the recommendations of the Commissioner for Social Affairs as contained in his communication on immigration and asylum to the European Parliament and the Council 1994 that the member states ratify the international convention for the protection of rights of all migrant workers and members of their families, adopted by the United Nations on 18 December 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government deposited their explanatory memorandum on the communication on 25 March. We have considered this convention carefully, but are unable to sign it, as it goes beyond our existing international commitments on access to labour markets and measures necessary to secure the interests of migrants working here.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 523, which foreign states the Sudanese Government have accused of being behind the plot in which the former President Sadiq al-Mahdi is alleged to have been involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The officially controlled Sudanese media have referred to foreign states and intelligence agencies, but have not provided more specific details.

  China
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he gives to United Kingdom business men, travellers and tourists who are considering flying internally in China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British nationals are advised of those internal Chinese airlines which are believed to meet international standards of maintenance. It is for the traveller to decide which air carrier to use.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments of(a) troops and (b) logistical support have been made by countries supporting the French-led United Nations initiative in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  By 30 June, Senegal had contributed 40 troops to the French-led intervention force in Rwanda. A medical team from Mauritania, 20 observers from Egypt, 100 troops from Guinea Bissau and a Belgian military liaison officer are also expected to arrive shortly.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Western European Union role in supporting Operation Turquoise in Rwanda; and what has been achieved so far.

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  A number of WEU member states, including the United Kingdom, have expressed their 136
  readiness to assist and support the French humanitarian operation in Rwanda, primarily through the provision of logistic resources, which might be co-ordinated through the WEU, and humanitarian assistance. The operation is proceeding on the ground, with French troops evacuating civilians from both ethnic communities caught up in the fighting and offering protection to Tutsi refugees near the Zaire border.

  Holland
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relationship with the Netherlands; what ministerial visits have taken place to Holland in the past 12 months; what bilateral trade initiatives and contracts the United Kingdom has with that country; and how many official Dutch visits have been made to the United Kingdom in the past year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom enjoys excellent relations with the Netherlands. In the past 12 months, the following ministerial visits have taken place to the Netherlands: the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Health. Trade between the two countries last year totalled over £15·8 billion. The Netherlands is the United Kingdom's fourth largest market. There have been a number of visits by Dutch Ministers over this period.

  Colombia
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Colombian authorities with regard to political disappearances and killings in Colombia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are in regular touch with the Colombian Government on human rights. I raised our concerns with President Gaviria during the President's visit to London in July last year. They were also discussed when the Prime Minister met the President. I repeated our concerns during my visit to Colombia in January.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government of Iraq is co-operating with the Red Cross over Kuwaiti and other prisoners held in Iraqi prisons; and what representations he has made on this matter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The International Committee of the Red Cross chaired a meeting of the tripartite commission—coalition countries, Iraq and the ICRC—in Geneva on 1 July during which the Iraqi delegation gave its initial response to 71 out of the 609 inquiry files passed to Iraq by the ICRC over 18 months ago. We are demanding that Iraq offer information on the other files very soon. If substantive progress is not made, this matter may have to be referred to the Security Council for further action. A further meeting will be held in two months' time to review progress. We raise the plight of Kuwaiti and other missing
  137
  persons at the United Nations at every possible opportunity, for example when the Security Council last reviewed sanctions against Iraq on 17 May.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are currently known to be actively involved in foreign conflicts as mercenaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no figures available for the numbers of British citizens involved in foreign conflicts as mercenaries. The Government have no control over private citizens going overseas. The recruitment of mercenaries in this country is in some cases unlawful. If any evidence came to light that British citizens recruited as mercenaries were engaged in illegal activities, that evidence would be referred to the relevant authorities.

  British Workers Abroad
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens under the age of 25 years are currently known to be working abroad in part-time jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government do not maintain records of British nationals under the age of 25 who are in part-time employment abroad.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens were victims of violent crime while being abroad in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1993 there were 194 cases of violent crime abroad against British nationals notified to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The crimes included homicide, rape, assault and kidnap.

  Oeno (Rats)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has received from Dr. M. de L. Brooke of the department of zoology at Cambridge university for the removal of rats from Oeno in the Pitcairn Islands group; and what action he is taking.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Dr. Brooke wrote to me on 17 June with a proposal for the eradication of rats from Oeno island, at an estimated cost of £47,500. We will consider this proposal carefully in the context of the management plan we are drawing up for the neighbouring island of Henderson, and plan to discuss it further with Dr. Brooke.

  Mrs. Rekhmat Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for the application by Mrs. Rekhmat Bibi—ref. V94/01052—to the British high commission in Islamabad to visit the United Kingdom to be urgently reconsidered on the basis of correspondence from Bradford law centre forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Bradford, West.
  138
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The documents referred to have not yet been received in my office. I have however asked the entry clearance officer at the high commission in Islamabad to let me have a report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the draft comprehensive test ban treaty tabled by the Australian Government in Geneva on 31 March.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  On 31 March, the Australian Government put forward a resource paper, in the form of a draft comprehensive test ban treaty, to aid the work of the nuclear test ban ad hoc committee. This resource paper contains interesting and useful ideas.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the likely duration of negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty after the first two sessions of talks at the conference on disarmament; and if he will make a statement on the issues remaining to be resolved.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There has been good progress in the second session of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations. We hope that similar progress can be made during the final 1994 session of the conference on disarmament from 25 July to 7 September. It is difficult, however, to assess how much longer the negotiating process is likely to take. The CTB delegations will agree to the treaty as a whole, rather than in sections. Major issues on which negotiations are likely to focus include verification, the organisation, duration, scope, and entry into force.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress being made towards a comprehensive test ban treaty at the conference on disarmament in Geneva.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There has been good progress in the second session of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations. Delegations have shown a strong commitment to moving forward towards agreement on an effective, verifiable CTB. The United Kingdom team has been fully involved in the debate, and has made valuable contributions to the work completed during this session. In particular, the contribution by the United Kingdom friend of the chair in the verification working group has been warmly welcomed.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of progress towards preparing a draft comprehensive test ban treaty by the two working groups of the conference on disarmament's ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The two working groups have made excellent progress. The working group on verification has conducted intensive discussions on the various monitoring techniques which might be deployed in an international verification system. The working group on legal and institutional issues has completed the first or
  139
  second readings of all main draft articles. Both working groups have produced compilations of draft treaty text to be used as the basis of negotiations in the next session.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the chair of the ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban treaty at the conference on disarmament in Geneva had not presented an official draft treaty before the end of the second session; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The chairman of the ad hoc group on a nuclear test ban has decided that the composite texts produced by the two working groups—on verification and on legal and institutional issues—should be put forward for the next session as the basis for negotiations. We welcome Ambassador Marin-Bosch's pragmatic attitude in promoting the committee's efforts to develop these composite texts into a rolling text.

  Iran
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response was given to an Iranian Government representative's complaints about items concerning the Mashad bombing, broadcast by Spectrum Radio's Persian programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Iranian authorities have told us that they believe that Spectrum Radio's Persian programme is broadcasting subversive material on behalf of the Iranian opposition group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq—MKO. They have not complained about any specific broadcast. We have replied that any organisation enjoys freedom of speech in the United Kingdom as long as it acts within the law. Any breach of the terms and conditions of the broadcasting licence would be a matter for the Radio Authority, which is investigating a separate complaint. We do not support the MKO. We condemn the terrorist attack on the Mashad mosque.

  Cyprus
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that the Cyprus problem must be resolved before the admission of Cyprus to full membership of the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It would be difficult for Cyprus to accede if the four freedoms—free movement of people, goods, services and capital—were not in force throughout the island, but the Council has confirmed that Cyprus is eligible for European Union membership and the next phase of enlargement will involve Cyprus. The Council will review the situation in January 1995.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the election of Mr. John Swaine as President of the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 19 February 1993.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: Mr. John Swaine was elected unopposed as President of the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 19 February 1993. Although Mr. Swaine's election took place before all the residual
  140
  formalities relating to the Hong Kong Letters Patent 1992 and the Hong Kong Additional Instructions 1992 had been completed, we know of no act performed by Mr. Swaine which was invalid as a result of this error.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the errors in the procedural steps in respect of local laws enacted in Hong Kong in 1992 and 1993 including the two budgets; and if he will introduce legislation to rectify those errors.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The Hong Kong Letters Patent 1992 and the Hong Kong Additional Instructions 1992 were published in the Hong Kong Gazette before residual formalities relating to them were completed. This should have no effect on the validity of anything done in Hong Kong before or after the formalities had been completed, but we are considering whether any further action is necessary to remove doubt in this matter.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what date Her Majesty sealed the amendments to the Hong Kong Additional Instructions 1992 and the Hong Kong Letters Patent 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The Hong Kong Letters Patent 1992 were sealed on 15 April 1993 and the Hong Kong Additional Instructions 1992 were signed by Her Majesty on 24 March 1993.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the reasons for the legal formalities not being completed prior to the enactment of the Hong Kong Letters Patent 1992 and the Hong Kong Additional Instruction 1992.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: As a result of a clerical error, the Hong Kong Letters Patent 1992 and the Hong Kong Additional Instructions 1992 were gazetted and brought into force in Hong Kong before the residual formalities had been completed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions for cruelty to livestock were brough in each year since 1985; and how many, in each year, were brought by(a) the Government and (b) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of prosecutions for cruelty to livestock in England and Wales taken by my Department and the Welsh Office between 1985 and 1993 under the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1988 and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  2

  1986

  6

  1987

  8

  1988

  6

  1989

  4

  1990

  5

  141

  Number

  1991

  0

  1992

  6

  1993

  2

  Prosecutions may also be taken by other parties such as local authorities and the RSPCA. Comprehensive figures on the numbers of such prosecutions are not available.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in England received arable area payments greater than(a) £100,000, (b) £250,000, (c) £500,000 and (d) £1,000,000 in the last year for which the information is available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under the integrated administration and control system, applicants must make a single application covering all the land which they farm and some applications cover a number of holdings which are farmed quite separately on a day-to-day basis. The information given below relates to IACS applications, rather than to individual farmers.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme: 1992–93

  Size Band

  Number of Payments

  from £1,000,000 to £249,999

  599

  from £250,000 to £499,999

  45

  from £500,000 upwards1

  7

  1It is not possible to identify separately the number of payments between £500,999 and £100,000 and the number over £1,000,000 for reasons of confidentiality.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of her Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if she will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Jack
  The following surveys of views, opinions and attitudes of staff have been carried out within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and its agencies during the last two years. Summaries of findings made available to staff will be placed in the Library.
  Central Veterinary Laboratories—Repertory Grid Survey (assessment of the views of staff on management styles), summer 19931Intervention Board—Staff Attitude Survey, November 1992 Central Science Laboratories—Survey of the Quality of Administrative Services, summer 19921A summary is being produced for staff, which will be placed in the Library when ready.

  Proposals/appeals still to be dealt with at 31 March 1994

  Number of properties liable for Council Tax (i)

  Number

  As percentage of liable properties

  Borders

  46,487

  2,372

  5·1

  Central

  109,913

  1,751

  1·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  62,796

  1,276

  2·0

  Fife

  142,456

  1,936

  1·4

  Grampian

  211,628

  5,141

  2·4

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 391, when she expects the 1992 CAP reform agreement to be fully implemented; what benefit of that reform deal has been experienced by consumers in food prices to date; what estimates she has of the costs of the CAP to the consumer in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993; what foodstuffs she expects will cost consumers less; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: The 1992 CAP reforms will be fully implemented by the end of the 1995–96 marketing years for those commodities affected. The reforms will result in particular in a reduction in the support prices for cereals and beef of around 35 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively. Overall, the effect of CAP reform will be to reduce support prices by an amount equivalent to 2 per cent. of retail food prices, the effect being spread over a number of years. However, movements in retail food prices are influenced by a wide range of factors and it is not possible to isolate the impact of any single factor over a particular period.

  Estimates of the total cost of the CAP to consumers are not possible without making speculative assumptions about current levels of world prices and the changes in these prices if present policies were abandoned.

SCOTLAND

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which rating authorities in Scotland use their discretionary powers to reduce rates leviable on private sector nursery schools.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of the policies of individual rating authorities with regard to their granting of discretionary rating relief are not held centrally. However, if a private sector nursery school has charitable status it will be eligible for mandatory rates relief of 80 per cent. in accordance with section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions Etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962, as amended.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by council tax collection authority area, the number of outstanding banding appeal cases and the proportion they represent of all liable properties in that area, as at 1 April.

  Mr. Stewart
  The table provides the available information, which relates to all classes of proposal to change the valuation list made to assessors and subsequent appeals.
  143

  Proposals/appeals still to be dealt with at 31 March 1994

  Number of properties liable for Council Tax (i)

  Number

  As percentage of liable properties

  Highland

  87,532

  2,537

  2·9

  Lothian

  319,925

  6,905

  2·2

  Strathclyde

  937,092

  16,894

  1·8

  Tayside

  166,562

  8,103

  4·9

  Orkney

  8,381

  4

  0·0

  Shetland

  9,120

  20

  0·2

  Western Isles

  12,135

  352

  2·9

  Scotland

  2,114,027

  47,291

  2·2

  Sources: (i) Estimates supplied by Local Authorities, October 1993.

  (ii) Quarterly statistical return, from Assessors, 31 March 1994.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 299, what obligation the proposed new water authorities will be under to offer a 25 per cent. single person discount when they charge for their services.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to my second reply to him of 15 June 1994,Official Report, column 469.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory basis;

  (2) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports;

  (3) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to the Government;

  (4) if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993";

  (5) if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament;

  (6) if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Lang
  The readily available information on advisory bodies sponsored by my Department is contained in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies 1993", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. The next edition of "Public Bodies", with updated information, will be published in December. Other information on the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the take-up of the enterprise allowance scheme in Fife over the last three years; and what was(a) the number and (b) the total value of awards made in each six-month period.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: Questions relating to the take-up of the enterprise allowance scheme in Fife are a matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Seabird Monitoring Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support will be provided to the long-term seabird monitoring programme on the Isle of May.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: The Institute for Terrestrial Ecology will carry out seabird monitoring on the Isle of May this year on behalf of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The value of the contract is £9,300. In addition, Scottish Natural Heritage, which owns and manages the island as a national nature reserve, carries out its own monitoring work on the island and has commissioned further monitoring projects to the value of £7,500. Decisions on monitoring projects in future years are matters for Scottish Natural Heritage and the JNCC.

  Fox Hunts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of policing fox hunts in each chief constabulary in Scotland during each financial year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: Central Scotland police, Grampian, Northern constabulary and Tayside police have not incurred any expense in policing fox hunts since 1990. Details relating to costs incurred by Fife constabulary and Strathclyde police are not readily available. The estimated costs for policing this activity by Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and Lothian and Borders police are as follows:
  145

  Financial Year Costs

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  464·00

  476·00

  482·00

  690·00

  Lothian and Borders Police

  5,807·00

  2,496·00

  2,636·00

  2,673·00

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the identifiable(a) capital and (b) revenue or current expenditure by Scottish Homes by regional council electoral division, or on any other geographical basis on which the data are collated or accounted, in each year since 1990; how much in both expenditure categories is (i) legally committed and

  Scottish Homes: Development Funding

  1989–90 Outturn £ million

  1990–91 Outturn £ million

  1991–92 Outturn £ million

  1992–93 Outturn £ million

  1993–94 Estimated outturn £ million

  1993–94 Spend per capita £

  1994–95 Plans

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale

  0·9

  0·7

  0·1

  0·2

  0·5

  13·9

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0·3

  1·2

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  10·9

  Cunninghame

  2·4

  4·1

  3·8

  4·9

  6·3

  46·0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2·7

  1·9

  1·8

  3·6

  1·7

  21·6

  Kyle and Carrick

  0·0

  0·9

  1·5

  1·7

  3·6

  32·0

  Nithsdale

  1·1

  1·4

  1·9

  3·0

  1·7

  29·0

  Stewartry

  1·2

  0·3

  0·2

  0·4

  1·0

  44·8

  Wigtown

  0·5

  1·4

  2·2

  1·2

  0·9

  31·0

  TOTAL

  9·0

  11·9

  12·0

  15·6

  16·3

  31·3

  16·6

  Glasgow City

  City of Glasgow

  77·6

  68·5

  74·8

  90·2

  92·0

  138·4

  96·3

  Highlands Islands and Grampian

  Aberdeen

  7·3

  6·8

  7·7

  8·6

  7·9

  37·5

  Badenoch

  0·3

  0·8

  0·6

  1·1

  0·3

  25·0

  Banff and Buchan

  0·7

  0·4

  1·6

  1·6

  2·1

  24·5

  Caithness

  1·5

  0·7

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  4·8

  Gordon

  0·5

  0·9

  0·5

  1·7

  2·4

  31·6

  Inverness

  2·9

  2·2

  1·7

  2·3

  2·2

  33·8

  Kincardine

  1·1

  1·5

  0·6

  1·1

  2·7

  51·4

  Lochaber

  1·6

  1·5

  0·9

  2·1

  3·7

  189·8

  Moray

  2·1

  2·6

  1·5

  1·8

  1·2

  14·8

  Nairn

  0·4

  0 5

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  36·5

  Orkney

  0·8

  1·5

  3·4

  1·8

  1·9

  96·3

  Ross and Cromarty

  0·7

  1·0

  0·5

  2·1

  1·4

  29·3

  Shetlands

  0·9

  0·6

  0·9

  0·8

  0·6

  25·7

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0·1

  0·4

  1·8

  1·4

  1·7

  138·3

  Sutherland

  0·0

  0·6

  0·1

  0·1

  0·3

  20·9

  Western Isles

  0·2

  0·9

  0·7

  1·0

  2·3

  77·6

  TOTAL

  21·4

  23·0

  23·1

  28·0

  31·1

  39·6

  30·8

  Lanarkshire and Central

  Clackmannan

  0·5

  1·1

  2·7

  2·6

  3·8

  81·0

  Clydesdale

  1·8

  1·0

  1·4

  1·9

  2·9

  50·7

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0·8

  0·4

  0·8

  0·3

  0·4

  5·9

  East Kilbride

  0·1

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  Falkirk

  3·5

  2·7

  2·0

  4·5

  2·9

  20·1

  Hamilton

  2·4

  2·3

  2·5

  4·3

  3·2

  30·5

  Monklands

  06

  1·6

  3·2

  3·1

  1·2

  12·0

  Motherwell

  1·5

  3·9

  5·8

  7·0

  11·5

  80·8

  Stirling

  1·6

  3·1

  3·2

  3·4

  3·2

  38·9

  TOTAL

  12·9

  16·3

  21·6

  27·0

  29·2

  35·3

  29·9

  Lothian and Borders

  Berwickshire

  0·4

  0·2

  0·6

  0·2

  1·2

  59·6

  East Lothian

  2·4

  2·3

  2·9

  3·1

  3·8

  43·7

  146
  (ii) planned for 1994–95 and 1995–96; what is the pro rata expenditure in each category for each regional council electoral division, expressed as a percentage of the total capital and revenue budgets measured against their respective populations; if he will rank the regional council electoral divisions in descending order by level of expenditure in both categories; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes does not hold records by regional council electoral division. The information which is readily available is shown in the table and groups district council areas together according to Scottish Homes administrative districts. The figures show capital expenditure on development funding; revenue grants amount to only £6·5 million across Scotland in 1994–95. The programme for 1995–96 will not be decided until after my right hon. Friend announces his expenditure plans later this year.
  147

  1989–90 Outturn £ million

  1990–91 Outturn £ million

  1991–92 Outturn £ million

  1992–93 Outturn £ million

  1993–94 Estimated outturn £ million

  1993–94 Spend per capita £

  1994–95 Plans

  Edinburgh

  17·6

  17·3

  20·4

  24·8

  28·7

  66·4

  Ettrick

  1·4

  1·0

  1·2

  1·2

  2·0

  56·9

  Midlothian

  2·7

  3·9

  2·7

  3·0

  1·8

  22·7

  Roxburgh

  1·3

  2·1

  1·4

  1·0

  1·4

  39·6

  Tweeddale

  1·2

  0·5

  0·4

  1·3

  0·9

  57·6

  West Lothian

  3·0

  2·0

  2·8

  5·7

  4·6

  30·8

  TOTAL

  30·0

  29·2

  32·4

  40·3

  44·3

  52·0

  44·5

  North and South Clyde

  Argyll and Bute

  5·2

  4·1

  4·3

  4·2

  3·5

  52·9

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0·1

  0·0

  —

  0·0

  —

  —

  Clydebank

  3·5

  3·7

  8·7

  9·4

  9·1

  200·9

  Dumbarton

  1·2

  1·3

  1·0

  4·2

  5·6

  71·5

  Eastwood

  0·3

  0·3

  0·0

  —

  0·1

  1·7

  Inverclyde

  5·7

  4·6

  8·2

  9·5

  9·8

  107·9

  Renfrew

  8·5

  13·2

  18·0

  18·1

  18·6

  94·3

  Strathkelvin

  0·7

  1·8

  —

  0·8

  1·3

  14·9

  TOTAL

  25·3

  29·0

  40·3

  46·2

  48·0

  71·8

  52·6

  Tayside and Fife

  Angus

  2·8

  1·5

  3·6

  2·8

  4·4

  46·3

  Dundee

  11·3

  10·8

  10·9

  14·0

  14·5

  86·8

  Dunfermline

  2·4

  3·1

  2·6

  3·3

  6·0

  45·5

  Kirkcaldy

  2·7

  2·3

  3·0

  3·1

  5·4

  36·6

  North and East Fife

  1·4

  2·6

  2·5

  3·3

  2·7

  39·8

  Perth and Kinross

  3·9

  6·6

  8·4

  7·9

  8·6

  67·1

  TOTAL

  24·6

  27·0

  31·1

  34·4

  41·6

  56·4

  41·1

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  200·9

  205·0

  235·2

  281·6

  302·6

  59·8

  311·9

  Note: Figures may not add up to rounding.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Bristol travel-to-work area the numbers of(a) casuals and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 81 offices in the south-west region, which includes the Bristol travel-to-work area. At present, a total of 52 casual staff are employed at 18 of those offices, and one person is employed on a fixed-term appointment. Details are as follows:

  South West

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  1 Alverton Terrace Penzance Cornwall

  —

  —

  1A Courtney Park Newton Abbot Devon

  —

  —

  2 Concorde Drive Southmead Bristol

  —

  —

  2 Meads Business Centre Bridgemead Swindon SN5 7YR

  —

  1

  2 Scott House Bindon Road Business Park Taunton TA2 6BH

  —

  —

  21–23 Gillam Road Northbourne Bournemouth BH10 6Bw

  —

  —

  148

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  226 Kingsway St. George Bristol BS5 8NS

  —

  —

  39 Blenheim Road Minehead Somerset

  —

  —

  73 Molesworth Street Wadebridge Cornwall

  —

  —

  8 St. Peters Road Parkstone Dorset BH14 0RA

  —

  —

  Agaton Fort Budshead Road Ernesettle Plymouth

  —

  1

  Albert Place Daniell Street Truro Cornwall

  —

  —

  Ashton Vale Road Ashton Bristol BS3 2JE

  —

  —

  Ashville Road Gloucester GL2 6ET

  —

  —

  Audley House Goldney Avenue Chippenham SN15 1ND

  —

  —

  Barrie Lane St. Albans HD Worth Matravers Swanage

  —

  —

  Berkeley House Croydon Street Bristol BS5 0DA

  —

  3

  Bishopsgate House 94 All Saints Road Cheltenham

  —

  —

  Brendon House High Street Taunton Somerset TA1 3NT

  —

  2

  Bridge House Sion Place Bristol BS8 4AS

  —

  —

  Brunel Road Chruchfields Industrial Estate Salisbury Wiltshire

  —

  —

  Car Park Cannon Street Taunton TA1 LPT

  —

  —

  Cast Down Hartland Bideford North Devon EX39 6AD

  —

  —

  Castle Drive Falmouth TR11 4WZ

  —

  —

  149

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  CGS Common Lane Beer Seaton Devon X12 3AG

  —

  —

  Chiseldon Camp Chiseldon Wiltshire

  —

  —

  Chy-An-Dour Barracks Penzance TR18 3LH

  —

  —

  Cooks Way Bindon Row Business Park Taunton TA2 6BG

  —

  —

  County Hall Taunton Somerset TA1 4DT

  —

  —

  Cumberland Block South Raglan Barracks Devonport

  —

  —

  Customs House Clayton Street Bristol BS11 9EX

  —

  —

  Darbys Lane Nuffield Industrial Estate Poole BH1

  —

  —

  DTP WNTR MNTNC Comp Tortworth Road Falfield Gloucester

  —

  —

  Eastern Avenue Barnwood Gloucester

  —

  —

  Eastgate Office Centre Bristol

  —

  6

  Elmbridge Court Cheltenham Road Gloucester GL3 1JY

  —

  1

  Falcon Road Sowton Exeter Devon EX2 7LB

  —

  3

  Flowers Hill Bath Road Brislington Bristol

  —

  —

  Foxhill Bath Avon

  —

  —

  Glen View Truro Road St. Austell Cornwall

  —

  —

  Gorran Haven St. Austell Cornwall PL26 6NX

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Prince of Wales Road Dorchester Dorset

  —

  —

  Grace Road Marsh Barton Trading Estate Exeter Devon

  —

  2

  Grove Point Easton Portland Dorset DT5 1DW

  —

  —

  Hanover House Northgate Bridgwater Somerset

  —

  —

  Highbank 1 Govier Lane Watchet Somerset TA23 ODQ

  —

  —

  Highcliffe Christchurch Dorset

  —

  —

  Hope Cove Kingsbridge Devon TQ7 3HW

  —

  —

  Ilfracombe Devon EX34 9RU

  —

  —

  Imperial Buildings Bar Road Falmouth TR11 4NW

  —

  1

  Kings Quay Brixham Devon TQ4 6DL

  —

  —

  LGV Marlborough Lane Swindon SN3 1RA

  —

  —

  Maltravers House Petters Way Yeovil Somerset

  —

  —

  Melrose House Rydon Lane Pynes Hill Exeter EX2 5AZ

  —

  —

  No. 2 The Barbican Plymouth Devon

  —

  —

  Northleigh House Limekiln Close Bristol BS12 6SR

  —

  2

  Norton Fitzwarren Taunton Somerset

  —

  —

  Parmorr Road Par Cornwall

  —

  —

  Phoenix House Notte Street Plymouth Devon PL1 2HF

  —

  3

  Porte Marsh Road Calne Wiltshire

  —

  —

  Portmarsh Victoria Street Barnstable Devon

  —

  —

  Pydar House Pydar Street Truro TR1 2TG

  —

  1

  150

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  Room 306 Regent House High Street Western Super Mare

  —

  1

  Rougement London Road Salisbury Wiltshire

  —

  —

  South Quay The Harbour Paignton Devon TQH 6DT

  —

  —

  St. Ives Cornwall

  —

  —

  St. Johns Western Road Launceston PL15 7AY

  —

  —

  St. Modwen House Parkway Industrial Estate Plymouth PL6 8LH

  —

  —

  St. Paul Street Tiverton Devon

  —

  —

  Station Road South Molton Devon

  —

  1

  Sterling House Dixsfield Exeter EX1 1TP

  —

  1

  Stillmore House Dennison Road Bodmin Cornwall

  —

  —

  The Brotherhood Hall Launceston Cornwall

  —

  —

  The Gaunts House Denmark Street Bristol BS1 5DR

  1

  12

  The Quay Poole Dorset BH15 1HJ

  —

  —

  Tollgate House Annexe (County House Bristol) BS2 8PS

  —

  1

  Tollgate House Houlton Street Bristol BS2 9DJ

  —

  10

  Tregonwell Court Commercial Road Bournemouth BH2 5LN

  —

  —

  Unit 11 Sunnyside Road Weston-Super-Mare Avon

  —

  —

  Westhill Road Wyke Regis Weymouth DT4 9ND

  Wilson Way Redruth Cornwall

  —

  —

  Wiltshire Drive Trowbridge Wiltshire BA14 0RF

  —

  —

  Produced from the Personnel Information System as at 25 May 1994.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the London travel-to-work area the numbers of(a) casuals and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 193 offices in the London and south-east regions. At present, a total of 146 casual staff are employed at 51 of those offices, and 72 staff are employed on fixed-term appointments in 14 offices. Details are as follows:

  London

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  10 Tudor Drive Morden Surrey

  —

  —

  102/110 Regency Street London SW1P 4BW

  —

  —

  111 Canterbury Road Croydon Surrey CR0 3HH

  —

  1

  112 Ruislip Road Greenford Middlesex UB6 9QH

  —

  —

  112A Portland Road South Norwood London SE25

  —

  1

  12 Guildford Street Chertsey Surrey

  —

  1

  12 Station Road Sidcup Kent

  —

  10

  134 Maple Road Surbiton Surrey

  —

  1

  15–17 Great Marlborough Street London W1V 2VD

  —

  —

  18 Great Marlborough Street London W1V 2DB

  —

  1

  151

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  2 Charteris Road Woodford Green London

  —

  —

  2 Devon House Hermon Hill Wanstead London E11 2AW

  —

  —

  2 Marsham Street London SW1P 3EB

  12

  2

  23 Balfour Road Ilford IG1 4HP

  —

  2

  239 The Broadway Burnt Oak Edgware Middlesex HA8 5EE

  —

  1

  26–28 Old Queen Street London SWIH 9HP

  —

  —

  28 Brookwood Road Southfields London SW18

  —

  —

  285 Allenby Road Southall Middlesex

  —

  —

  33 Woolwich Road Belvedere Kent DA17 5EE

  —

  —

  38 Avenue Road Bexleyheath Kent DA7 4EG

  —

  —

  4 Burnt Ash Hill Lee London SE12

  —

  —

  473 Barking Road East Ham London E6 2LU

  —

  —

  5 Stanley Road Teddington Middlesex

  —

  —

  5–7 Green Lanes Palmers Green London N13 4TT

  —

  —

  56 Glebe Way West Wickham Kent BR4 0RL

  —

  1

  61 Lowfield Street Dartford Kent DA1 1HP

  —

  —

  73–77 Station Lane Hornchurch Essex RM12 6JX

  —

  1

  84 Tanner Street Barking Essex

  —

  —

  96 Horsenden Lane North Greenford Middlesex

  —

  —

  Aerodrome Road Hendon London NW9 5JJ

  —

  —

  Anthony Wharf Lea Valley Trading Estate Edmonton

  —

  —

  Argyle Road Sevenoaks Kent TN13 1NJ

  —

  —

  Ashley House Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ

  —

  1

  Avenue Lodge Park Avenue Wood Green London N22

  —

  —

  Beddington Farm Road Croydon Surrey CR0 4XB

  —

  —

  Bray Court Windsor Road Bray Maidenhead Berkshire

  —

  —

  Capitol House 794 Green Lanes Winchmore Hill London

  —

  —

  Central Court 1B Knoll Rise Orpington Kent BR6 0JA

  2

  1

  Charles House Kensington High Street London W14 8QH

  1

  7

  Church House Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BL

  —

  2

  Clive House 12–18 Queens Road Weybridge Surrey

  —

  —

  Craybrook House 15 Sidcup Hill Sidcup Kent

  —

  —

  Crown Buildings 284 High Road Loughton Essex

  —

  —

  Doric House Station Road Chingford London E4 6AD

  —

  1

  Employment Exchange High Road Seven Kings Ilford Essex

  —

  —

  Ennersdale Road Hither Green London SE13

  —

  —

  Fir Tree Place Church Road Ashford Middlesex

  —

  —

  152

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  Gate House Woodall House Lordship Lane Wood Green N22 5JW

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Lime Grove Eastcote

  —

  —

  Government Building Tolcarne Drive Pinner Middlesex HA5 2DZ

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Honeypot Lane Stanmore HA7 1BD

  —

  1

  Government Buildings London Road Stanmore Middlesex HA7 4PP

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Viveash Close Hayes Middlesex

  —

  —

  Grays Place Stoke Road Slough SL2 5AS

  —

  1

  Hampton House 20 Albert Embankment London SE1

  —

  —

  Hayes Repository Bourne Avenue Hayes Middlesex UB3 1RF

  —

  —

  Helena House 348 High Street Sutton Surrey

  —

  —

  HGVTS Anthony Wharf Lea Valley Trading Estate London

  —

  —

  Hollison Avenue Brimsdown Enfield Middlesex

  —

  —

  Home Address

  —

  —

  Kings House 236–240 Pentonville Road London N1 9JZ

  —

  —

  Lambeth Bridge House Albert Embankment London SE1 7SB

  1

  3

  Leatherhead Road Chessington Surrey KT9 2LX

  —

  —

  Lyndhurst House Bunns Lane Mill Hill London NW7 2AT

  —

  —

  Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 2AG

  —

  —

  Milton Road Wealdstone Middlesex

  —

  —

  Mint House 6 Stanley Park Road Wallington SM6 0EU

  —

  —

  North Street Redhill Surrey

  —

  —

  Northside House 69 Tweedy Road Bromley BR1 3T2

  —

  —

  Old Town Hall Woodcote Road Wallington SM6 OND

  —

  —

  Quest House 11 Cross Road Croydon Surrey CR9 6EL

  —

  2

  Raydean House 15–17 Western Parade Barnet Herts

  —

  —

  Redhouse Road Mitcham Surrey CR0 3AQ

  —

  1

  Refer to Relevant Personnel Management Section

  —

  —

  Romney House 43 Marsham Street London SW1 3PY

  —

  3

  Scratchwood M1 Comp Snowplough DP Millhill NW7 3JA

  —

  —

  South Quay Plaza 2 183 Marsh Wall London E3

  —

  —

  St. Christopher House Southwark Street London SE1

  2

  3

  Sunley House 90–93 High Holborn London WC1V 6LP

  —

  —

  Swanley Depot Junction M25/M20 Swanley Kent

  —

  —

  Tank Hill Road Purfleet Essex RM16 1SX

  —

  —

  153

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  Tolworth Tower Surbiton Surrey

  —

  —

  US Naval Base Lime Grove Eastcote Middlesex

  —

  —

  Willow Tree Lane Yeading Middlesex

  —

  1

  Worton Hall Worton Road Isleworth Middlesex TW7 6ER

  —

  —

  South East

  1 CG Cottages 84 Wartling Road Eastbourne B22 7PT

  —

  —

  1–4 Queen Street Portsmouth Hants PO1 3JD

  —

  6

  101 Alexandra Road Farnborough Hampshire

  —

  —

  103–105 Carnarvon Road Clacton-on-Sea Essex

  —

  —

  12 Eversfield Road Eastbourne East Sussex

  —

  1

  124 High Street Berkhamsted Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  143 Rock Avenue Gillingham Kent

  —

  1

  19 Desborough Avenue High Wycombe Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  2 Dunstable Road Luton Bedfordshire LU1 1EB

  —

  —

  20 Marsh Parade Hythe Southampton SO4 6AN

  —

  —

  23 Medina Avenue Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1EL

  —

  —

  24 Bennet Road Reading Berkshire RG2 0RT

  —

  —

  25 New Dover Road Canterbury Kent

  —

  —

  25 New Dover Road Canterbury Kent CT1 3AS

  —

  —

  25 Pelham Road Gravesend Kent

  —

  —

  28–30 High Street Guildford Surrey GU1 3EL

  —

  2

  3 Drapers Way Stevenage Hertfordshire SG1 3DT

  —

  —

  3–7 Cambridge Terrace Oxford Oxfordshire OX1 1RW

  —

  2

  4 Circular Road East Colchester Essex

  —

  —

  45 Argyle Road Sevenoaks TN13 1BR

  —

  —

  5–7 Brunswick Place Southampton SO1 2AN

  2

  1

  6 Bate-Dudley Drive Bradwell on Sea Essex CM0 7QE

  —

  —

  6–10 Adelaide Street Luton LV1 5BT

  —

  —

  62 Whitehall Lane Grays Essex RM17 6SS

  —

  —

  77–81 Basingstoke Road Reading RG2 0ER

  —

  —

  8 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Kent

  —

  —

  8–10 Howard Street Bedford MK40 3HS

  —

  1

  89 Warley Hill Brentwood CM14 5JN

  —

  —

  8B Sea Street Herne Bay Kent

  —

  —

  9 Burwash Road Hove BN3 8GP

  —

  —

  A.A.I.B. DRA Farnborough Hampshire GU14 6TD

  —

  —

  Albion House Lime Street Bedford

  —

  —

  Ambley Road Gillingham Kent

  1

  1

  154

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  Artillery House 61 Tilehurst Road Reading Berkshire

  —

  —

  Ashdown House Sedlescombe Road North St. Leonards-on-Sea

  2

  6

  Barden House, 36 Spencers Road, Crawley RH11 7DA

  —

  —

  Beauver House 6 Bricket Road St. Albans AL1 3JS

  —

  —

  Beeches Road Chelmsford Essex CM1 2SG

  —

  —

  Brighton Hill Centre Basingstoke RG22 4LR

  —

  —

  Cambridge Place House Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP20 2LQ

  —

  —

  Charter Court Midland Road Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire HP2 5R1

  —

  1

  Churchill Industrial Estate Lancing West Sussex

  —

  —

  Circus House New England Road Brighton BN1 1DH

  —

  5

  Coastguard Road Littlehampton BN17 5LM

  —

  —

  Coronet House 11 Queen Anne Road Maidstone Kent

  —

  6

  Crown Buildings 11 Prittlewell Chase Southend-on-Sea

  —

  —

  Crown Buildings Wellesley Road Ashford Kent

  —

  —

  Crown House, Sittingbourne Road Maidstone Kent

  —

  —

  Culham Storage Depot Abingdon Berkshire

  —

  —

  Dominion House, 5 Gravel Hill, Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshir

  —

  —

  Dover Priory St. Johns Road Dover Kent

  —

  —

  East Terrace Walton on Naze Essex

  —

  —

  Federated House London Road Dorking Surrey RH4 1SZ

  —

  10

  Foresthill Drive, Townhill Southampton S02 2SY

  —

  —

  Fort Haven Shoreham by Sea West Sussex BN4 51HY

  —

  —

  Fort Road Newhaven East Sussex BN9 9EL

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Block 1 Spur D Marston Road Oxford

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Christchurch Road Winchester Hampshire

  —

  —

  Grange Way Colchester CO2 8HF

  —

  —

  Green Lane Maybush Southampton Hampshire SO9 3SW

  —

  —

  Hambridge Lane Newbury Berkshire RG14 5TZ

  —

  —

  Harwich Docks Parkstone Quay Harwich

  —

  —

  Hayling Island Hampshire

  —

  —

  Heron House Goldington Road Bedford

  —

  2

  Heron House, 149 London Road St. Leonards East Sussex

  —

  —

  Hersden Canterbury Kent

  —

  1

  Highland House Henderson Road Eastney Southsea Hants

  —

  —

  Hillsons Road Botley Southampton Hampshire

  —

  1

  155

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  Ivy House 1–5 Ivy Terrace Eastbourne East Sussex BN4 QP

  1

  11

  Ivy House Lane Ore Hastings East Sussex

  —

  1

  Jackmans Place Letchworth Hertfordshire SG6 1TS

  —

  1

  Lade Dungeness Romney Marsh Kent TN29 9PD

  —

  —

  Lanes End Totland Isle of Wight PO39 0BE

  —

  —

  Langdon Battery Swingate Dover Kent CT15 5NA

  —

  —

  Launton Road Bicester Oxon

  1

  —

  Leighton Road Stanbridge Leighton Buzzard Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  LGV 3 West Bar Street Banbury Oxon OX16 9SD

  —

  —

  LGV South Street Gosport PO12 1EL

  —

  —

  Mercantile Marine Office Canute Road Southampton

  —

  —

  Minster House Minster Street Reading Berkshire RG1 2JD

  —

  3

  Newtown Road Newbury Berkshire

  —

  —

  North Court Armstrong Road Maidstone Kent ME15 6JZ

  —

  —

  North Lane Aldershot Hampshire GU11 2AG

  —

  1

  Orchard Road Royston Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  Oxford House London Road Bishops Stortford Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  Palting House Trinity Road Folkestone CT20 2RH

  —

  —

  Parkway House 49 Baddow Road Chelmsford CM2 0XJ

  —

  1

  Paul Waller Avenue Cardington Bedford MK44 3ST

  —

  —

  Portacabin James Wolfe Road Cowley Oxford OX4 2PT

  —

  1

  Portman House Goldington Road Bedford MK40 3LY

  —

  —

  Prospect Road Cowes Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  Rock-a-Nor Road Hastings TN34 3DW

  —

  —

  Senet House Dorking Business Park Dorking Surrey

  —

  9

  Seymour House Whiteleaf Road Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire HP3 9DE

  —

  —

  Slyfield Estate Guildford Surrey

  —

  —

  Spring Place 105 Commercial Road Southampton SO1 0ZD

  3

  15

  Stanbridge Road Leighton Buzzard Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  Sutherland Lodge St. Omer Road Guildford GU1 2DB

  —

  —

  The Cottage Pierremont Hall Broadstairs CT10 1JH

  —

  —

  The Hut Link Road Newbury Berkshire

  —

  —

  The Village Square Brighton Marina Brighton BN2 5QL

  —

  —

  TRL Old Wokingham Road Crowthorne Berkshire RG11 6AU

  42

  5

  Tumpike Road Newbury Berkshire

  —

  —

  Unit 5 Newman Industrial Estate Ford Road Clacton-on-Sea

  —

  —

  156

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  Vandyke Road Leighton Buzzard Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  Westmoreland House Strand Parade Goring Worthing

  —

  —

  Whytecroft House 44 Marine Parade West Lee O/S PO13 9NR

  —

  —

  Widford Industrial Estate Chelmsford Essex

  —

  2

  Wilton Hostel Wilton Avenue Bletchley Buckinghamshire MK3 6DH

  —

  —

  Wyman House Shopwhyke Road Chichester West Sussex

  —

  —

  Note: PRODUCED FROM THE PERSONNEL INFORMATION SYSTEM AS AT 25/5/94.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Bedford travel-to-work area the numbers of(a) casuals and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 21 offices in the Bedford travel-to-work area. At present, a total of five casual staff are employed at four of those offices, and two persons are employed on fixed-term appointments. Details are as follows:

  Bedford

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  124 High Street Berkhamsted Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  19 Desborough Avenue High Wycombe Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  2 Dunstable Road Luton Bedfordshire LU1 1EB

  —

  —

  3 Drapers Way Stevenage Hertfordshire SG1 3DT

  —

  —

  6–10 Adelaide Street Luton LV1 5BT

  —

  —

  8–10 Howard Street Bedford MK40 3HS

  —

  1

  Albion House Lime Street Bedford

  —

  —

  Beauver House 6 Bricket Road St. Albans AL1 3JS

  —

  —

  Cambridge Place House Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP20 2LQ

  —

  —

  Charter Court Midland Road Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire HP2 5RL

  —

  1

  Heron House Goldington Road Bedford

  —

  2

  Jackmans Place Letchworth Hertfordshire SG6 1TS

  —

  1

  Leighton Road Stanbridge Leighton Buzzard Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  Orchard Road Royston Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  Oxford House London Road Bishops Stortford Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  Paul Waller Avenue Cardington Bedford MK44 3ST

  —

  —

  Portman House Goldington Road Bedford MK40 3LY

  —

  —

  Seymour House Whiteleaf Road Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire HP3 9DE

  —

  —

  Stanbridge Road Leighton Buzzard Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  157

  Building

  Fixed-term appointments

  Casuals

  Vandyke Road Leighton Buzzard Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  Wilton Hostel Wilton Avenue Bletchley Buckinghamshire MK3 6DH

  —

  —

  Produced from the Personnel Information System as at 25 May 1994.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Coventry travel-to-work area the numbers of(a) casuals and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 27 offices in the Coventry travel-to-work area. At present, a total of 34 casual staff are employed at nine of those offices, and three persons are employed on fixed term appointments. Details are as follows:

  Coventry

  Building

  Fixed term appointments

  Casuals

  110/116 Boldmere Road Sutton Coldfield B73 5UB

  —

  —

  165 Thornbridge Avenue Perry Bar Birmingham B42 2AF

  —

  —

  205 Birdbrook Road Kindstanding Birmingham

  —

  —

  401 Stratford Road Shirley Solihull Warwickshire

  —

  1

  457 Holyhead Road Coventry West Midlands CV5 8HU

  —

  —

  5 Newbold Road Rugby Warwickshire

  —

  —

  54 Vernons Land Nuneaton Warwickshire

  —

  1

  6 Dormer Place Leamington Spa Warwickshire

  —

  —

  74 Ridgeacre Lane Quinton Birmingham B32 1HH

  —

  —

  866 Washwood Health Road Birmingham B82 NG

  —

  1

  955 Alcester Road South Kings Health Birmingham

  —

  1

  Ashland Street Wolverhampton WV3 0BX

  —

  —

  Broadway House Broad Street Edgbaston Birmingham

  —

  —

  Churchfields Bromsgrove B61 8DX

  —

  —

  Clay Lane Birmingham West Midlands

  —

  —

  Cumberland House 200 Broad St. Birmingham B15 1TD

  3

  13

  Elm Road Redditch B97 6AJ

  —

  —

  Five Ways House Islington Row Birmingham B15 1SL

  —

  —

  Five Ways Tower Frederick Road Birmingham B15 1SJ

  —

  —

  Friars House Manor House Drive Coventry CV1 2TD

  —

  2

  Garretts Green Industrial Estate Birmingham 33

  —

  3

  Granby Avenue Granby Industrial Estate Birmingham 33

  —

  —

  Greyfriars House Greyfriars Lane Coventry CV1 2HB

  —

  2

  Mason Road Coventry West Midlands CV6 7FJ

  —

  —

  St. Martins House 10 The Bull Ring Birmingham B5 5DP

  —

  10

  158

  Building

  Fixed term appointments

  Casuals

  The Crescent Bilston West Midlands WV1 40DB

  —

  —

  VTAC Watling Street Nuneaton Warwickshire CV10 0UA

  —

  —

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Edinburgh travel-to-work area the numbers of(a) casuals and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 50 offices in the Edinburgh travel-to-work area. At present, a total of 22 casual staff are employed at 10 of those offices, and six persons are employed on fixed-term appointments. Details are as follows:

  Scotland

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  1 Johns Place Edinburgh EH6 7EL

  —

  —

  10 Shore Road Anstruther Fife

  —

  —

  107 Bothwell Street Glasgow Renfrewshire G2 7EE

  —

  6

  11 Maggie Woods Loads Loan Falkirk

  —

  —

  111 Rannoch Road Perth PH1 2DF

  —

  —

  124–125 Princes Street Edinburgh EH2 4BE

  —

  —

  161 Whitletts Road Ayr

  —

  —

  26 Glenburn Road Paisley Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  30 Selkirk Street Hamilton Lanarkshire ML3 6RQ

  —

  —

  31 Old Raise Road Saltcoats Ayrshire

  —

  —

  33 West Saville Terrace Edinburgh 9

  —

  1

  335–337 Calder Road Edinburgh

  —

  —

  335–337 Sighthill Road Edinburgh

  —

  —

  351 Anniesland Road Glasgow

  —

  —

  368 Amulree Street Shettleston Glasgow G32 7SJ

  —

  —

  40 Millhill Street Dunfermline Fife

  —

  —

  41 Shawbridge Arcade Ashtree Road Glasgow G43 1RT

  —

  —

  6 Bridge Street Dumbarton

  —

  —

  6000 Academy Park Gower Street Glasgow G51 1TR

  —

  2

  7 Aitchison Street Airdrie Strathclyde ML6 0DY

  —

  —

  71 Whatriggs Road Kilmarnock Ayshire

  —

  —

  74 Glasgow Road Bathgate EH48 2AG

  —

  —

  83 Princes Street Edinburgh Scotland

  2

  5

  Bankhead Avenue Sighthill Edinburgh EH11 4AA

  —

  —

  Caledonian House 3rd Floor Greenmarket Dundee DD1 1DP

  —

  2

  City Wall House 32 Eastwood Avenue Glasgow G41 3NS

  —

  1

  Crosshill Road Bishopsbriggs Glasgow

  —

  —

  Crown Buildings Princes Pier Greenock Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  East Burnside Cupar Fife

  —

  1

  159

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  East Fortune Airfield Drem East Lothian

  —

  —

  Fechney Buildings Glasgow Road Perth Perthshire

  —

  —

  Fifeness Crail Fife KY10 3XN

  —

  —

  Fisher Row Musselburgh Midlothian BH21 6SG

  —

  —

  Gob Saughton Broomhouse Drive Edinburgh

  —

  —

  Government Buildings 2 St. Ninians Road Stirling

  —

  —

  HMCG Church Road Leven Fife

  —

  —

  Houstoun Industrial Estate Livingston West Lothian

  —

  3

  John Street Forfar Angus

  —

  —

  Joppa Terrace Joppa Edinburgh

  —

  —

  Navy Building Eldon Street Greenock Renfrew PA16 7QY

  —

  —

  Navy Buildings Eldon Street Greenock Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  North Muirton Industrial Estate Perth Perthshire

  1

  —

  Overgate House 121 Marketgait Dundee DD1 1JL

  —

  —

  Park Road Gallatown Kirkcaldy Fife

  —

  —

  Springburn Park 14A Balornoch Road Glasgow

  Tanterfield SCL Victoria Park Haddington East Lothian

  —

  —

  Town Hall Hall Terrace Cumnock Ayrshire

  —

  —

  TRRSL Livingston West Lothian EH54 5DU

  3

  —

  Wellmeadow Blairgowrie Perthshire

  —

  —

  Western Road Kilmarnock Ayrshire

  —

  1

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Glasgow travel-to-work area the numbers of(a) casuals and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 50 offices in the Glasgow travel-to-work area. At present, a total of 22 casual staff are employed at 10 of those offices, and six persons are employed on fixed-term appointments. Details are as follows:

  Scotland

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  1 Johns Place Edinburgh EH6 7 EL

  —

  —

  10 Shore Road Anstruther Fife

  —

  —

  7

  107 Bothwell Street Glasgow Renfrewshire G2 7EE

  —

  6

  11 Maggie Woods Loads Loan Falkirk

  —

  —

  111 Rannoch Road Perth PH1 2DF

  —

  —

  124–125 Princes Street Edinburgh EH2 4BE

  —

  —

  161 Whitletts Road Ayr

  —

  —

  26 Glenburn Road Paisley Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  30 Selkirk Street Hamilton Lanarkshire ML3 6RQ

  —

  —

  31 Old Raise Road Saltcoats Ayrshire

  —

  —

  160

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  33 West Saville Terrace Edinburgh 9

  —

  —

  335–337 Calder Road Edinburgh

  —

  —

  335–337 Sighthill Road Edinburgh

  —

  —

  351 Anniesland Road Glasgow

  —

  —

  368 Amulree Street Shettleston Glasgow G32 7SJ

  —

  —

  40 Millhill Street Dunfermline Fife

  —

  —

  41 Shawbridge Arcade Ashtree Road Glasgow G43 1RT

  —

  —

  6 Bridge Street Dumbarton

  —

  —

  6000 Academy Park Gower Street Glasgow G51 1TR

  —

  2

  7 Aitchison Street Airdrie Strathclyde ML6 0DY

  —

  —

  71 Whatriggs Road Kilmarnock Ayrshire

  —

  —

  74 Glasgow Road Bathgate EH48 2 AG

  —

  —

  83 Princes Street Edinburgh Scotland

  2

  5

  Bankhead Avenue Sighthill Edinburgh EH11 4AA

  —

  —

  Caledonian House 3rd Floor Greenmarket Dundee DD1 1DP

  —

  2

  City Wall House 32 Eastwood Avenue Glasgow G41 3NS

  —

  1

  Crossshill Road Bishopsbriggs Glasgow

  —

  —

  Crown Buildings Princes Pier Greenock Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  East Burnside Cupar Fife

  —

  1

  East Fortune Airfield Drem East Lothian

  —

  —

  Fechney Buildings Glasgow Road Perth Perthshire

  —

  —

  Fifeness Crail Fife KY10 3XN

  —

  —

  Fisher Row Musselburgh Midlothian BH21 6SG

  —

  —

  Gob Saughton Broomhouse Drive Edinburgh

  —

  —

  Government Buildings 2 St. Ninians Road Stirling

  —

  —

  HMCG Church Road Leven Fife

  —

  —

  Houstoun Industrial Estate Livingston West Lothian

  —

  3

  John Street Forfar Angus

  —

  3

  Joppa Terrace Joppa Edinburgh

  —

  —

  Navy Building Eldon Street Greenock Renfrew PA16 7QY

  —

  —

  Navy Buildings Eldon Street Greenock Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  North Muirton Industrial Estate Perth Perthshire

  1

  —

  Overgate House 121 Marketgait Dundee DD1 1JL

  —

  —

  Park Road Gallatown Kirkcaldy Fife

  —

  —

  Springburn Park 14A Balornoch Road Glasgow

  —

  —

  Tanter Field School Victoria Park Haddington East Lothian

  —

  —

  Town Hall Hall Terrace Cumnock Ayrshire

  —

  —

  TRRSL Livingston West Lothian EH54 5DU

  3

  —

  Wellmeadow Blairgowrie Perthshire

  —

  —

  Western Road Kilmarnock Ayrshire

  —

  1

  161
  Note:

  Produced from the Personnel Information System as at 25 May 1994.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for the last five financial years the Department of Transport's staff-in-post figures broken down by grade;

  (2) if he will place in the Library the latest staff-in-post figures broken down by grade for each Department of Transport office including executive agencies.

  Mr. Norris
  I am placing copies of the information requested in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a recruitment ban in his Department and its agencies immediately.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Manchester travel-to-work area the numbers of(a) casuals and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its agencies have 51 offices in the north-west region, which includes the Manchester travel-to-work area. At present, a total of 35 casual staff are employed at 15 of those offices, and five staff are employed on fixed-term appointments. Details are as follows:

  North West

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  101 Sankey Street Warrington Cheshire WA1 1LB

  —

  —

  14 Milton Grove Whalley Range Manchester

  —

  —

  1A Sugham Lane Heysham Lancashire

  —

  —

  208 Drake Street Rochdale Lancashire

  —

  —

  22 Chester Road Ellesmere Port Cheshire

  —

  —

  22 Woodside Road. Irby Wirral Cheshire L61 4UL

  —

  —

  23 Perrin Street Hyde Cheshire SK14 1JE

  —

  1

  26–28 Broadstone Road Reddish Stockport Cheshire

  —

  —

  3 Mesnes Park Terrace Wigan Lancashire

  —

  —

  36–38 Poplar Grove Sale Cheshire

  —

  —

  4 Felix Road Winnington Northwich Cheshire

  —

  1

  50 Preston New Road Blackburn Lancashire

  —

  6 Nile Street Crewe Cheshire

  —

  —

  88 School Lane Didsbury Lancashire M20 0HG

  —

  —

  95 Bond Parade Dicksons Drive Newton Chester

  —

  —

  Alderglen Road Cheetham Manchester

  —

  1

  Apsley House Park Road Crosby Merseyside L22 3XF

  —

  —

  Arrowe Park Road Upton Wirral L49 0UL

  —

  —

  Ashburner House Seymour Grove Manchester M16 0JL

  —

  —

  Ashton House Cottam Lane Preston Lancashire PR2 1HU

  —

  —

  162

  Building

  Fixed term appointment

  Casuals

  Atherton Street St. Helens Merseyside WA10 2JY

  —

  —

  Buckingham House Glover Court Preston Lancashire PR1 3LS

  —

  6

  Chapel House Chapel Street Congleton Cheshire

  —

  —

  Corn Exchange Building Fenwick Street Liverpool L2 7TT

  —

  3

  Cuerden Depot Haverlock Terrace Bamber Bridge Preston

  —

  —

  Dock Road South Bromborough Wirrall Merseyside

  —

  —

  Driving Test Centre Weston Street Bolton BL3 2AW

  —

  —

  DTC Warrington Business Park Long Lane Cheshire WA2 7JR

  —

  1

  Eastbank House 68 Eastbank Street Southport Lancashire

  —

  —

  Eaves Lanes Rossall Road Chorley Lancashire

  —

  —

  Everite Road Widnes Cheshire WA8 8PT

  —

  —

  Forest House Cobden Street Nelson Lancashire

  —

  —

  Freckleton Road Kirkham Lancashire PR4 2RA

  —

  2

  Government Buildings Fielden Road Didsbury Lancashire

  —

  —

  Government Buildings Warbeck Hill Road Blackpool Lancashire

  —

  —

  Graeme House Derby Square Liverpool L2 7SU

  1

  2

  Gressington House St. Marys Road Liverpool L19 0NE

  —

  —

  Government Buildings South Park Road Macclesfield Cheshire

  —

  —

  Hall Road West Liverpool L23 8SY

  —

  —

  King Street Wallasey Merseyside

  —

  —

  Lingard Lane Bredbury Stockport Cheshire

  —

  3

  Middleton Road Heywood Lancashire

  —

  1

  Norroy House Nuns Road Chester Cheshire CH1 2NB

  —

  —

  Old Government Buildings Dee Hills Park Chester

  —

  —

  Parthenon Drive Norris Green Liverpool

  —

  —

  Partington Street Failsworth Lancashire

  —

  —

  Portcullis House Seymour Grove Manchester M16 0NE

  4

  7

  Princes Way Fleetwood Lancashire FY7 8PG

  —

  —

  Sector 43 4 Mesnes Park Terrace Wigan WN1 1SU

  —

  —

  Smith Street Bury BL9 6HH

  —

  1

  Stopgate Lane Kirkby Merseyside

  —

  1

  Sunley Tower Piccadilly Plaza Manchester M1 4AX

  —

  3

  Trafford House Chester Road Stretford Manchester

  —

  2

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if he will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has completed two such surveys over the past two years. A third is now under way. The findings are confidential to management and staff so as to avoid drawing civil servants into areas of political controversy. In 1991, the National Audit Office commissioned a survey of staff attitudes within the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate, which was published. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  M25
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give by category the total number of residential dwellings, commercial premises and other categories of buildings purchased by his Department within the vicinity of the M25 between junctions 12 and 8 over the last five years, together with the itemised costs and the powers by which those purchases were made.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the southern section of the M25 from the Dartford crossing to the M4 interchange will be completely free from road works.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 28 June 1994]: This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Keith Speed, dated 30 June 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the southern section of the M25 would be completely free from road works.
  We have a major rolling programme for widening the M25 between Junctions 3 and 11 on the southern section to dual four lanes without the existing highway boundary. This will take several years to complete. Timing will depend on the availability of funds and the competing demands of other parts of the Road Programme, so I cannot forecast at present exactly when this programme will be finished.
  We are also considering the provision of capacity beyond dual four lanes for the section of M25 from Junction 10 to the M4 (and beyond). Work on this is dependent on the completion of statutory procedures as well as the availability of funds.
  In addition, there will be a need for maintenance works but wherever possible these will be incorporated in the widening schemes to minimise disruption to traffic.
  Bridgeworks are also planned between now and the turn of the century. All bridges are being assessed under the assessment and strengthening programme post-tensioned bridges are also being assessed and inspected under the Special Inspection programme which is being conducted nationwide. It is not therefore possible to say at present what strengthening and/or replacement works will be required for these structures.
  Every effort is made to keep disruption to a minimum. Experience has shown that limiting the length of individual road works to relatively short sections is less disruptive to traffic than carrying out works over a long distance at one time. This will
  164
  mean, however, that road works will be taking place on the southern section of the M25 for a longer period than if we had carried out all the works together.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under the citizens charter how much compensation will be paid to the passengers stranded at Royston railway station at 12.30 am on Sunday 19 June, on their way from King's Cross to Cambridge; and how many passengers were affected.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the passengers charter, BR offers compensation to the value of 20 per cent. or more of the ticket price paid if passengers are delayed for more than an hour. I understand that 30 passengers have so far requested compensation for the delay at Royston on 19 June and over £500 in compensation has been paid. I am not aware of the number of passengers affected by the delay.

  Signal Box Operators
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the criteria for allowing people to operate signal boxes; and what previous experience of specific lines is required by operators of signal boxes on those lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no statutory criteria against which competence to operate signalling equipment is to be judged. However, the Health and Safety Executive's guidance on the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 recommends that the employer should be satisfied that the employees have appropriate training, personal qualities, fitness and qualifications to do the work in question without undue risk to themselves or others and that they are fully aware of the nature of the work. HM railway inspectorate has sampled the effectiveness of the selection process applied by Railtrack and is satisfied that Railtrack is taking the necessary steps to ensure competence. HMRI is continuing to monitor the situation.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the locations at which British Rail staff who do not hold the required certificate of competence operated signal boxes on 22 June.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 stipulate that those employed on tasks that are regarded as critical to safety must be competent. Certification of competence is not a statutory requirement under the regulations. All staff operating in signal boxes have been assessed and confirmed competent by Railtrack. HM railway inspectorate has sampled the effectiveness of that process and is satisfied that Railtrack is taking the necessary steps to ensure competence. HMRI is continuing to monitor the situation.

  Rail Journey Costs
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of a journey by rail from(a) Hounslow to Waterloo and (b) Richmond to Waterloo (i) off-peak return, (ii) standard rate return and (iii) standard rate single for each year from 1979, at current and 1993 prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:
  165

  From Hounslow to London Waterloo

  Date

  Standard Single (Current)

  Standard Single (1993)

  Standard Return (Current)

  Standard Return (1993)

  Cheap Day (Current)

  Cheap Day (1993)

  7 January 1979

  0·84

  2·21

  1·68

  4·41

  0·96

  2·52

  6 January 1980

  0·99

  2·20

  1·97

  4·37

  1·15

  2·55

  30 November 1980

  1·22

  2·41

  2·44

  4·82

  1·40

  2·76

  29 November 1981

  1·30

  2·29

  2·60

  4·58

  1·50

  2·64

  9 January 1983

  1·40

  2·33

  2·80

  4·67

  1·60

  2·67

  8 January 1984

  1·50

  2·38

  3·00

  4·76

  1·70

  2·70

  6 January 1985

  1·60

  2·42

  3·20

  4·84

  1·80

  2·72

  12 January 1986

  1·70

  1·43

  3·40

  4·87

  2·00

  2·86

  11 January 1987

  1·80

  2·48

  3·60

  4·96

  2·10

  2·89

  10 January 1988

  1·90

  2·54

  3·80

  5·07

  2·20

  2·94

  8 January 1989

  2·10

  2·61

  4·20

  5·22

  2·30

  2·86

  4 February 1990

  2·30

  2·64

  4·60

  5·28

  2·60

  2·98

  6 January 1991

  2·60

  2·75

  5·20

  5·51

  2·80

  2·97

  5 January 1992

  2·80

  2·85

  5·60

  5·69

  2·80

  2·85

  3 January 1993

  3·00

  3·00

  6·00

  6·00

  3·10

  3·10

  2 January 1994

  3·20

  3·10

  6·40

  6·20

  3·30

  3·20

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the performance of the Driving Standards Agency since the appointment of the current chief executive.

  Mr. Key
  The new chief executive has maintained the continuing gradual improvement in DSA's performance.

  Buses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the number of bus passengers carried and bus-miles worked in each metropolitan area outside London in 1985, 1990 and each subsequent year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Data collected by the Department cannot be released for individual metropolitan areas for reasons of reliability and confidentiality. Financial year estimates of the total number of local bus journeys made by passengers in the six English metropolitan areas outside London, and the corresponding figures for local bus-km worked, are given below. These have been extracted from tables 1.1 and 2.1 of "Bus and Coach Statistics Great Britain 1992–93", which also present data for Scotland as a whole. A copy of this HMSO publication has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  millions

  English metropolitan areas

  Year

  Local passenger journeys

  Local vehicle kms

  1985–86

  2,068

  574

  1990–91

  1,547

  650

  1991–92

  1,478

  662

  1992–93

  1,386

  678

  Source: Statistical returns from PSV operators

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), of 3 May,Official Report, column 466, and to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), of 26 May, Official Report, column 284, if he will show for each separate invoice supplied to his Department by Dewe Rogerson for advice
  166
  on his Department's marketing strategy for rail privatisation, (a) the date on which the invoice was received by his Department, (b) the date on which the invoice was paid by his Department and (c) the amount contained in each separate invoice, inclusive of value added tax; whether he has now received the final invoice from Dewe Rogerson; which is the total amount inclusive of value added tax, which his Department will have paid to Dewe Rogerson by the time its contract expires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested in parts(a), (b) and (c) is commercially confidential. Dewe Rogerson's final invoice has not yet been received and it is not therefore possible to provide a figure for the total amount. To date, Dewe Rogerson has been paid £566,000, including VAT, for this advice.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he intends to publish the full report and findings of his review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in minibuses and coaches; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend intends to publish the conclusions of the review before the summer recess and copies of the relevant papers will be deposited in the Library at that time.

  Sir Christopher Foster
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date Sir Christopher Foster was appointed as an adviser to his Department; on what date his employment as an adviser was completed; how much he was paid in total for his work as an adviser to his Department; on what date he was invited to apply for the post of board member of Railtrack; on what date he was appointed a board member of Railtrack; who was responsible for(a) recruiting, (b) interviewing and (c) appointing Sir Christopher Foster as a board member of Railtrack; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Christopher Foster was appointed as special adviser to the Secretary of State from 1 June 1992. He was seconded to the Department from Coopers and Lybrand: the Department reimbursed Coopers and Lybrand at the rate of £5,000 per year, amounting to a total
  167
  of £7,321·43 plus VAT for the period until his resignation on 16 November 1993. On that date, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that Sir Christopher would be appointed as a non-executive member of the Railtrack board on its incorporation as a British Rail subsidiary company in February 1994. His appointment from 1 April 1994 as a director of Railtrack Group plc as a Government-owned company, was approved by shareholders' decision given by the Secretary of State.

  Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) of 22 March,Official Report, column 146, if he will show for all consultants and/or other outside organisations or individuals currently or previously employed by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, (a) the name of the consultancy, organisation or individual, (b) the length of contract offered to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (c) the total amount inclusive of value added tax paid to date to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (d) the total amount inclusive of value added tax expected to be paid to each consultancy, organisation or individual and (e) the services required by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising from each consultancy, organisation or individual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The principal external consultants retained by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the services which it is supplying, and expenditure on them to date are as follows:

  Consultant

  Service supplied

  Expenditure to 30 June 1994 (£000s exclusive of VAT)

  Linklaters and Paines

  Legal services

  987

  Brodies WS

  Advice on Scots law

  8

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Accountancy services

  599

  Samuel Montagu & Co.

  Merchant Bank

  200

  S and G Warburg & Co.

  Advice on rolling stock leasing

  73

  PJR Ltd.

  Recruitment and organisational advice

  50

  Total

  1,917

  Note: VAT at 17–5 per cent. is payable in addition.

  Price Waterhouse and Co., accountancy services, Coopers and Lybrand, accountancy services, and Shandwick Consultants Ltd., marketing advice, have also been retained by Opraf, but no payments have yet been made to them. The amount paid in future to those firms will depend on the work done. All those appointments are terminable not later than 31 March 1995.

  In addition, Opraf has 20 employees of its own and 15 seconded staff and uses various external firms for such matters as cleaning and maintenance of its premises, the carrying out of minor repairs, staff training, courier services, printing, and the supply of working lunches.

  British Rail
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing(a) the total amount spent centrally or in each separate region by British Rail in 1993–94 on legal advice, together with the name of each firm or individual employed and (b) the total amount budgeted to be spent on legal advice in 1994–95 centrally by British Rail and individually by each train operating unit, together with the name of each firm or individual employed.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a management matter for the British Railways Board.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the unadjusted traffic forecasts and year 1 traffic counts for road schemes opened in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost-benefit ratio of road schemes for(a) currently under construction, (b) agreed starts for 1994–95, (c) schemes designated priority 1 in the roads review, (d) schemes designated priority 2, (e) schemes designated longer term in the roads review and (f) schemes abandoned in the roads review.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the cost-benefit ratio for the current active road programmes is 2·2:1.

  Rail Accident (Greenock)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the railway inspectorate will begin its investigation into the derailment of the 22.45 hours Wemyss Bay to Glasgow train in Greenock on Saturday, 25 June; if the report of the investigation will contain recommendations concerning(a) improvements in the design and construction of electric multiple units and (b) improve safety procedures; if the report will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate, HMRI, started a preliminary investigation into the derailment shortly after first light on Sunday 26 June. Strathclyde police, assisted by British Transport police, were conducting a scene-of-crime investigation at that time and subsequently announced that it had become a murder inquiry. I understand that two people have now been charged in connection with the deaths. An inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 has not been recommended by the chief inspecting officer of railways, given the cause of the accident. The holding of a fatal accident inquiry is a matter for the Lord Advocate.

  The HMRI will continue to assist the police in relation to railway technical matters and is also considering what lessons may be learnt to prevent a recurrence. The crash resistance of new rolling stock has been considerably

  169
  improved above the standards of the train involved in the accident. I have asked the HMRI to let me know its conclusions and I will write to the hon. Member when I have received this information.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many men were in work in 1991 in each of the districts covered by the valleys initiative; and what his latest estimate is of the number of men unemployed in these districts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following districts are wholly or partially in the programme for the valleys area:

  Blaenau Gwent

  Brecknock

  Cynon Valley

  Dinefwr

  Islwyn

  Llanelli

  Lliw Valley

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Neath

  Ogwr

  Port Talbot

  Rhondda

  Rhymney Valley

  Swansea

  Taff Ely

  Torfaen

  The employment and unemployment data requested are available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed on-line by House of Commons Library staff.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policies for the careers service.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office published a prospectus on 8 June 1994 setting out arrangements for the provision of the careers service from April 1995. A copy of the prospectus has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement about his new apprenticeships initiative with respect to(a) Alyn and Deeside, (b) Clwyd and (c) Wales;

  (2) what measures he is adopting to encourage the provision of more apprenticeships.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Some £3·6 million has been allocated to training and enterprise councils in Wales for the implementation of modern engineering apprenticeships in the current financial year. That will support a total of 550 apprenticeship places and contribute to the training of some 1,400 people as specialist workplace trainers. Some £2·2 million of the total is being made available to colleges of further education to buy engineering equipment. Allocations have been made on the basis of TEC areas. North East Wales TEC, which includes Alyn and Deeside within its area, has been allocated 50 apprenticeship places, 112 trainer training places and £225,000 for college equipment.

  Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his training for work programme with respect to Alyn and Deeside.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The objective of the training for work programme throughout Wales is to help long-term unemployed people to find jobs and to improve their work-related skills through the provision of appropriate training and structured work activity in line with assessed needs. It is delivered in Alyn and Deeside through North East Wales training and enterprise council.

  Home Building
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total numbers of homes built by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

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

  New dwellings completed

  Local authorities

  Housing associations1

  1989

  566

  1,663

  1990

  610

  1,685

  1991

  418

  2,463

  1992

  133

  2,459

  1993

  172

  2,849

  1Excludes acquisitions, rehabilitation and hostel spaces.

  Live Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what measures he has taken since 1990 to ensure that live farm animals being transported to the continent are adequately cared for with respect to(a) horses, (b) cattle, (c) sheep and (d) pigs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy concerning the transportation of live farm animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are actuely aware of the great strength of feeling in this country on animal welfare, and are strongly committed to ensuring that the welfare of animals is properly safeguarded. The Government have strict rules to protect animals exported from this country. Where there has been evidence of infringements, prompt action has been taken to rectify the situation and, where appropriate, offenders have been prosecuted.

  The EC directive on the protection of animals in transit sets Community standards for the transportation of all animals over 50 km. It requires animals to be fed, watered and rested at appropriate intervals, not exceeding 24 hours. It also required the European Commission to produce a report and, where appropriate, proposals on certain detailed issues, including feeding and watering intervals, rest periods and maximum journey times. Pending adoption of the measures, member states have been able to apply national rules in those areas, and in the United Kingdom the Government are currently applying a maximum feeding and watering interval of 15 hours for all livestock and 12 hours for poultry. For horses, the directive provides

  171
  for national rules to remain applicable and our national minimum value arrangements continue; there are no proposals at present which affect this.

  At the Agriculture Council meeting on 20 June, proposals representing a significant improvement on those which the Government blocked in December last year were put forward. However, it became clear that further improvements could be made and the Commission has committed itself to bringing forward further proposals on journey limits by 1 July 1995.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of air quality on the A548 Queensferry to Connah's Quay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Monitoring of air quality in the vicinity of the A548 Queensferry to Connah's Quay is the responsibility of the local district council. I understand that Alyn and Deeside district council carries out regular monitoring in the area and that none of its readings to date have exceeded European guidelines.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the measures taken designed to improve water quality on the beaches of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Dwr Cymru—Welsh Water—is currently engaged in a £230 million investment programme designed to ensure that all bathing waters in Wales identified under the European bathing water directive consistently meet its mandatory bacteriological standards. There has been a major improvement in the quality of the bathing waters on the Welsh coastline and last year 84 per cent. of identified waters met the standards, compared with 48 per cent. in 1986. The majority of the improvement programme is expected to be completed by 1995, with the remainder due to be completed by the end of 1997.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by council tax collection authority area, the number of outstanding banding appeal cases and the proportion they represent of all liable properties in that area, as at 1 April.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The position in Wales on 1 April 1994 was as follows:

  Billing authority area

  Outstanding banding appeal cases

  Percentage of liable properties

  Aberconwy

  892

  3·6

  Alyn and Deeside

  896

  3·0

  Arfon

  778

  3·2

  Blaenau Gwent

  406

  1·3

  Brecknock

  1,254

  6·8

  Cardiff

  2,841

  2·4

  Carmarthen

  1,808

  7·4

  Ceredigion

  3,196

  10·6

  Colwyn

  805

  3·2

  Cynon Valley

  608

  2·2

  Delyn

  806

  2·9

  Dinefwr

  1,349

  7·9

  172

  Billing authority area

  Outstanding banding appeal cases

  Percentage of liable properties

  Dwyfor

  632

  4·4

  Glyndwr

  869

  4·7

  Islwyn

  487

  1·8

  Llanelli

  761

  2·4

  Lliw Valley

  671

  2·5

  Meirionnydd

  549

  3·1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  373

  1·5

  Monmouth

  1,797

  6·0

  Montgomeryshire

  956

  4·0

  Neath

  625

  2·3

  Newport

  627

  1·1

  Ogwr

  1,157

  2·1

  Port Talbot

  494

  2·3

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,700

  5·5

  Radnorshire

  824

  7·4

  Rhondda

  226

  0·7

  Rhuddlan

  518

  2·1

  Rhymney Valley

  614

  1·5

  South Pembrokeshire

  933

  4·7

  Swansea

  2,313

  3·0

  Taff Ely

  820

  2·1

  Torfaen

  566

  1·5

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,427

  3·0

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,191

  2·5

  Ynys Mon

  1,208

  3·8

  Blood Transfusion Service, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority about the closure of the Dominion arcade blood transfusion centre for plasma donors in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The decision to close the Dominion arcade blood transfusion centre was taken by the board of the authority following wide consultation with donors. Arrangements have been made for them to use the plasma suite at the blood transfusion service headquarters at Rhydlafar.

DEFENCE

  Troop Location
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), of 23 June 1994,Official Report, columns 247–48, if he is now in a position to announce the location for the second additional infantry battalion; and what other plans he has for Army use of the defence estate.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have now decided that Oakington barracks, Oakington, which is currently the home of the 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, should be retained as a permanent infantry barracks to cater for the second of the two additional infantry battalions announced on 3 February 1993,Official Report, column 320. The Gurkhas will move from Church Crookham to Elizabeth barracks, Pirbright around the end of 1996, not the end of 1994 as indicated in my previous answer of 23 June 1994, Official Report, columns 247–48. Under current plans, the Black Watch will remain in Pirbright until mid-1996. In addition, we have decided that RAF Hullavington, currently being used as temporary accommodation of 9 Supply Regiment Royal Logistic Corps should be retained in the defence estate for

  173
  the time being as the home of 9 Supply Regiment RLC which will now not move to Aldershot as previously planned.

  Ferranti/ISC
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library those reports he has commissioned or received into the effect on the defence interests of the United Kingdom of the collapse of Ferranti/ISC.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. It is not my Department's practice to disclose internal papers which contain classified or commercially sensitive information.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list and place in the Library a copy of those memoranda and authorisations from Government Departments which preceded and accompanied the merger of Ferranti and ISC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. Any advice which my Department offers in connection with proposed mergers is confidential.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those charged with offences relating to the Ferranti/ISC fraud; and if he will list in each case the pleas entered and the sentences imposed.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

  Merchant Banks
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which merchant bank is the adviser to his Department; and if he will list all the fees and commissions paid to banks by his Department each year since 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department does not employ any one merchant bank as a permanent adviser. In fact, since 1988, only one centrally held record exists for the employment of a merchant bank. This was a contract placed with Kleinwort Benson Investment Trust Ltd. for a project in connection with the contractorisation of the royal dockyards in August 1993. To protect commercial confidentiality, the value of this contract cannot be released. It is likely that a number of other, lower-value contracts will have been placed with banks by subordinate budget holders from time to time during the period in question. The details of such contracts are not held centrally, however, and details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Puma
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedure was adopted for the contract for Puma modifications; and whether royal naval aircraft yard Fleetlands was invited to tender for any part of the contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  There have been many contracts for the modification of the Puma helicopter to maintain its operational effectiveness since it entered service. Royal naval aircraft yard—RNAY—Fleetlands, which is part of the naval aircraft repair organisation defence agency, is regularly tasked by my Department with embodiment of modification kits into service aircraft, and consideration 174
  has been given to RNAY Fleetlands carrying out such work on the Puma helicopter. Fleetlands is permitted to respond to MOD invitations to tender.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures which have been taken to clear the Falkland Islands of mines and other lethal debris of war and the extent to which these measures have succeeded.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 8 February,Official Report, columns 239–40.

  Training Flights (Plymouth Airport)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the instructions given to MOD personnel involved in training flights from Plymouth airport in the event of engine failure immediately after take-off.

  Mr. Hanley
  A pilot can take a number of actions in the event of an engine failure immediately after take-off. If there is sufficient space ahead, the pilot will land on the airfield. If, however, there is insufficient space remaining, the pilot will by that time have gained sufficient height or speed or both to enable him to turn towards a suitable clear area to land or to turn back to the airfield to land. The decision as to which procedure is adopted is a matter for the professional judgment of the pilot at the time of the incident. Experienced aircrew, well versed in the engine failure procedure, are on board all training flights from Plymouth airport. The engine failure procedure is also practised regularly as part of routine flying, with the turn-back procedure normally being practised away from the airfield to reduce noisy disturbance. Over its 30 years operating experience at Plymouth airport, the Royal Navy has maintained an excellent safety record.

  Defence Bases
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) details, (b) plans and (c) inventories of defence bases have been supplied to Crown Ridge Industries in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally. In addition to being available from other sources, details of surplus defence bases are widely disseminated by officials to many companies and individuals. As far as can be ascertained, however, no details, plans or inventories have been supplied to Crownridge Industries with the exception of details of Royal Navy armaments depot, Trecwn supplied to Mr. R. Philipps in his capacity as a director of Crownridge Industries in 1994.

  Bases (Sales)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 443–45, if he will list for each base sold, intended to be sold or currently marketed the date (a) on which the decision to close was made, (b) on which the decision to sell the base was made and (c) on which expressions of interest were first invited.
  175
  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Trecwn
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 27 June,Official Report, column 445, on RNAD Trecwn, on what date the decision was made that no further military use could be found for RNAD Trecwn and that the base should be sold.

  Mr. Hanley
  As part of my Department's normal procedure concerning redundant land, expressions of interest in RNAD Trecwn from other MOD organisations were sought on 28 February 1992. No firm military requirement for the site was identified however, and details of the site were then circulated to some 25 other Government Departments on 13 July 1992. Again, no interest was shown, and the site was declared surplus to requirements on 1 August 1992.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 445, on the supply since July 1991, of information relating to RNAD Trecwn, if he will list individuals or organisations to whom his Department is aware that details at the facilities in RNAD Trecwn were supplied, together with the month in which the material was supplied.

  Mr. Hanley
  The individuals and organisations to whom my Department is aware that details of the facilities in RNAD Trecwn were supplied are:

  Organisation/Individual

  Slough Estates plc

  O'Rion London Ltd.

  Fairfield Properties

  Mr. R. A. Halliday

  Otto Properties

  Pearl & Coutts Ltd.

  Mr. K. B. Hobday

  The County Echo

  Lands Improvements Group Ltd.

  Dwr Cymru Welsh Water

  Mr. M. Scrace

  Dyfed Antiques

  Miss E. A. Stokes

  Maltsword Ltd.

  Mr. Jacques

  St. Modwen Properties

  Queensway Land & Property Ltd.

  Mr. K. Williams

  Document Storage Co.

  BDC Building & Civil Engineering

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Dave Harris Transport

  Park Investments Management Ltd.

  Economic Development Section, Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  Property Services, Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  The Cleveland Trust

  Ms T. J. Simpkins

  West Wales Task Force

  Mr. Edwards

  Welsh Development Agency

  Vulcan Firework UK Limited

  Dyfed County Planning Department

  Acer Wallace Evans

  176

  London & County Development

  Mr. M. Rowlands

  Mr. D. Morris, MEP

  Cooke & Arkwright

  A. G. Edwards & Sons

  Mr. P. Morgan

  Mr. T. Twomey

  Evans & Roach & Co.

  DTZ Debenham Thorpe

  Mr. H. N. Griffiths

  Mr. S. W. Buckley

  Mr. W. D. Berry

  Mr. Riaz

  Mr. Sinnett

  Mr. B. Freid

  Mr. P. Hunter

  Mr. A. Bilton

  Mr. J. Hager

  WGSs, Leeds

  Hutchings & Thomas

  M. J. Barrett Properties

  Mr. J. Goodwin

  Mr. M. J. Hendy

  Broxtead Consulting

  Davron Business Park

  Cheetham & Mortimer

  Mr. J. W. Molay

  Clare House Landshipping

  Unicorn Estates

  Rhos Landscapes

  Mr. J. Townsend

  The Western Telegraph

  Mr. M. Danzey

  Mr. Hughes

  Pembroke Design Ltd.

  Hon. R. Philipps

  Gulfstream (Pembrokeshire) Ltd.

  Strutt & Parker

  Mr. M. Oliver

  Dr. C. Smith

  ICI Nobel Explosives

  TGWU

  Mr. D. T. Jones

  Hilderbrand & Glicker

  Ms S. Morris

  Mr. R. F. Grant

  Glassclean Services

  Richard Ellis

  Mr. J. Ambrey

  Mr. A. James

  T. G. Jones & Associates

  Mr. N. Ainger, MP

  Mr. P. Jones

  Mr. R. Murray

  Mr. McHale

  The various dates on which this information was released is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vacant Married Quarters
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a regional breakdown of the numbers of vacant married quarters at the end of March 1992, 1993 and 1994, with an estimate of the proportion of the total that the figures for each region represent.

  Mr. Hanley
  The regional breakdown of vacant married quarters at 31 March 1992, 1993 and 1994 and the percentage of the total stock which was vacant is as follows:
  177

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1993

  31 March 1994

  Region

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Yorkshire

  596

  11·6

  532

  9·8

  427

  7·9

  Northern

  88

  13·6

  55

  8·7

  116

  16·4

  North West

  126

  13·7

  192

  19·1

  144

  15·1

  South East

  3,684

  12·9

  3,326

  12·6

  3,407

  13·2

  South West

  1,594

  12·3

  1,985

  13·5

  2,089

  14·3

  East Anglia

  566

  10·6

  632

  12·1

  1,145

  21·2

  East Midlands

  707

  17·5

  638

  16·8

  670

  18·5

  West Midlands

  322

  11·9

  342

  12·5

  389

  14·5

  Wales

  230

  9·5

  347

  14·5

  452

  18·1

  Scotland

  954

  14·5

  745

  11·5

  736

  11·3

  Northern Ireland

  497

  16·4

  372

  12·5

  307

  10 2

  Total

  9,364

  12·9

  9,166

  12·8

  9,882

  13·9

  Many of these vacant married quarters were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work, held for unit deployments or already allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly. In addition, the following vacant surplus married quarters were in the process of being sold:

  Period

  Number

  31 March 1992

  1,889

  31 March 1993

  1,861

  31 March 1994

  1,519

  Unfortunately, these figures are not maintained in a form which enables them to be readily broken down by regions.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what definition of arts and sports his Department is using to decide resourcing from the national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  In accordance with section 23 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the Arts Council and Sports Council will distribute lottery proceeds for expenditure on or connected with the arts and sport respectively. They are responsible for defining those terms, taking into account their existing charter powers.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will include the National Playing Fields Association and Play Wales as consultees with regard to the distribution of national lottery funds.

  Mr. Brooke
  In accordance with section 26(5) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland consulted the bodies responsible for the distribution of lottery proceeds before giving them policy directions under section 26(1) and (2) of the Act. Those bodies will also be consulted before receiving financial directions under section 26(3) and (4). In relation to applications for lottery funds, it will be for the distributing bodies to decide from whom they should seek advice.

  Royal Palaces
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 346, how much of the figure given for
  178
  utilities, salaries and ancillary costs of the occupied royal palaces in 1994–95 is spent on utilities; how much is spent on salaries, and for how many staff; and what ancillary costs are involved.

  Mr. Sproat
  The £6·469 million to be spent on utilities, salaries and ancillary costs at the occupied palaces is broken down as follows:

  £

  Utilities

  1·573 million

  Salary costs of 149·2 staff

  3·331 million

  Ancillary costs:

  Rates

  638,000

  Other operational costs eg custody guard service, preparation for official functions etc.

  225,000

  Furniture and equipment

  209,000

  Fire branch equipment, uniforms etc.

  182,000

  Training, stationary, computers, recruitment, minor consultancies

  153,000

  Garden costs, seeds, vehicle and equipment maintenance etc.

  144,000

  Craftsmen materials

  14,000

  Total

  6·469 million

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish his estimate of the cost of BBC revenues of a 25 per cent. reduction of television licence fees for all single pensioners living alone in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) Wales.

  Mr. Brooke
  The estimated cost in lost television licence revenue of introducing a 25 per cent. reduction in televison licences for all single pensioners living alone in the United Kingdom would be £63 million. Separate estimates by country are not available.

  Spectrum Radio Persian Programme
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will call for a report from the Radio Authority into allegations of attempted interference by the Iranian Government in the Spectrum Radio Persian programme.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, independent radio stations are responsible for their own programme content and for observing the terms and conditions of the licences issued to them by the Radio
  179
  Authority. The authority investigates the written complaints that it receives about programming and advertising on independent radio and publishes a quarterly bulletin.

  Regulations
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 May,Official Report, columns 12–13, if he will publish a table listing each of the more than 90 regulations grouping them in the seven main sections; with which Department he is considering each regulation; what is the intended modification to each regulation; and what is the estimated target date for each modification.

  Mr. Sproat
  I shall write to the hon. Member with a list of the 90 regulations which have been drawn to my attention by the tourism industry. The seven areas identified by my inquiries as being of particular concern to the industry, and the Departments with which I have discussed these areas, are:

  Food hygiene:
  Department of Health

  Fire safety:
  Home Office and Department of Trade and Industry

  EU Package Travel Directive:
  Department of Trade and Industry

  Electricity at Work Regulations:
  Employment Department

  Public entertainment licensing:
  Home Office

  Signposting to tourist attractions and facilities:
  Department of Transport

  Price indications:
  Department of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  In the case of the electricity at work regulations, fresh guidance has been issued for tourist accommodation businesses and in the case of food hygiene, the Department of Health has proposed an improved set of regulations which have been the subject of a public consultation exercise. Consideration has been given, or is being given, to the other five areas and where appropriate proposals for changes in regulations or for improved guidance will be brought forward in due course.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Sproat
  There are no advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals, and none to whose advice the Government must publish a response.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Sproat
  None of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department is required to publish the advice that it gives to Government.
  180
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department sponsors only one advisory non-departmental public body, the Royal Fine Art Commission. This produces an annual report, although there is no requirement for it to do so or to lay it before Parliament. The report for the 1993 calendar year has just been published and presented to Parliament.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Sproat
  No advisory non-departmental public bodies have been set up under the sponsorship of my Department since publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department sponsors only one advisory non-departmental public body, the Royal Fine Art Commission. It produces an annual report, although there is no requirement for it to do so. The report for the 1993 calendar year has just been published and presented to Parliament.

  Tourism
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of his Department's officials are engaged in duties relating to tourism; and what is the total salary bill for their employment.

  Mr. Sproat
  There are currently 18 staff in my Department directly engaged in duties relating to tourism; including one who works part time. The estimated total salary bill for their employment in the current financial year is £476,363.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if he will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Sproat
  No surveys of this type have been conducted within the Department of National Heritage.

  Stolen Cultural Property
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he has taken to prevent stolen antiquities, illegally removed from their country of origin, free access into the United Kingdom; what taxes and import duties are applied to imported antiquities; what investigations were made regarding the legality of the 12-tonne load of antiquities recently taken from an ancient site in Lebanon and sent to a London dealer via Larnaca and Ipswich; and if he will ratify the 1970 UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing illicit import, exportation and transfer of cultural property.
  181
  Mr. Brooke
  The restriction of imports into the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Taxes and import duties applied to imported antiquities are also a matter for the Chancellor, although there are no import duties at the moment. Any investigation of stolen antiquities in London would be for the police to take forward. In response to our inquiries, neither the Metropolitan police nor the antiquities trade has any knowledge of the Lebanese objects. The Government have no plans to ratify the 1970 UNESCO convention.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he took to prevent the sale at Sotheby of the 17 Century Joachim Wtewal painting, stolen from the east German Schloss museum; if he will condemn Switzerland for giving clear title to stolen goods kept in its vaults for five years; and if he supports European Union regulations on the control of the illegal export of cultural property.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no powers to intervene in the sale of alleged stolen objects. This is a matter for the police. The laws governing title to stolen goods vary from country to country and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on those in force in any particular state. I fully support the principles of the European Community directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state. That has been implemented via a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act 1972, and entered into force on 2 March 1994.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's policy towards the publication of external consultants' reports in relation to market testing.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: With regard to external consultants' reports on market testing, as in other matters, my Department follows the principles set out in the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Information which could prejudice negotiations or the effective conduct of commercial and contractual activities would not be published.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out the total cost of external consultancy fees incurred by his Department in relation to market testing.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: Since it was established in April 1992, my Department and its two agencies have to date spent approximately £66,000 on consultancy relating to market testing. Most of this sum was in connection with a scoping study on the strategic contracting out of central services.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: My Department uses recycled paper wherever possible and,
  182
  following unsuccessful tests of samples of recycled paper for computer printing and photocopying, continues to search the market for improved products which would enable items such as press releases and written answers to be produced on such paper.

  Amusement Machines
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to make a decision on allowing amusement-with-prizes machines in betting offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is under review. Other matters concerning deregulation of betting shops are receiving attention at present. We will then turn to the question of amusement-with-prizes machines in betting shops, but that would require primary legislation and it is not expected that there would be any changes to the law in the short term. However, we will review the policy and announce our conclusions in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Hague
  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory basis; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Hague
  The Social Security Advisory Committee, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions and the war pensions committees.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the advisory bodies set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those of his Department's advisory
  183
  non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee on most proposals to amend social security regulations. If the committee reports on those proposals, my right hon. Friend is required to publish the report and his response to any recommendations if and when the regulations are laid before Parliament.

  My right hon. Friend is similarly required to refer most proposals to amend regulations relating to industrial injuries benefit or its administration to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration and advice.

  Occupational Lung Disease
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his policy in respect of reclaiming previously paid sickness benefits from sufferers from asbestos-related diseases who have won compensation through the courts;

  (2) what is the basis (a) for requiring sufferers from asbestosis and mesothelioma have to repay compensation for industrial injury and (b) for not requiring sufferers from pneumoconiosis to do so;

  (3) what is his policy in respect of the pursuit of claims for repayment of sickness benefit from asbestosis sufferers after death if they win court cases for damages posthumously.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 21 June at column 147. The value of all relevant benefits, including sickness benefit, should be deducted from compensation awards exceeding £2,500. The provisions also apply to posthumous settlements.

  Payments made under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme are exempted from recoupment because the scheme has been subject to Government funding and it was structured to supplement, rather than replace, social security benefit payments.

  Rights of the Child
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list what information in relation to low-income families is available for the statements in the United Kingdom's first report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in respect of(a) the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual and social development, and (b) the level of real disposable income of all types of families with children in 1979 and currently.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on the social security benefits available for low incomes families described in the United Kingdom report is available in leaflet FB27 "Bringing Up Children?"

  A recent research report, "Support for Children, A Comparison of Arrangements in Fifteen Countries", published by this Department in 1993, provides a comparative analysis of United Kingdom support for children against that of other countries.

  The latest estimates of changes in the real disposable income since 1979 for various family types can be found in "Households Below Average Income 1979–1990/91", published in June 1993.
  184
  Copies of all of those publications are in the Library.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the reasons for the number of disallowances made by the vaccine damage tribunal for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Scott
  Vaccine damage tribunals which determine appeals are independent of this Department. I am unable to comment on matters for which those independent authorities are responsible.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims were made on behalf of vaccine-damaged children for the vaccine damage payment, who have been accepted as vaccine-damaged but were turned down because their disability was less than 80 per cent., between the passing of the compensation Act and June 1981; and how many parents have applied but have been turned down because of the six-year ruling between these dates.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the vaccine damage payment scheme 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 Michael Bichard to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has aked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claims were made on behalf of vaccine damaged children for the vaccine damage payment, who have been accepted as vaccine damaged but were turned down because their disability was less than 80 per cent. between the passing of the compensation act and June 1981; and how many parents have applied but have been turned down because of the six year ruling between these dates.
  You will be aware from my earlier letter of 24 June 1994 to you about this subject [OR Vol 245 Col 441] that the full range of information requested is not available. This is because statistics relating to claims for Vaccine Damage Payments were not maintained in a form which could identify the specific reason for refusal until June 1981. However, I am able to tell you that in the period up to June 1981 there were 2,742 claims made, the majority being on behalf of Vaccine Damaged children and a small minority being made by self claimants, ie persons over the age of 18 years. Of those claims 2,301 claims were disallowed.
  I am sorry that I am unable to be more specific on this occasion but I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations led to the requirement that cheques made payable by the CSA as a refund for overpayment should include the individual's name, address and national insurance number.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 5 July 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the inclusion of clients' names, addresses and National Insurance numbers on girocheques.

  185
  National Insurance Numbers are included on girocheques as the Agency uses them as unique reference numbers for clients.
  The address is included because girocheques are despatched in window envelopes.
  I hope this reply is useful.

  Social Fund Loans
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, columns 140–41, when he was first made aware of the problems concerning the checks made to ensure that unemployed claimants do not overpay their loans from the social fund; if he will list the district offices which have been affected; and how many claimants at each office have (a) had a refund or (b) had the overpayment offset against another loan.

  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 Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State, pursuant to his answer of 21 June, OR cols. 140–1, when he was first made aware of the problems concerning the checks made to ensure that unemployed claimants do not overpay their loans from the Social Fund; if he will list the district offices which have been affected; and how many claimants at each office have (a) had a refund or (b) had the overpayment offset against another loan.
  Firstly, I should explain that whilst the Agency is aware that there have been problems with unemployed customers overpaying their loans, statistics have not been maintained to record the number of individuals customers concerned or indeed the Districts involved. To obtain this specific information would require a manual trawl of each Districts records, an exercise which could only be undertaken at a disproportionate cost.
  With regard to checks which are carried out, I am pleased to tell you that there is not a problem with the checks I outlined in my previous response of 21 June 1994 [OR Vol 245 Col 140]. The automated and clerical checks are effective and minimise the risk of over-recovery, ensuring that if exceptionally, a customer overpays a loan, a refund is made or that over-recovery offset against another loan.
  I am unable to comment about any difficulties that the Employment Services Agency may have experienced where SF deductions are their responsibility. However, I can assure you that there is a regular dialogue between both Agencies where any problems are discussed and resolutions sought. Furthermore, I am confident that the automation of SF recoveries planned for April 1995 will improve matters still further.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

HEALTH

  Social Workers (Training)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made in the system of training for social workers.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work is reviewing the diploma in social work to keep pace with legislation and best social work practice. Training for social workers should be clown to earth, practical and based on sound knowledge of the law.

  NHS Staff (Guidance)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guarantees the NHS guidance for staff on relations with the press and media provide against dismissal for any nurse, midwife or health visitor who publicises misconduct or mismanagement within the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guarantees the National Health Service Executive guidance for staff on relations with the public and the media provide against dismissal for any nurse, midwife or health visitor who publicises misconduct or mismanagement within the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The guidance makes it clear that employees who express their views about health service issues in accordance with the guidance are not to be penalised in any way for doing so.

  Responsibility for decisions about disciplinary matters lies with each national health service employer.

  Hospitals, Buckinghamshire
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major NHS hospital building projects have been carried out in Buckinghamshire since 1979; and at what cost to public funds.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 17 national health service hospital building projects costing over £1 million have been completed in Buckinghamshire since 1979. The approximate cost to public funds was in excess of £70 million. These costs include construction, fees and equipment but information on total cost of schemes is not available. For example, value added tax and land purchase costs are excluded.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of health service purchasing activity in the west midlands is undertaken by general practitioner fundholders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are now 283 fundholding practices in the west midlands, covering 41 per cent. of the population, and purchasing nearly 10 per cent. of all hospital and community health services.

  Embryo Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 166, what consultations she has had with the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority about the use of ovarian foetal material in research; and what action she proposes to take until such time as the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority reports.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers and officials from the Department meet regularly the authority's chairman, members and executive. The authority's consultation exercise has been discussed at some of these meetings.

  Purchasing Authorities
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to develop the role of the purchasing authorities in the NHS.
  187
  Mr. Sackville
  Purchasing authorities have an important role in the national health service and there has been much good work to develop their function. This will be consolidated through the enabling legislation, which will allow district health authorities and family health services authorities to merge and ensure high levels of performance and effectiveness.

  Community Care
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the recent changes in community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is far too early to draw definitive conclusions about the success of the new arrangements. However, what we have seen so far suggests that the Health Committee was right to conclude last March that"the new funding arrangements provide the potential for a better and more efficient use of public money."

  Registered Homes Act 1984
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce legislation to amend the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Bowis
  None at present.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to the adequacy of the existing situation for NHS dental provision; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are committed to an effective and accessible national health service dental service. There were, at the latest dates, more dentists on the lists of family health services authorities and 3.8 per cent. more registered patients than at 1 July 1992.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department received the report on the review of the resource allocation working party and the capitation funding formula; when the report will be published; and when her Department will publish its proposals on future funding formulae for the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The weighted capitation review steering group received in March 1994 the results of a study commissioned from York university. I understand that York university intends to publish its findings in due course.

  The steering group forwarded the results, together with its comments, to the National Health Service Executive at the end of April. The executive is still evaluating these.

  In-patient Treatment, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients were treated by the Rugby NHS trust in 1992–93; and what was the figure for the first year of the trust's existence.
  188
  Mr. Sackville
  In the first two years of its existence, the number of in-patients treated at Rugby Hospital national health service trust has grown from 12,188 in 1991–92 to 12,478 in 1992–93; this represents a 2·4 per cent. increase.
  Statistical Source: Ordinary admissions and day cases, general and acute; figures taken from KP70 returns.

  Independent NHS Sector
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition she uses of the independent NHS sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no independent national health service sector. NHS trusts are free to make accommodation and services available to private patients provided that there is no significant disadvantage in the exercise of their obligations under any NHS contract.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the introduction of trust hospitals has resulted in a decrease in the number of regulations issued by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  No regulations have been issued since 1991.

  Health Care Costs, Devon and Cornwall
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the impact of tourists on health care costs in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for regional health authorities to make allocations of funds to district health authorities, adapting the national formula for weighted capitation, to take account of the differing health needs of their resident population and particular local characteristics and circumstances.

  Strikes (Cost)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the highest annual total of operations deferred through strikes in the health service since 1964; and when this occurred.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of the number of operations deferred through strikes are not available.

  NHS Expenditure, Yorkshire
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline the levels of expenditure paid by the Government to the NHS in the Yorkshire region in 1994–95 and in 1978–79 at 1994 constant prices.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on levels of expenditure for Yorkshire region in 1978–79 is no longer held centrally. Figures for the Northern and Yorkshire region in 1994–95 are not yet available.

  General Practitioner Fundholders, Redbridge and Waltham Forest
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholders there are in Redbridge and Waltham Forest district health authority areas.
  189
  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are 19 fundholding practices in the Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services authority, covering 14 per cent. of the population.

  Hospital Beds, London
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the required change in the number of hospital beds in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of hospital beds in London will depend, in large part, on the assessment by local health authorities, general practitioner fundholders and hospitals of the future requirement for in-patient, day case and out-patient services to best meet the needs of their patients. Also, more patients from outside London are being treated locally, further reducing the need for hospital beds in London.

  Joint Ventures
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to encourage joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Executive has an on-going programme of work to promote the private finance initiative and encourage joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector. This has so far involved:Issuing clear guidance about procedures to be followed and how to make a business case using appropriate investment appraisal techniques;
  Providing advice direct to private sector and NHS enquirers, and making direct personal contact with NHS and private sector parties;
  Organising "roadshows" for NHS trust finance directors, and others, explaining the Private Finance Initiative and the opportunties in the NHS;
  Ministerial and senior officials' speeches to encourage both NHS and private sector;
  Publishing publicity material—such as the brochure pack "Public Service, Private Finance" (over 1000 copies issued to NHS and private sector contacts, with requests for over 1000 more since launch);
  Setting up and managing the Newchurch Database project, to increase contacts between the NHS and the private sector and encourage people to explore the possibility of using private finance by spreading knowledge of projects that have already been undertaken by NHS trusts and health authorities.
  Setting up the Private Finance Unit. The remit of the Private Finance Unit is to promote the Private Finance Initiative throughout the NHS and to help trusts and health authorities make greater use of private finance.

  Deprived Areas
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average primary care deprivation score for each family health services authority in the London implementation group remit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average primary care deprivation scores for each family health services authority or part-FHSA are:

  Average

  City and East London

  43·39

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  32·23

  Camden and Islington

  30·96

  Eastern Enfield and Edmonton area of Haringey

  27·13

  Brent (excluding Harrow)

  24·93

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  23·90

  190

  Average

  Waltham Forest (excluding Redbridge)

  22·42

  Greenwich (excluding Bexley but including Thamesmead)

  21·76

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  21·00

  Wandsworth (excluding Sutton and Merton)

  20·98

  Barking (excluding Havering)

  20·76

  Croydon (North only)

  15·72

  Note: the scores are calculated as an average of all wards within each FHSA or part-FHSA.

  Tuberculosis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were notified as having tuberculosis in 1990, 1991 and 1992; and how many in each year were from areas where health authorities stopped the school immunisation programme.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of children between the ages of nought and 19 who contracted tuberculosis were:

  Number

  1990

  569

  1991

  631

  1992

  706

  District health authorities are responsible for the schools' BCG immunisation programme.

  "Making London Better"
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 301, how many of the 425 individuals displaced from London's national health service were assisted to find work in (a) the national health service in London, (b) the national health service outside London, (c) the private health care sector and (d) non-health care work; and how many did not find work despite assistance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The clearing house has assisted displaced staff as shown in the table.

  Category

  Number

  Currently on Clearing House Register being matched to job

  218

  Matched to National Health Service job in London

  134

  Matched to National Health Service job outside London

  3

  Matched to private sector health care job

  4

  Matched to non-health care job (eg in voluntary sector or social services)

  27

  Withdrawals

  39

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer 23 June,Official Report, column 301, what were the job titles of the 425 individuals who requested help from the clearing house after being displaced as a result of service changes in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Job titles, by staff group, of those who have requested help from the clearing house are summarised in the table.

  Staff group

  Number

  General Management/Administrative grades

  201

  Nursing and Midwifery grades

  102

  Ancillary grades

  28

  191

  Staff group

  Number

  Laboratory technicians

  27

  Allied to medicine grades (paramedical)

  18

  Clinical Scientists

  15

  "Other" technical staff

  14

  Maintenance grades

  7

  Pharmacists

  6

  Doctors/Dentists

  6

  Clinical psychologist

  1

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England

  9,633

  11,533

  13,700

  16,163

  18,761

  22,240

  York

  17

  24

  37

  49

  49

  72

  North Yorkshire

  29

  75

  69

  101

  117

  185

  Note:

  North Yorkshire District Health Authority was formed on 1 December 1992 by the amalgamation of Northallerton, York, Scarborough, Harrogate and part of Airedale District Health Authority. Data for 1987–92 inclusive have therefore been estimated by adding data for those DHAs. It is not possible to produce data for the exact statutory boundary of North Yorkshire DHA as part of Airedale DHA is now within Bradford DHA.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of her Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if she will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  A number of surveys have been carried out in the last two years seeking staff views on specific issues. This information is confidential to management and staff.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent audit is undertaken of the data supplied by hospitals for patients charter standards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Audit Commission appointed auditors to review the systems used to collect data on patients charter standards published in the hospital and ambulance services comparative performance guide for 1993–94, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average cost of an air ambulance flight; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) how many United Kingdom residents were seriously injured abroad in 1993 and returned to the United Kingdom by air ambulance; how many of these had medical insurance which covered the cost of the air ambulance; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities her Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Sackville
  Richmond house has a bicycle rack in the car park where bicycles of visitors can be parked.

  Dependency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered drug addicts there were in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) England in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of registered drug addicts for the years 1987–92 is shown in the table Data for earlier years are not available for district health authorities

  Hospital League Tables
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who conducted the survey research for the published hospital league tables; and whether this was put out to tender.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Central Office of Information commissioned the survey research on the Department's behalf. The research company chosen was BMJ Research and Consultancy Ltd. A full competitive tendering exercise did not take place. This was due to urgent decisions being required on the outcomes of the research to ensure that the critical timetable the Department was working to could be met.

  Drug Dispensing
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the criteria for transferring prescription-only medicines to over-the-counter purchases.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patient safety is the criterion which determines whether or not a medicine can be released from prescription control. Prescription control is determined by the provisions in section 58A of the Medicines Act 1968, which implements EC directive 92/26.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance is available to parents to meet the costs of children needing to travel to hospitals and medical centres outside their home area for treatment.

  Mr. Bowis
  The hospital travel costs scheme provides help with hospital travelling expenses for children who are in families on income support, family credit or low income and for the expenses of a companion where this is medically necessary. To qualify for help under the scheme, patients must be receiving national health service treatment given under the care of a hospital consultant.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to regulate private cosmetic surgery clinics.
  193
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 17 May,Official Report, column 418.

  Immunisations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many two-year-old children per 100,000 received immunisations against(a) diphtheria, (b) tetanus,

  Percentage of two-year old children immunised against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough, measles, mumps and rubella.

  England 1987–88 to 1992–93

  Percentage

  11987–88

  21988–89

  21989–90

  21990–91

  21991–92

  21992–93

  Diphtheria

  87

  87

  89

  92

  93

  95

  Tetanus

  87

  87

  89

  92

  93

  95

  Polio

  87

  87

  89

  92

  93

  95

  Whooping Cough

  73

  75

  78

  84

  88

  92

  Measles

  76

  80

  84

  87

  90

  92

  Mumps/Rubella3

  —

  7

  68

  86

  90

  92

  1Percentage of children born in 1985 and vaccinated by 31 March 1988.

  1Percentage immunised by 2nd birthday.

  3The combined MMR vaccine was first used in 1988–89.

  Percentage of five-year old children receiving booster doses against diphtheria, tetanus and polio1 England 1990–91 to 1992–93

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Diphtheria percentage

  83

  85

  86

  Tetanus percentage

  82

  85

  86

  Polio percentage

  82

  85

  86

  1Booster doses are provided only for diphtheria, tetanus and polio.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of legal fees incurred by national health service bodies as a result of clinical negligence claims in each year since 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: The total legal costs for national health service bodies in England for 1991–92 was £6,348,335 and for 1992–93 was £4,364,709. Information on such costs for 1990–91 is not available.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each NHS trust in the former North West Thames region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: Some 207 out of the 278–75 per cent.—chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to national health service trusts within the West Midlands region live within the boundaries of the district health authorities in which that trust is situated. The names of the appointees who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.

  First Community Health NHS Trust

  Miss S. Massey

  Rugby NHS Trust

  Mr. I. Fell

  194
  (c) polio, (d) whooping cough, (e) measles, (f) mumps and (g) rubella; and how many five-year-old children per 100,000 received boosters for these same categories for each year since 1987.

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

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Bladon

  Mr. D. S. Frost

  Kidderminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sir Patrick Lawrence

  Professor P. Spurgeon

  Wolverley NHS Trust

  Mr. J. S. C. Quinn

  Mr. D. H. Rogers

  North Warwickshire NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Hartley

  Mrs. E. M. Stuart

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. R. M. Heelis

  North Staffordshire Hospital Centre NHS Trust

  Mr. G. Manning

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. Burton

  The Princess Royal NHS Trust

  Miss M. J. Pursglove

  Walsall Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Mr. D. G. Chevins

  West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. H. J. Musgrove

  Mrs. J. H. Moyle

  Mr. R. J. Clifford

  Mr. P. G. Leopold

  Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Jordan

  Mr. F. T. Bunting

  Mr. H. Corker

  The Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. A. Mackrael

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Lady Huntington-Whiteley

  Hereford & Worcester Ambulance Service

  Mrs. R. I. Reynolds

  George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. M. Jones

  195
  Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Henry

  Miss J. M. Talbot

  Mr. P. B. Forde

  Mr. M. J. Cotton

  Birmingham Women's Health Care NHS Trust

  Professor E. Ives

  South Birmingham Community Health NHS Trust

  Mrs. T. M. Samuels

  Mr. J. E. Merrick

  South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mr. I. A. King

  Mr. A. B. Knapp

  Mrs. P. Arksey

  The City Hospital NHS Trust

  Mrs. S. Sharma

  Mr. R. Lea

  Northern Birmingham Community Health NHS Trust

  Mr. H. A. Nicholls

  Dr. R. A. Bassett

  Mr. E. G. Lynch

  Dr. S. Toogood

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  Ms J. Mackay

  Professor R. Cochrane

  Ms S. Squires

  Mr. M. S. Akhtar

  Mr. C. C. Jordan

  Mr. M. Clifford

  196
  Birmingham Heartlands Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Bettinson

  Lady Thompson

  Mr. P. E. Couse

  Mr. M. N. W. Wilcox

  Dr. G. Thorpe

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. C. Bullock

  Mr. J. Lee

  Mr. C. Myatt

  Mr. J. Lovatt

  Ms E. A. Fisher

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital

  NHS Trust

  Professor J. Sloboda

  Dudley Priority Health NHS Trust

  Mr. I. J. Brough

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Suddock

  Mrs. V. M. McGhee

  Mr. L. F. Turner

  Sandwell Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. B. C. Knight

  Ms J. Darbyshire

  Mr. S. Lawley

  Ms A. Gosain

  Mr. P. R. Dearing

  Solihull Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. F. Wedgewood-Oppenheim

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. G. Morris

  Mrs. V. A. Tudor

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Ornithology: Funding
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the funding from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to the British Trust for Ornithology is to be reduced and, if so, why.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's contract with the British Trust for Ornithology for bird monitoring data has been increased by almost £21,000 since last year. The contract will be worth £414,000 to the BTO this year. Changes to the contract, which were agreed with BTO, reflect changing priorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that response. Is he aware that the contract runs from 1990 to 1998 and covers vital services in ornithological monitoring and research advice and requires proper funding from the Government? Is he further aware that in the view of the trust the JNCC has reduced its funding for the agreed programme by something like 10 per cent? Do the Government take the contract seriously and, if so, will they make sure that the contract is properly honoured?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course we take the contract between the JNCC and BTO very seriously indeed. I can assure the noble Lord that good quality information will continue to be collected on population, movement and trends of birds. The British Trust for Ornithology is now 60 years old and is the leader in bird monitoring. We greatly value its scientific work and the enormous effort put in by the thousands of volunteers who work for it. The noble Lord will in any case understand that in any contract emphasis is always shifting to reflect changing priorities. It is a process which goes on in all budgets.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl's assurance that the work is considered valuable by the Government. Is he aware that in a recent discussion on a proposed amendment to the wild birds directive, one of the difficulties highlighted by the committee considering it was the lack of scientific data available to support any discussions? Can we be assured that the Government will continue to put value on a service which, after all, underpins the commitment to biodiversity which they made at Rio?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with regard to biodiversity and the publication of our action plan in January this year, there are several commitments which
1134
we regard as particularly important at this moment and which have to take their place in respect of changing priorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain the words "contracts are constantly shifting"? Was that the expression used? To me a contract is a contract. The contract we are discussing requires the trust to undertake certain work. Under the contract the funding is provided by the JNCC. In that case, why is the requirement of the JNCC for the work of the trust being maintained and the funding not maintained?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may add that the funding represents 5 per cent. more than last year. The noble Lord will appreciate that in any contract, however contractual the terms, certain priorities can be renegotiated at any time during that contract.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to come back on this matter. Will the Minister accept that the work being done depends on the annual collection of data? Does he agree that any interruption is destructive of many years of work? Is it not desperately important that the work continues at an even level? Are not the suggested fluctuations therefore unacceptable?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that long-term monitoring programmes, for example, the wetlands bird survey and the breeding bird programme, will not be affected. There will be smaller contributions to woodland birds and habitat research and a one-year delay on integrating the results of some monetary schemes.

Wolds Prison: Management Contract
2.38 p.m.
Lord Harris of Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the contract for the running of the Wolds prison was awarded in a satisfactory manner.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that informative reply. Is he aware that the chief executive of the prison agency told the Public Accounts Committee of the other place that in terms of this contract the Home Office has been forced to pay for gas, electricity, water and acts of vandalism, as a result of which Group 4 will receive nearly £30 million rather than £21.5 million, as specified in the contract? Is not that a rather strange story?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all sorts of curious things happen in the course of contracts. The contract was given to Group 4 in competition with a number of other organisations. Group 4 acquired the contract and as far as I know it has been adhered to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Earl be good enough to answer my specific point? Why were gas, electricity and water charges excluded from the contract? Was it a mistake? I assume that it was. If not, can the noble Earl explain why the charges were excluded from the terms of the contract?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer because I do not know what the motivations were when the contract was first drawn up. However, if it was drawn up on the basis that those charges should be excluded, then they would be paid for by the Home Office. If in future contracts it is decided to include those charges, then future contracts will say so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not simply a matter of comparison between one bidder and another for the contract. It is a question of choosing between privatising and not privatising prisons. If the contract documentation is drawn up on an inconsistent basis so that a comparison cannot be made when deciding whether or not to privatise surely that is an issue of public policy, as the Public Accounts Committee recognises. It is not good enough for the Minister to say in reply that all sorts of curious things happen with contracts.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe I said that all sorts of curious things happen with contracts. I said that all sorts of curious things happen. That is perfectly true. Twenty-seven companies bid for the contract; eight were considered by a panel; five gave presentations and three were short-listed. I have no doubt that the question of whether or not gas and electricity were included in the contract is de minimis compared with the totality of the competitive contracts.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can hardly allege that the Minister is wilfully not answering my question. However, he has not understood my point. The issue is not simply the contrast between those bidding for the contract; it is whether or not the contract documents allow a proper comparison to be made between those prisons that are privatised and those that are not. In his answer the Minister simply referred to the differences between the different bidders. On what basis is it possible to make a satisfactory judgment between running the Wolds prison on a contracted-out basis and running it on a not contracted-out basis since the Government pay the water, gas and electricity charges in both cases? That is the issue.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Wolds prison was intended to be a contracted-out prison because we wanted outside contractors to bring in outside expertise. It was decided that the prison service would not be a party because we wanted outside contractors in. They all bid on the same basis.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister telling the House that his description of £8.5 million as de minimis represents the policy of the Government? Is not that the amount by which the contract was varied because
1136
nobody appears to have included the charges in the first place? That is not de minimis; it is a large sum of money.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my point was that it was decided that the Wolds prison should be a contracted-out prison and should not be part of the directly managed prison estate. The contracts went out and all the bidders bid against the same contract. Therefore, whether or not the contract included electricity and gas, all those who bid, bid against the same contract.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister say why, if it was decided that the prison should be contracted out, the prison service was deliberately prevented from putting in a bid? Is it because it may have won the contract and that would have been against the Government's policy? The Minister said that in the final analysis three companies were interviewed or in negotiation. Were they informed that the heating and lighting costs would not be part of the prime tender that was submitted? If so, it was not a level playing field. Was any part of the contract let by negotiation rather than by open tender? Once negotiations come in, excluding this and including that, the department is at liberty to pick the company it wants even if it is not the best.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was decided that the Wolds should be used as a test area for the introduction of new ideas and approaches. It was an opportunity to introduce many of the proposals put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. That is why it was decided that the contract should be given to outside contractors. As I said earlier, 27 companies submitted tenders and they were all considered. The company chosen was the one it was felt offered the best value for money.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister said: "tested". Tested against what?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I tried to explain to the noble Lord, it was decided that the Wolds should be a contracted-out prison because we wanted to bring new ideas, thoughts and processes into the system. It is the first prison that is purely a remand prison and that is why it was decided that it should be contracted out.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government saying that the effective management of the Wolds establishment will be best carried out when the people in control can ignore energy costs and usage and the costs and difficulties incurred as a result of vandalism? Are the Government aware that the Wolds houses a number of human beings and therefore their standard of living in terms of energy consumption will be significant? Living conditions as a result of vandalism or its containment will also be significant. Do not the Government think that the effective management of the Wolds establishment as a whole will be better undertaken where the managers in charge take responsibility for energy and vandalism?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not agree with the premise of the noble Lord's question. The contractors

1137
do have regard to vandalism. I remind the noble Lord of what Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons said. He produced a very good report. He gave praise for the staff attitudes, for their relationships with the prisoners, for the amount of time out of cells which the prisoners have, for the civilised meal times which they have, for the good quality food and for the opportunity for visits. All those are plus points. They are for those people who are put on remand and who have not yet been sentenced by the courts. That is why they have to be kept in the way in which they are kept.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl has indicated what he described as the plus points identified by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report on the Wolds. Does he also recall that there were one or two minus points in the report, particularly with regard to the level of drug abuse taking place at the Wolds? Perhaps I may come to the second point; namely, the costs involved. The Government spend a great deal of time telling us about the desirability of achieving value for money. How can we be obtaining value for money when the taxpayer is having to pay £30 million to Group 4 rather than the £21.5 million specified in the contract? Is that not a clear indication that there has been serious negligence in the drawing up of the contract?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think so at all. If the contract excludes electricity and gas, then the contract is that much smaller. If the contract includes electricity and gas, the contract is that much the bigger. The totality is the same.

RAF Squadrons: German Bases
2.51 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any of the Royal Air Force's operational squadrons, at present based in Germany, are to be disbanded or relocated to the United Kingdom without replacement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne):My Lords, as the House is aware, we are at present engaged in the Defence Costs Study which has examined all aspects of the support provided to our operational forces, including basing arrangements. We hope to announce the results of the Defence Costs Study shortly.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply. Are the Government aware that the simple single word "no" as an answer to my Question might have been more acceptable to the House, to our NATO allies and indeed to our ground forces in Germany? In recent years we have considerably reviewed our presence in Germany and elsewhere. Are there any new geo-political factors which now lead the Government to believe that further changes in our deployments in Germany are necessary?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord will be as aware as I am that the Defence
1138
Costs Study has proceeded on two principles: first, that the front line capability of our Armed Forces will in no way be decreased; and, secondly, that within the strictures of that rubric there should be no sacred cows. I would point out to the noble and gallant Lord that considerations of the solidarity of NATO are paramount to Her Majesty's Government. Those considerations must influence any decision about future basing of RAF squadrons in Germany. Equally, he will be aware that last year at least 60 per cent. of all low-flying training conducted by Germany-based squadrons with the RAF took place in this country.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he ought to be able to give an indication to the House of the extent to which the front line will be preserved by using squadrons of the Royal Air Force? He also ought to know by now the strength of the squadrons. Secondly, what are the views of the American and German governments on either a partial or total withdrawal of the squadrons from Germany?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's distinguished service as Secretary of State for Defence is universally recognised in your Lordships' House. I respectfully remind him that, although I am well aware of what decisions are likely to be announced in the near future as a result of the Defence Costs Study, he of all people would not expect me to anticipate the statement of my right honourable friend in that respect. If I followed him down the path down which he encourages me to go I would be breaking that stricture. I am sure he would not like me to do that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, important as front line strength may be in the maintenance of our Armed Forces, there are people who believe that reserves are also necessary?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as is almost invariably the case, my noble and learned friend puts his finger on a most important point. I can do no more than subscribe absolutely to what he says. It is a sentiment which I expressed myself at my biannual meeting with the TAVRAC council this morning and one with which, I am sure he will not be surprised to hear, it wholly agreed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his previous statement that the basis for the review is that there will be no reduction in the front line strength? He also said that there are no sacred cows. I assume he means that there will be no reduction in front line strength.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I did not express myself as clearly as the noble Lord would have liked me to express myself. I can only reiterate that, subject to the all-important proviso that there will be no sacred cows, we expect to be able to make announcements which conform with the objective very shortly indeed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the British people and those of us who were

1139
involved in D-Day and what followed will know how much we depended on the magnificent endeavours of our Royal Air Force? Even the Americans, with regard to the Gulf War, acknowledge that the endeavours of our Royal Air Force made a massive contribution to bringing that campaign to a successful conclusion. Can the Minister please say that there will be no reduction in our Royal Air Force? If there were to be such a reduction, we would be endangering the security of our island home.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not know how I can make it much clearer than I have endeavoured to do already, but I shall attempt to do so. I can reassure the noble Lord that when the announcement comes the proviso which my right honourable friend made when the Defence Costs Study was announced will be fulfilled. There will be no reduction in the front line defence capability of the Armed Forces as a result of these studies. We hope that we will be able to do our business better.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it is an old British custom to wait until Parliament has risen before announcing defence cuts?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend's experience of your Lordships' House is rather longer than mine and therefore I defer to her experience in this matter. All I would say to my noble friend is that we hope to be able to make this announcement in good time not only for your Lordships to be able to consider the matter but also to have the opportunity perhaps to hold a debate before the House rises.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that in the review there would be no sacred cows. Is he aware that, even under this Government, cows do not fly? Will he explain a little more clearly exactly what he meant by that ominous statement?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, since we are venturing into the world of the animal kingdom, I am glad that the noble Lord did not talk about pigs flying. He will perhaps excuse me if I ventured into demotic English when I talked about sacred cows. I endeavoured to convey that all matters were open to examination so long as the front line was not cut. I ought to add that we recognise that, in order to be effective, the front line must have effective support as well.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in saying that the front line defence will not be cut he is implying that we are getting rid of surplus capacity? Bearing in mind what happened in the 1930s because of the dangerous cuts in the Armed Forces of this country and what those precipitated, does he not understand that people of my age group, who remember what happened then, are becoming more than a little frightened that we may be approaching that situation once again and that we may be rendered helpless militarily?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord is rightly concerned about the defence capability available to this country and I pay tribute to the sentiments that he has often expressed both privately and to your Lordships on this subject. What I must ask him to do, as I must ask the rest of your Lordships to do, is to be a little patient yet and not tempt me down a road which would earn me the opprobrium of my right honourable friend if I were to make announcements before he were able to do so himself.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Statement deal with the replacement or refurbishment of the ageing Lockheed Hercules transport aircraft without which our forces will not be able to get to any front line?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, at the risk of titillating your Lordships more than I would like to, I can say that I know the answer to that question, but that I am unable to give it until I make the Statement in your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that he was well aware of the decisions which have been taken under the Defence Costs Study. Has he had the opportunity of reading an article in the Observer of Sunday 19th June this year quoting senior defence sources? I quote from one senior defence source in the newspaper:
'The Government is also going to keep the issue of the squadrons in Germany separate from the Defence Costs Study … because it is felt that it would be difficult politically to bring back squadrons from a front-line role like Germany while trying to keep up the claim that the front line will be preserved".
Is that the view of the Government?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am always very interested in speculative articles in the press from any source. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reads the Observer with such assiduity. But that article is highly speculative in nature and the noble Lord would not expect me to give an answer prematurely purely based on a hypothetical assumption which is based on an assumed leak or at least a presumed leak. I doubt whether that is something which the noble Lord especially, if he were in my position, would be tempted to answer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can we now assume from the noble Viscount that the whole question of the RAF squadrons in Germany will be dealt with in the Statement which the noble Viscount will certainly wish to repeat in this House when it comes?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, again, I am sure that your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will forgive me if I answer him very clearly that he can assume nothing. I hope that all will be made clear in due course. All I can do is crave your Lordships' indulgence in a little more patience.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.2 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Secure training orders]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment in the name of myself and my noble friends, I wish to make it absolutely clear to your Lordships what these amendments will do and what they will not do. It is important that we should be clear on both those points. First, perhaps I may stress what these amendments will not do. They will not alter the proposed new sentence of secure training orders in any way. They will not weaken or strengthen them, and they will remain exactly as they stand in the Bill. Many of us (and I am certainly one of them) have extreme distaste for putting children into custody. We are talking about children of 12 to 14 years of age. But in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment, I and my supporters accept, and I hope that the House as a whole will accept, that it is necessary to put a small number (it is estimated 200 to 300 throughout the whole country) of wholly unruly tearaways into a period of custody. However reluctant one may be to accept that, I do accept it. These amendments do not weaken that in any way. In fact, we specifically support the concept of the new sentence of the secure training order.
The second thing which these amendments will not do is to alter in any way the nature of the proposed secure training centres. The Bill intend that five centres should be provided in different parts of Britain, each taking up to 40 of these tearaways. We do not weaken that in any way. The proposals for secure training centres remain untouched by these amendments.
I can be quite brief about this. I now draw your Lordships' attention to what the amendments will do. They give the courts, and I emphasise the magistrates' courts, not officers of either local or central government —extra powers which they do not possess at the moment. In the Bill as it stands when a court has decided that the appropriate sentence is a secure training order, they have no option but to send the children for whom they are giving that sentence to one of the five new secure training centres. That is the only thing they can do. They have no option in the matter.
In the amendments we are proposing that they should have an option. That option should be that the courts are able to direct that the requirement of the secure training order be carried out in the secure accommodation provided by local authorities throughout the country and which exists at the moment. Those places are being increased by 170 at the moment by concurrent action by the Government through the Secretary of State for Health. We are proposing that the courts should be given that option.
I wish very briefly to stress to your Lordships—and we hope that noble Lords agree—that what we are proposing is not in any way a soft option. It is maintaining the new sentence untouched and, in our
1142
view, strengthening it. Now the magistrates have the choice, if our proposals are carried through, either to send the person to a secure training centre or to local authority secure accommodation which is a power that the courts do not possess at the moment.
What are the advantages which we see in these proposals? Above all, we see the advantage of flexibility in punishment and rehabilitation. I think that the Government share my belief that this flexibility is good penal policy in principle. It is the magistrates who are given this flexibility. If we wish the magistrates to be responsible and to do what only they can do—that is to say, judge the merits of each case and the needs of each individual child that comes before them—it seems to us that it is the magistrates who ought to have this option and this degree of flexibility.
The courts will no doubt think that some children need to be sent away from home. As regards others, the courts may feel that they should be kept at home. Many of us will see the importance of that wherever that is possible. But the option is there: some can be kept near home and some can be sent a long way from home. The courts may think that some children ought to be kept in security in small groups of mixed types. The courts may believe that other children need to be sent away to be kept secure among a larger number of children of the same type. Once again, it would be for the court to decide which type of treatment is most suitable for each offender whom it is sentencing. That is the advantage in principle and practice.
The second advantage which we see is the realisation that we are embarking on a new field in dealing with children between the ages of 12 and 14 in these ways. It is unknown territory. We believe that there should be some opportunity to compare how different forms of treatment work in practice and how successful or unsuccessful they are. If we depend entirely on just five training centres throughout Britain, separated by long distances, there will be no comparison and they will have a monopoly of treatment. To have the option we suggest, there will be a growing standard of comparison by which Home Secretaries of the future can judge the appropriate way to deal with these terribly difficult and dangerous young children.
The third, and I would have thought very appealing, advantage, not only to the Government but to the country at large which is dying to see something done about this problem, is that if our amendment is adopted it will greatly reduce the delay in being able to implement the secure training orders. So long as the orders can be implemented only in one of the new training centres, we shall have to wait until they are built. Indeed, until the Bill is on the statute book the centres cannot even be contracted for. They then have to be built and staffed. Furthermore, there is bound to be a delay, which I suggest will be measured in years rather than months, before they can be tested. Meanwhile the urgent need to deal with the tearaways cannot be met by the means of the secure training orders.
However, secure local authority places exist at the moment and are in the process of being greatly increased by the concurrent action of a different Minister in the same government. The Secretory of State

1143
for Health is providing resources for local authorities to add no fewer than 170 to the number of secure places they have at their disposal at the moment. I believe that that brings the local authorities' capacity of secure places to over 300, of which about half exist at the moment, the other half being in the process of construction. But if we keep the Bill as it stands, we shall all have to wait until the new units have been built, commissioned and put into operation. Therefore, I believe that there is a very big advantage to be secured in the public interest by adopting the amendments.
The fourth advantage, so far as can be discovered from the soundings that I and my friends have taken, is that our proposal would be welcome to both magistrates and the police. We should not disregard that.
Finally, I wish to stress that our amendments do not weaken, but strengthen, the Government's proposals in this very difficult area. They are not in any way a soft option. I beg the Government to treat them seriously and to give them a trial. I beg to move.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I wish to add my voice in support of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I need not elaborate on the case so ably made by my noble friend Lord Carr. I hope that my noble friend the Minister has been persuaded that this is a clear opportunity to reinforce the Government's policy of introducing the secure training order. As has been pointed out, the amendments are a clear endorsement of that policy but offer a flexibility which we hope will enable magistrates to vary the application of secure training orders to meet the various different criteria to which my noble friend referred.
When the model of a new provision is introduced in this way, it is often subsequently found to be too inflexible. Surely it is better to anticipate than later to amend. I put it to the House that in these two amendments we are being asked to endorse Her Majesty's Government's policy and to reinforce it by sensibly adding to the core provision. I support the amendments.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I suppose that very seldom in recent years has an amendment been proposed by such authoritative and eminent persons as those whose names appear on the Marshalled List. They include a former Home Secretary; sitting next to him, my noble friend Lord Elton; and sitting opposite me, a former permanent secretary. I do not know that you can do much better than that. I am sure therefore that my noble friend the Minister will pay great attention to what has been so well said by my noble friend Lord Carr and by my noble friend Lord Gray.
I hope that I shall not be regarded as churlish if I raise a doubt about the amendment. It was at the bottom of the case made by my noble friend Lord Carr that he was not altering the nature of—by which I take it that he includes the philosophy behind—the new secure
1144
training order. I question whether that is the case. When my noble friend the Minister replies, I should like him to reassure me.
My noble friend Lord Carr accurately said that the object of this new departure—and it is a new departure —is to create a special sentence or treatment that will be accorded, at least in the short term, to a relatively small number of people, a tiny fraction of those who have custodial sentences. I refer to the very young persons between prescribed ages who will amount numerically to 200 or 300 persons altogether. I believe that that is what my noble friend said and I accept his figure.
I had understood that the idea—this is where I want reassurance from my noble friend the Minister—was to place those young people in a relatively few places of secure detention quite different from the ordinary secure places customarily provided by local authorities for persons who have to be detained against their will. The object is basically that although security is at the forefront of the treatment—an obvious necessity in the case of those few young people—the real purpose is to reform them by a special regime. That is what I understood to be the philosophy.
I come now to the point at which I question whether my noble friend can justify his amendment on that philosophy. Although he says—with complete convic-tion, I am sure—that he is not altering the nature of the sentence, I believe that the amendment does alter it. Side by side with the provision of a very few highly specialised places where reform takes place in secure conditions, my noble friend seeks to give to the courts —I shall return to this point in a moment—an option to mix that with the ordinary run of secure accommodation at present provided by the local authorities. I question whether it is compatible with what my noble friend the Minister has in mind in proposing the centres to mix those young people with the ordinary population of those requiring places in secure detention. They must include mentally deficient persons and persons of a quite different character to those for whom the secure training order is designed.
I turn now to my second point on the proposed amendment. Is what is proposed in the amendment, as distinct from that proposed in the Bill as it stands, a proper function either of the judiciary or of the magistrates' courts in particular? No one is more enthusiastic than I for the quality of our lay magistracy and its continuation. Indeed, every Lord Chancellor who sits on the Woolsack automatically becomes president of the Magistrates' Association. I hope that I did nothing during my term of office—and I certainly have no desire to do anything now—to depreciate in any way the value of the magistracy. It carries out immense work in England and Wales and does so to almost universal satisfaction, despite occasional criticisms of particular decisions. It is a popular and enormously successful institution, specific to England and Wales. I do not wish to say anything by way of criticism.
However, I question whether the option to put a particular patient or convicted young person into one of the special secure training centres which my noble friend has in mind or mix them up with the ordinarily

1145
secured population of local authority people is a good policy, or a matter for judicial discretion as distinct from an administrative decision.
I have one further comment to make which is not intended as a criticism of the magistracy. The magistracy is essentially a local institution all over England and Wales. It delivers a very high quality of justice. However, what it does not deliver nationwide is absolute consistency of policy; indeed, it cannot do so given the nature of the institution. If we are to try the suggested experiment we must have consistency of policy. I believe that that is better provided by the Bill as it stands than by the proposed amendment.
I should like my noble friend to comment on that aspect of the matter. I may have got the whole thing absolutely wrong, because I am not into the treatment of young offenders like my noble friend Lord Elton who is an expert on the subject, but I view the present proposal as one which might destroy the very valuable experiment—as I believe it to be—proposed by my noble friend the Minister. I entirely accept from my noble friend Lord Carr that he does not think that it will alter the nature of the sentence, but he has failed to carry my conviction with him in that argument. I believe that it will. I wonder what my noble friend the Minister will say in his response. I apologise to the House for speaking at such length, but we are discussing an important amendment which might destroy the whole purpose of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord concluded his speech by saying that there was a possibility that he had got the matter absolutely wrong. With the greatest of deference to him and his legal experience, I suggest that he has done so. The noble and learned Lord does not understand the nature of local authority secure accommodation or the various needs of different children for whom secure training orders may be appropriate.
The noble and learned Lord said that the effect of the amendment would be to mix up those youngsters with the ordinary run of persons in local authority secure accommodation. Indeed, he not only said it twice, he said it three times. Well, there is no ordinary run of children in local authority secure accommodation. One of the actual benefits of local authority secure accommodation is that it contains a wide range of people but not, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, the "mentally deficient"—if that is a term which is still acceptable, which I doubt. Such people would certainly be under medical supervision of some kind. However, accommodation is available for those who are disturbed, those who are in need of protection as well as for those who are guilty of serious or persistent offences. I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Lord is perfectly right. I ought not to have used the phrase "mentally deficient". However, the noble Lord has grasped the exact meaning of what I was saying and is now expounding it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recognise that fact and I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's intervention. Indeed, it has strengthened the point that I am trying to make; namely, that there are genuine differences between local authority secure accommodation and the secure training centres proposed under Part I of the Bill.
The point that I wish to make is not to say that they are all the same; in fact, I wish to say the very reverse. Different kinds of secure accommodation are suitable for different kinds of offenders. Who is better able to know which kind of accommodation is suitable for different offenders than the magistrates or the courts? The noble and learned Lord suggested that it should not be a matter for judicial decision but that it should be a matter for administrative decision. That was the contrast that he made. I find that extraordinary. I should have thought that it is only those who actually come into contact with the child—and not administrator—who would be able to specify the appropriate place for that child. To me, that means the courts backed up by professional judgment, whether it be social workers, a matter of medical judgment, or whatever assistance is available to the courts. In my view, the point made on the need for judicial judgment backed up by professional opinion strengthens the arguments for the amendment before the House.
No one is saying that the same accommodation is suitable for everyone. However, the Magistrates' Association, of which the noble and learned Lord was a distinguished president in his time, said in terms that there are many young people for whom local accommodation, or local accommodation which allows access to their families, and vice versa, is a most important part of rehabilitation. That was said in response to the consultation document on secure training orders. As I understand it, for that reason the Magistrates' Association supports the amendments. On reflection, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that those with whom he has been in contact who do understand such issues and who support the amendments may have a measure of truth in their arguments.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, when I first read my noble friend's amendments I found them rather attractive. However, the more I reflected upon them, the more I have come to doubt whether they would in fact be as benevolent and innocuous as my noble friend suggested. I entirely accept the constructive spirit in which he has put forward the amendments. In view of my noble friend's enormous experience and great wisdom, I believe that his proposal deserves the most careful consideration.
However, I have reservations which are not dissimilar to those of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Although my noble friend Lord Carr suggested that the centres would be untouched, if a regime of the kind proposed in the amendments was introduced, I believe that it would change the way in which a considerable number of young offenders would be treated. Indeed, it would have an impact as regards uncertainty, staffing and the implementation of the

1147
process of training and education which I understood was a central part of the Government's proposal in setting up secure training centres. The reason for establishing such centres seems to me to be only partly to do with security and more specifically to deal with the problems presented by the care and rehabilitation of that unfortunate group of young offenders. I say "unfor-tunate" because they are unfortunate for themselves and highly unfortunate for society at large.
The security aspect could be handled in different ways. For example, it could certainly be handled by the route suggested by my noble friend's amendments. However, if the amendments were carried it would be that much more difficult to set up and operate the particular regime of training and education which, as I understand it, is at the heart of the proposals. Secure training orders are designed to enable the young offenders concerned to have the care of specialist staff, not only in relation to the security aspect but also in relation to treating the particular problems of personality and behaviour which are exhibited by those who may have become subject to secure training orders.
If we were to fragment the arrangements for their custody, we should clearly have to fragment the arrangements for their care, training and education. I do not believe that that is necessarily right. The proposed special secure centres are to be set up not only to incarcerate the offenders in an effective fashion but also to implement a regime which would be consistent not only among offenders but also among centres, and so provide an established means of trying to deal with that particular social and criminal problem.
It may be, like my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, that I have not understood correctly the proposals. But I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right to suggest that my noble and learned friend has misunderstood one of the central issues; that is, whether we are talking about location or whether we are talking about treatment. I doubt whether it would be possible to implement a regime for training and education which the Government have in mind and which I thought had the general support of your Lordships if my noble friend's amendment were carried.
Clearly, if it were left to the discretion of the courts as to whether offenders were sent to a bespoke centre or to a centre provided as part of the local authority arrangements, it is likely that there would be very small groups of those offenders. Purely as a matter of practical administration, I do not see how it would be possible to provide them with the same degree of professional care, training and education which I thought lay behind the proposals.
For those reasons, I have very considerable reservations, not about the intention of my noble friend's amendment but as to whether it would be workable in terms of the intentions of the legislation.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, have put their finger on an important issue; that is, whether or not a single regime applies to all the
1148
children who will be sentenced under those provisions. I think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, deals extremely effectively with that because the noble Lord is saying that in some cases a different regime from that which obtains in a large purpose-built and purpose-staffed centre may be appropriate.
The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to "the" regime. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, does not oppose the Government's proposals to establish a single set of training, education and care facilities which apply across the board to the five centres, each of which contains 40 children, spread across the country. The regime will be identical in all of them. There will be the same kind of professional staff and the same education and training. That may well be suitable for some of the children but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said—and I agree with him—a more flexible system would be appropriate to meet the needs of children who may not fall into a pattern which is readily dealt with by the single system or a single regime. They may be better dealt with in local authority homes which are used to dealing with a wide variety of children on a much smaller scale.
The staff in those homes may not have the breadth of professional expertise. But if the courts were to send children to those homes, that professional expertise could be acquired. It would not necessarily have to be available on a full-time basis. For example, one must accept that a small local authority home which has five children would not have a full-time psychiatrist; whereas it may be possible to have that level of expertise in a large secure training centre with 40 children.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, have overlooked the provisions in Clause 2(4) where the Secretary of State already has power to transfer offenders from a secure training centre not just to local authority secure units, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, but to any other place which he may direct.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I have not overlooked that at all. It is a point with which I could deal but in the interests of brevity, I did not do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I mention that now to point out that the Government envisage that there may be circumstan-ces in which children are dealt with more appropriately either in local authority secure units or in some other and completely unspecified place which will presum-ably be of a secure nature.
Therefore, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that if the Secretary of State should have those powers, then surely the courts should have them. The courts see all the circumstances of the child who is before them. They must then be in a better position to make the decision as to the appropriate kind of accommodation for that child than the Secretary of State who makes his decision on the basis of written evidence placed before him, without seeing the offender and without having the nuances of all the evidence that has been given in court., Therefore, on reflection, the noble and learned Lord may

1149
agree that the widening of the courts' powers would be a good idea; and that they add to and do not detract in any way from the Government's proposals in this Bill.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I accept that secure training orders cannot come into force until the properly prepared accommodation is ready, which I understand it will be in 1995. But I believe that it is vital to have the centres with their challenging regimes and strong emphasis on training and education.
If there are only two or three of those persistent offenders in each local authority unit, it would be impossible to give them the high quality education programmes and the training necessary to try to change their patterns of behaviour.
There are no spare places in local authority education and the extra places promised are already designated for other purposes. I understand that the occupancy of local authority units is made up of roughly one-third young people on remand, some of whom may never be convicted; another one-third who have committed a very grave offence; and the remainder are there as a result of civil cases and are in the care of the local authority, and it may be that they have been abused. It cannot be right to place young persistent offenders in the same unit as those vulnerable groups whose minds no doubt would soon be contaminated. They have enough problems of their own.
Much is made of keeping young offenders in local authority accommodation nearer to their homes, but that just does not happen at present. Many young people are not kept near home at all. The National Bed Bureau, which is based in Leeds, allocates them to secure units as and when places become available. An example of that was a young offender from Bolton who was placed in Kidlington, Oxford, after 70 convictions. He actually escaped on a sightseeing tour.
As was said by many noble Lords in Committee, sadly many of those young people come from broken homes or come from families which just cannot cope. The discipline and structure of the unit are essential in order for them to sort out their lives.
It is widely recognised that people want and expect to be protected from these hardened young criminals and I believe that there is wide acceptance of the fact that something must be done. I was interested to read in the June 1994 edition of the Magistrate an article headed:
"Persistent Young Offenders: What Can Be Done?".
It was written by Dr. Michael Little, a research fellow at the Dartington Social Research Unit. He stated:
"We frequently hear that more priority should be given to protecting and public and perhaps less to crime prevention, looking after delinquents and improving the living conditions of those locked up. The balance between these two may be wrong. Talking to people on housing estates who feel they cannot leave their house for fear they will be burgled, one immediately senses that more needs to be done and perhaps recent prescriptions could even be right".
I believe that they are right. The Government have responded to the public who want something done to deter the few unruly persistent young offenders. I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the secure training centres will be concentrations of the most disruptive 12 to 14 year-olds in the country who have no redeeming
1150
influence. Some of these youngsters will inevitably be up to 100 miles from their homes. In some cases, that may be a good thing where the families are a particularly bad influence. But, by and large, I understand that practitioners believe that the distance will make their task harder, reform more difficult and their efforts less likely to achieve success.
If some of the offenders could go to local authority secure centres and others to secure training centres, both systems would be able to compete with each other to prove which was the most successful and, not least, the most cost effective. All past experience suggests that there is little that can be done to cure the worst cases but at least competition will indicate the least unsuccessful approach and perhaps spur on greater effort.
One of the biggest complaints by magistrates and judges alike is that the Government try to lay down exactly what should be done with each offender. But every case is totally different; every offender is totally different. Thus, it would be far more effective to let the court, on the information it receives and within certain guidelines, make its own judgment as to whether it would be better for a child to have the discipline of a local authority centre or sent to a secure training centre.
I understand that local authority centres are regularly visited by teachers employed by the authority. On the other hand, I wonder how many good teachers will be persuaded to accept posts at secure training centres which deal with concentrated numbers of these evil youngsters.
This amendment in no way weakens the disposals for these young criminals; indeed, it strengthens it Apart from anything else, it allows these young people to be locked up forthwith without having to wait for a year for the secure training centres to be built. Local authorities would not be able to release these young people for any reason without the decision of the court. There would be no sending them on safari.
I was on the board of the Wellesley Nautical School during the period of the Borstals and approved schools. We all know that that system failed and was scrapped. But unlike the Borstals, the Wellesley had a mixture of boys ranging from those sent there in its role as an approved school to those who were there voluntarily. They lived in fairly spartan conditions, which were perfectly good enough and certainly much better than some of the accommodation that I suffered when I joined the Army. The result of the training and the mixture of people within the school was that there was a fair measure of success. After training, most of the boys went off to sea and there was even a reasonable degree of success among the worst of the entrants.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not—
3.45 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I believe that the Cross Benches should have an innings. We have heard a great deal from Members on the Conservative Benches. Having put my name to the amendment, I wish to make four brief points. The first is that it will, for the first time, give a clear power to the courts to send a child to secure local authority accommodation. That will fill

1151
the gap to which I referred in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, raised doubts about the judiciary being involved. Perhaps I may remind him that the courts are already involved in authorising detention in secure local authority accommodation, but only after a kind of ping-pong, prolonged negotiation with the local authority—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, no, the noble Lord has not understood my argument correctly. My argument was that the secure training order obviously was a matter for the courts and so, of course, is sending an offender to a local authority unit; but the two were incompatible and once a secure training order had been made the child should receive the special treatment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I note what the noble and learned Lord says and our observations are on the record. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, what is proposed in the amendment does not represent a soft approach to crime. On the contrary, it extends and toughens the powers of the court. Secondly—and here I am on good ground in saying that this point has some relevance to that made by the noble and learned Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby—whatever happens to Amendment No. 6, under the terms of the Bill a considerable number of children will qualify for consideration for a secure training order although their behaviour will have fallen a long way short of that described by the Government in justification of their proposals. If in the case of any of these children the courts regard as inappropriate detention in what is, in effect, a gaol they will now have the new alternative of committal to a secure local authority unit.
Thirdly, although there is certainly a need for more uniform provision of secure local authority accommoda-tion—taking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—and for more uniform standards of management, which is in train, the facts are that a number of these units exist; that contrary to what is often said they are secure; that they provide training and education (and I shall be surprised if the new units are able to match that standard of education); and that they will be available to the courts at once while the other units are being built.
Fourthly, it may be a good thing for some of these children to be detained far away from their families and the surroundings which helped to lead to their delinquency. But for others the best hope will lie in retaining their connections with the family and the local social workers and doctors who know them. This amendment will mean that when the whole scheme is working the courts will have a choice in deciding what is the best course to take. Having listened to the various speeches that have been made today, I remain strongly in support of the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I wish only to put a question to my noble friend. I do not believe that my noble and learned friend had got it wrong. He raised a point that ought to be examined in depth. I had been almost completely won over by the fluent and
1152
reasonable way in which my noble friend Lord Carr presented his amendment, but the doubt put into my mind has revived what I thought the Bill was about. I thought that in trying to face up to the dangerous section of young people who appear to have got away with things under the present regime we were going to set up five centres which would have a different approach. The amendment provides that in order to give the magistrates flexibility we should at the same time have local authority units.
We do not know yet whether the local authority units could be improved, as the noble Lord has just said, by the introduction of this Bill. However, if local authority provision remains as it is at present, or similar—this is my question—if the power is retained to send the people we are discussing to local authority units, and in individual cases it is seen that that is not successful, would it be possible under the amendments (or, if they were accepted, under the Act) to switch the people we are discussing from the local authority unit to one of the five new centres? If that could be done, part of my doubts would be removed. It would be a case of the penny and the cake. However, I am not certain that, at present, if these people were sent to a local authority unit, it would be possible, in the light of their experience in that unit, to switch them to one of the new five centres.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that if he also reads Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 he will find the four amendments meet his points exactly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, we must accept those amendments before my question is answered. The House may accept one amendment but not the others. It ought to be made perfectly clear whether the switch I am discussing would be possible if, in the light of experience, it proved desirable.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, rightly appeals to the proper humanitarian instinct which I would expect to find in every Member of this House. However, there is one aspect of these amendments that I wish to draw to the attention of the House which has not yet been mentioned. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 sets out the conditions which must apply before a secure training order may be made. The first paragraph deals with the question of age. I have nothing to say on that. Paragraph (b) of Subsection (5) states that the offender must have been convicted,
"of three or more imprisonable offences".
I suppose it is just conceivable that a child may, on his first outing, commit three or more imprisonable offences, but I have to say that I think it is highly unlikely. Indeed, I think it is very unlikely. Further, the offender, on either this or a previous occasion, must, under paragraph (c) (i) have been,
"found by a court to be in breach of a supervision order",
or to have been convicted,
"of an imprisonable offence … whilst he was subject to such a supervision order".
Anyone who is subject to a supervision order will already have been in the hands of the local authority

1153
system. He will have been dealt with by social services and the probation service. It seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, invites the magistrates, for the best and the most humanitarian of reasons, to decide to put these offenders back into the hands of those who—heaven help us, with the best of intentions—have probably already failed them; or worse still, the offenders will feel that they have beaten that system. I cannot in all conscience accept that that is a reasonable way for us to go on. I have to say that I cannot support this amendment.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and other noble Lords, and also to refer briefly to the consequential implications should those amend-ments be passed. In Committee I drew the attention of the Chamber to the fact that what was needed was not the costly introduction of five secure training units but instead a conscious effort on the part of the Government to bring secure accommodation up to snuff. Accordingly, I very much welcome the remarks that the noble Lord made while introducing his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, indicated that security was not the prime consideration but that rehabilitation was. Well, whether or not that be true—I cannot imagine, I have to say, wholehearted government endorsement of that view—it certainly does not invalidate the case for local secure accommodation. Post-sentence rehabilitation has much more chance of success, surely, in a local environment. Such local accommodation, with the emphasis on security, should be available throughout the country so that magistrates should have an easily accessible option open to them. Magistrates ought to be able to remand the tiny core of hard offenders into custody in secure accommodation, not necessarily into local authority care for assessment and eventual return to the courts for sentencing. It is frequently during such a hiatus that continued offending takes place. That is half the trouble.
Finally, we must ensure that local authorities are totally committed to the culture and use of secure accommodation locally. The fact is that some local authorities make better use of it, and are more firmly committed to it, than others. Surely it is for the Government to set uniform standards on local authorities in this respect and to see that they are followed.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have to oppose the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Carr on the very simple grounds that it misses the whole point of this measure. A secure training order is intended to deal with the most persistent of young criminals who have been found guilty of several very serious offences. I am talking about young criminals, not young offenders.
The purpose of the secure training orders is twofold —first and foremost to protect the public from young criminals who have proved themselves impervious to reason, and unamenable to previous attempts at reform and who have flouted any number of previous attempts to give them another chance; young criminals who regard any leniency as a sign of weakness and a licence
1154
to continue with their previous anti-social ways. Their ways are more than anti-social because those who are involved in car crimes are putting themselves and innocent members of the public at risk of life and limb, while the persistent burglar or mugger strikes fear into his victims and potential victims.
The second purpose of a secure training order of course is as a deterrent. The young criminal who is given one conditional discharge after another, or who is returned time after time to the care of a local authority which has been unable to prevent him from continuing to offend, considers that he has, in his words, "got off". What is required is consistency of treatment. The noble Lord's amendment makes the sentence a total lottery.
In one court the young persistent criminal will be sent to a secure training unit set up under this Bill. In another he may be sent to one set up by the local authority, with whatever standard of training the local authority's social services department thinks appropriate. In yet a third he may be sent off to one of those experimental centres, whose idea is to send its inmates off on safari holidays.
The amendment is the same as suggesting that an adult should be given the choice between Dartmoor, or an open prison, or Butlins! In this country it is the state which provides or contracts for the penal institutions. All the court does is to decide whether any criminal should go to detention. The Home Secretary, in effect, decides where he should be sent.
There is also a practical aspect. Your Lordships were told in earlier debates that the number of persons countrywide who may be sentenced to secure training orders was likely to be small. There is simply no way that each local authority can make suitable and cost effective arrangements for just one or two young criminals in each district and to employ the highly specialised staff that it is intended should take charge of them. The very purpose of secure training orders is to protect the public and to provide a deterrent. It is not for us to destroy that deterrent by providing what these young scoff-laws will consider to be a soft option, especially when they will soon learn in which districts they avoid the risk of the toughest regimes.
It is essential that the method of dealing with these young criminals and the regimes that they are put into are totally uniform throughout the country. This is yet another instance where the protection of the public should—and must—be placed above the interests of the persistent young criminal. I urge your Lordships to reject this well meaning, but, I believe, wholly inappropriate amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what is a soft option? I listened to the noble Baroness with increasing astonishment. I have rarely heard a less well-informed statement of the position.
The noble Baroness spoke of local authorities failing and children running away time after time from local authority care. She may or may not recall the debate we had a year or more ago when we on these Benches raised exactly that concern. The problem was the lack of local authority secure accommodation, the amount of which

1155
has declined over the past 14 years. That is the reason for the problem in the first instance. There is too little local authority secure accommodation.
The choice is not between children's homes from which children can decamp and the new secure training centres. The choice given to the court is between local authority secure accommodation and the new secure training centres. It has nothing to do with places from which children can run away. I am surprised that the noble Baroness was not aware of that point, which was so carefully explained by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, when he initiated the debate.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I was not in the House when my noble friend Lord Carr spoke at the beginning of the debate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am glad to give way to the noble Baroness. However, with respect to her, if she did not hear the speech made by a former Home Secretary on this point it is surprising that she chose to make the speech she has just delivered. It is not in accordance with the traditions of this House.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that to my attention.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government have responded to a crisis of measurably small proportions caused by a handful of difficult children, to whose nature the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, aptly drew our attention, by putting forward a proposal for a form of treatment for such children. I am talking about children aged between 12 and 14 some of whom, as I said earlier, would not be able to read what was laid flat on the top of the Dispatch Box before your Lordships. It is proposed that they should be taken to five separate centres where they would be concentrated together, segregated from other offenders of a different nature and given a specific form of treatment.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham rightly questioned whether my noble friend Lord Carr, and, by implication, I and his other supporters were right in saying that the essential elements of the sentence would not be changed by the amendment. There are three essential elements.
The first element is the introduction of absolute security for children of that age. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, dealt adequately with the misunderstanding of the situation by my noble friend Lady Miller since the sentence, either under the amendment or in the Bill as drafted, only allows the detention of children in secure places where, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls pointed out, without a change in the Bill they must remain for half of the sentence. No-one has referred to the fact that we are talking about only half of the sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has an amendment down to alter the proportion. However, as the Bill is drafted, the second half of the sentence must be discharged under the supervision of the local authority, which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so distrusts.
The second and third features are that children shall
1156
be concentrated and segregated. Neither of those elements is a new departure. Both were features of the "short, sharp shock" experiment, more openly admitted as such than is the case with the present proposal, introduced by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw.
A Noble Lord: It was Lord Butler.
Lord Elton: It was introduced by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw when he was at the Home Office. My noble friend Lord Belstead occupied a position in which he supervised the scheme, and I succeeded him in that supervision. Noble Lords shake their heads, but I remember the campaign clearly. I was responsible in part for the scheme's implementation.
Those aspects of the treatment are not new. Nor is the fact that it is an experiment. What is new is that the experiment will be carried out at only five locations. A child aged 12 from Cornwall who comes from a large family, perhaps with a single parent, would be required under the Bill as drafted to serve the sentence in Oxford, if planning permission is granted and all goes smoothly. Whether or not the Government pay the fare to and from the centre for the parent to visit, it is unlikely that visits will be frequent. In some circumstances that may be a good thing. I am assured that there are cases— mercifully few—in which withdrawal from a family is beneficial for a child. In the majority of cases it is not. Even in that minority of cases it is not good for the child to be withdrawn some hundreds of miles from the social worker who was in charge of his case before he reached that level of criminality and who will be responsible for him on his return home. That child will be removed from the continuity of supervision which is one of the few slender, fragile threads which connect him to a life of normal behaviour.
My noble friend Lord Carr and his colleagues number among us not only, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out, a former Home Secretary, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office and a former Minister of State at the Home Office, but also a practising magistrate. We believe that the magistracy has a role. When my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham entered the debate, he asked a question. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue which he corrected, or whether he asked two questions. He asked whether a decision between two different applications of a sentence should be a proper matter for the judiciary. When he repeated the question he referred to the magistracy. I speak only of the magistracy, so I do not need to tempt him to clarify the matter. I see that I have tempted him.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, my noble friend overlooks the fact that the magistracy is part of the judiciary.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I stand corrected. I am wiser but not repentant, because it is of the magistracy that I speak. The magistracy is close to the case. The magistracy is close to the community in which the case arises. The magistracy is close to the social work department and the probation services which are

1157
involved in the case. And the magistracy has the child before it. What is the point of having a magistracy if it is not given this level of responsible judgment?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. He overlooks subsection (1) of the clause which indicates that the question of whether to make a secure training order is at the discretion of the magistracy.
Lord Elton: My Lords, indeed it is. Were we in Committee I would return to the point and remind my noble and learned friend that it makes no difference. That is the point I am addressing: it is at the discretion of the magistracy. We wish that discretion to be extended to the question of whether the sentence should be served in a local authority secure unit —which I remind my noble friend Lady Miller is secure—or in a secure training centre.
There is a difference between the two. In the secure training centre there will be 40 children. I once taught in a rather rough area, in a school with 1,400 pupils which was on a slum clearance estate. The thought of having 40 such tearaways together in one institution makes me wonder whether practitioners in the field are not right when they say that it is very much better to dilute the problem rather than to concentrate it, and that to have a variety of children in an institution strengthens; it does not weaken. Having those children within the bounds of the local education authority from which they come and into the care of which they must be returned must be an advantage. Those teachers know the curriculum which the child will be taught. They can talk to the teachers who taught the children at the beginning and saw when matters went wrong.
What we offer to your Lordships is not a reduction but an extension of what the Bill offers. The amendment gives a choice. I do not doubt that there will be many cases where magistrates will feel, rightly, that children should go to the specialist, concentrated treatment to which the Bill refers and for which the Government believe that they can recruit adequate teachers. However, in other cases the magistrates may think otherwise. We believe that your Lordships should honour and trust the ability and intelligence of magistrates to make that choice. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, during the course of the debate no reference has been made to the Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper No. 66, entitled Juveniles Sentenced for Serious Offences (1992) which compared the regimes in the prison service young offender institutions with those in secure units in a local authority community home system. Its sample of young offenders consisted of boys who had been sentenced to long term detention for really serious offences under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Some were held in young offender institutions; others were placed in local authority secure training units. The purpose of the research was to point out the advantages and disadvantages for the inmates in the two different organisations or institutions. I cite some of the findings.
1158
The local authority community homes provided significantly more and better quality education and training, a greater variety of physical exercise and recreational activity, a higher level of through care, and more help and advice with detainees' problems. Thus the Section 53(2) detainees from local authority community homes were more likely to emerge with some basic qualifications, training and work experience with which to resume life in the community than were those from young offender institutions Given the frequency of poor educational records of Section 53 offenders, that was a distinct disadvantage of the young offender institutions. Perhaps I may quote from the paper:
"In addition, the study found that the general quality of life as assessed by a wide range of measures concerned with food and mealtimes, hygiene and clothing, possessions and privacy, relationships and involvement, was demonstrably better in community homes than in young offender institutions".
I quote again:
'The differences in respect of relationships were particularly significant, the YOIs being unlikely to have the close and helpful relationships between staff and inmates … which would 'help the offender assume greater responsibility for his lifestyle and understand his responsibilities to others' as envisaged in official Prison Service policy".
Finally, the observation was made:
'The study also found that offenders who had been in secure units in the local authority community home system were significantly less likely to have been reconvicted two years after release than those released from young offender institutions. The Home Office's own research evidence therefore shows that local authority secure units provide a better quality of regime for young people than larger institutions".
That seems to reinforce the: point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that by providing the. choice which the amendment suggests, competition—so much the hallmark of the Government's philosophy—might result in the single new institution keeping up to scratch as regards policy and in particular its approach to rehabilitation which is obviously so important but which so far has not proved a marked success in the large concentrated institution. I therefore support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Carr. We all have a deep affection and respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. Had I not been a practitioner in this field, I would have been lured into his very good, academic presentation. However, I realise that his wonderful presentation, like that of my noble friend Lord Stewartby, is divorced from the practical experience of dealing with these children.
Many points have been made. When I was a director of social services and a children's officer, if I could possibly help it I never sent a child to an approved school because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, 75 per cent. of such children re-offended within two years of leaving the school.
I support my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I ran centres where we mixed the children. It meant that those children who were not offenders mixed well with offenders. They did not form a gang as they did when those children were all together. With good staff it is perfectly possible to help those children. Therefore I am

1159
for a mix of children. Children often do better in the smaller units. One of the basic problems is that very often the children have been in difficult circumstances and need to be able to establish relationships, one human being with another.
At present, the magistrates and the police have great difficulty through not having enough accommodation now. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what will happen here and now. It is now that people are worried. It will take two years to build the new centres run by the Home Office. A total of 170 more places are being set up. Would it not be wise to give the magistrates the power to choose where to send the children, and to relieve the police and the magistrates? I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is an important amendment. Most sides of the argument have been canvassed, as one would expect, although possibly not all. My noble friend Lord Carr, as usual, made a very persuasive and attractive speech. That did not surprise me. It is, if I may say so, characteristic of him. My noble friend says of his amendment that it is not against government policy. He does not like locking up children. Nor does anyone else, I fancy. He accepts that in certain circumstances it is necessary. He agrees therefore with what the Government are trying to achieve in the clause. But he is not convinced that the new secure training centres are necessarily the only place in which those youths should be confined, nor always the best place. Therefore, asks my noble friend and his supporters, why not let the courts have a choice? Send the youth to the secure training centre if the courts believe that that is the right place; or send him to local authority secure accommodation if the court thinks that that is the best place. What, my noble friend says, is unreasonable about that? How, he asks, could your Lordships take any exception to that? My noble friend seems so reasonable in his view and in his advocacy of it that I feel almost churlish in suggesting that there could be another view. But I think that there is and, if I may say so, a better one.
As your Lordships know, the Government have decided that the problems which are posed by a small group of persistent offenders need to be addressed by a new response in order to prevent the lives of others in the community in which the youths live and in which they have persistently offended from being ruined and from being made intolerable. We have decided, therefore, that there should be a new sentence and new secure facilities: the secure training order and the secure training centres.
The Government considered carefully whether expanding the secure accommodation places which the local authorities have might be the best answer, but we decided that it would not be and that a new kind of facility should be created which would be specifically designed to deal with the persistent offenders. There are four main reasons for this. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was quite right when he said that secure training units are new and different from local authority secure accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that my noble and learned friend did not
1160
understand the problem and had got it wrong. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend gets upset when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that kind of thing about him, but I advise him not to worry about it. My noble and learned friend was in fact quite right.
The first reason for providing a new kind of facility is that the local authority secure accommodation caters for a whole host of different and difficult people. Some are disturbed; some are as young as 10; some are as old as 18; some may be offenders and some may not. Of the 1,300 youngsters who are placed in secure accommoda-tion each year, about one-third are on remand. Half stay in security for less than a month.
We considered whether it was right to inject into this hotchpotch of people this group of offenders with their particular problems. I agree with my noble friend Lady Seccombe that it would not be right to do so and we reached that conclusion. Local authority secure accommodation is a valuable way of dealing with young people, but given the wide range of what we might call their "residents" there are limitations in the kind of regime which can be offered.
The secure training centres, by contrast, will be specifically designed to deal with persistent offenders who are within a relatively small age group. The centres will be able to provide a much more specialised regime; specialised in terms of education and of programmes which are designed to tackle offending behaviour, training them to be better. All that will be much better than is possible within local authority units.
The second argument for the new secure training centres relates to the size of the units. Most local authority units are relatively small, often between eight and 16 places. The resources and activities which are available in these kinds of units are, therefore, inevitably limited.
The secure training centres, on the other hand, will be larger regional units, with about 40 youngsters in each. This means that they will be able to provide better resources, better education, better training specifically designed for their needs, better rehabilitation program-mes and better activities; activities which will be much more likely to confront and to reform their offending behaviour.
The third reason for opting for the new secure training centres is that larger centres allow for economies of scale which are not available in smaller units. Creating a larger number of smaller units would undoubtedly be a more expensive proposition than would be a smaller number of larger ones; and a larger unit can deal better with the differing needs of differing youngsters.
The fourth reason is the question to which my noble friend Lord Carr invitingly referred. He said that if we use local authority secure accommodation it can be used now and we will not have to wait for these new secure training centres to be built. My noble friend put a lot of store on that, as did my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I remember two years ago being castigated by some of your Lordships because there were not enough secure local authority accommodation places for offenders. That was a criticism on which some of your Lordships

1161
found difficulty in being restrained. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was one such and there is nothing novel in that.
However, the Government have now proposed that local authorities should build 170 new secure places. These will enable us to implement the long-standing commitment to end prison remands for 15 and 16 year-olds; to allow courts to remand 12 to 16 year-old juveniles, who have not yet been convicted, directly into secure accommodation; and to cater for children who are detained for long terms under Section S3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. They are not yet built, but they should be available by the middle of 1996. It is into this present stock—not the future stock —of local authority secure accommodation which everyone has complained is inadequate for present purposes that my noble friend wishes to propel this new category of offending juveniles.
As this new local authority secure accommodation has not yet been built and if my noble friend's proposal were to be implemented immediately—which is one of my noble friend's strong arguments—it could only be at the expense of those people who are already housed but who would not be able in future to be housed in it. In other words, if you are going to put into the present stock of secure accommodation an extra category of people who at present do not go there, you will tip out those who ought to go there, who would go there, who at present go there, but who in future will not be able to go there. To expect local authorities, on top of this commitment to provide a further 170 places, to provide places also for this new category of offender would, in our view, be unrealistic.
It is simply not a fact, as my noble friends Lord Carr and Lady Faithfull said, that this amendment would allow for the secure training order to be implemented earlier than the provisions which the Bill in its present form contains because new places would have to be built by local authorities. What the amendment would do, however, is to create two parallel sets of new accommodation for persistent juvenile offenders: one in the secure training centres and the other in the local authority accommodation.
My noble friend, Lord Gisborough, said that in no way did this amendment undermine the Government's proposals. It does. My noble friend Lord Elton says that it expands the Government's proposals. I am bound to tell my noble friends that the amendment would seriously disrupt the Government's plans for bringing secure training centres into being. Plans would literally have to go straight back to the drawing board. They have been based on assumptions about the numbers of offenders who will have to be catered for. This will be thrown into complete confusion if some of them are now to be diverted into secure accommodation belonging to local authorities. My noble friend Lord Stewartby was quite right. Having to develop not one but two sets of secure accommodation without any reliable indications of what will be the balance of their use, and who would go where, would be a most inefficient and uneconomic use of public funds.
Those who support this amendment say, in effect: "Very well, we have no doubt that in many cases the
1162
secure training centres will be better. But why not allow the courts to choose where to send people in each case?" I reply to that by saying that the secure training order will be a sentence of the court and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the facilities in which the secure part of the sentences are to be served will all be staffed and will be run to a consistently high standard.
Local authority secure accommodation, on the other hand, is what it says it is: secure accommodation provided by the local authority. There is no consistency between units. They vary in size, facilities and approach according to the circumstances of the local authority and the area it serves. At present, the courts have no power to send anyone to local authority secure accommoda-tion. In most cases, it is the local authority which determines that a person shall go to secure accommodation, although it has to get the approval of the court if the intention is to keep someone in secure accommodation for more than 72 hours.
My noble friend Lord Carr says with his amendment, "Let us give the courts for the first time"—the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, confirmed that it was for the first time —"the power to sentence youngsters to institutions whose character and regime may vary from place to place and which are designed to cater for a variety of disparate individuals, some of whom have committed no offence at all".
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is right; so is my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. We do not believe that it would be right for the courts to have the ability to choose alternative facilities to those which are in the Bill, facilities which will have different and less consistent regimes. The impact of the secure training order would undoubtedly be dissipated if we did that. It would not be right for the same sentence to attract two totally different kinds of placement—one in a national unit and one in a local authority one—which serve such different purposes.
I should be the first to admit that my noble friend's amendment is superficially very attractive. It has attracted some of your Lordships, even someone as discerning as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It seems so reasonable and so harmless to say, "Just let us give the courts a choice". I suggest that your Lordships should be hesitant before becoming like Little Red Riding Hood, who was taken in by the warmth of the welcome, the smiling countenance and the apparent charm of what she saw. I would never describe my noble friend Lord Carr as being like the Big Bad Wolf but I suggest that your Lordships would be ill advised to be like Little Red Riding Hood.
The fact is that, if we are to try to deal with these young offenders properly, they are best dealt with in special units with programmes which are specially designed for them rather than in a number of different and disparate units with a number of different and disparate regimes accountable to a number of different and disparate agencies.
As your Lordships would expect, we have considered all the different possibilities of how best to deal with people of that vulnerable age group. We have

1163
considered my noble friend's suggestion. We think, though, for the reasons which I gave, that the proposals in the Bill provide the best solution.
I hope that my noble friend, with his enormous ability to comprehend difficult problems—heaven knows, he must have had stacks of them when occupying the position of such eminence he held in the Home Office—will see the wisdom of what we are trying to achieve and will not press the amendment. If he does so, I hope that that your Lordships will not agree to it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down and before I exercise my right of reply as mover of the amendment, perhaps he can say something about what is intended to happen within the secure unit after the half period of custody is over.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to answer my noble friend, when the half period of custody is over the person will be returned to his home under the guidance of a number of different possible agencies, which will be decided after he has served his time in the secure unit.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Only time will show whose arguments are the more shallow and whose are the more deep. I am bound to say that the reply just given to my question causes me considerably increased doubt about the desirability of not giving the courts this option. The idea is that the court should send these people away to something entirely new. They should not carry on in the accustomed surroundings. But then, when half the period of sentence is over, they are brought back from that distant point and re-introduced to the old locality from which it had been thought necessary to remove them. Quite honestly, that does not seem to me a very deep or profound consideration of the real needs of those people.
Before bringing this discussion to a conclusion, I beg your Lordships to remember that we are not just dealing with young juvenile offenders. We are dealing with children of 12 to 14 years of age. The whole question of locking children up and putting them into prison is new and very distasteful to have to think about. I support the view that, unfortunately, we do have to think about it. But I ask your Lordships to imagine yourselves as magistrates faced with that very distasteful need. I cannot help wondering, should any of us be sitting on the Bench, whether we might be rather less inclined to impose one of those sentences if we had to send youngsters miles away from home as we did not have any option. In particular, that would be the case, taking up the point made in an intervention by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if there is power during the course of a sentence to switch from one to another.
My noble friend the Minister made out that the size of the new units was a decisive argument. Is he saying that large is necessarily beautiful? That is a very doubtful proposition, particularly in this field. He also said that it was bad to have mixed groups. But the experience of those who know about the situation shows
1164
that sometimes there can be surprising success in mixed groups. To make that a major reason for turning down the amendment—I am sorry to throw the words back at him—seems to be shallow and not deep thinking.
I did not quite understand why acceptance of the amendment would apparently cause delay rather than expedite matters. I did not understand that at all. I cannot imagine why the plans for these special secure units, which are presumably far advanced, will all have to go back to the drawing board simply because the courts have an option to do something else.
I listened to my noble friend. I have never been particularly keen on divorcing myself or recommending my colleagues or my party to divorce themselves from the Government's view at the time, but I am afraid that on this matter I must ask the House to express its opinion.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 170; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Ackner, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Addington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Aldington, L.

Eatwell, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Alport, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ezra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Falkender, B.

Attlee, E.

Falkland, V.

Avebury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bancroft, L.

Foot, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blyth, L.

Geraint, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gisborough, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bottomley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Brain, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brentford, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bridges, L.

Gray, L.

Brightman, L.

Grey, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Gridley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Caldecote, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Haskel, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hayter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Healey, L.

Carr of Hadley, L. [Teller.]

Henniker, L.

Carter, L.

Hollick, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chapple, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Chester, Bp.

Howell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hunt, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dainton, L.

Jacques, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

David, B.

Jay, L.

Davidson, V.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Judd, L.

Desai, L.

Kagan, L.

1165

Kilbracken, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Rochester, L.

Kintore, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Roskill, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Listowel, E.

Scanlon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Shannon, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Simon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stallard, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milverton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Strafford, E.

Monkswell, L.

Strange, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Swansea, L.

Mulley, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mustill, L.

Tenby, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northbourne, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Varley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Weatherill, L.

Pender, L.

Westmorland, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Whaddon, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Richard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Ailsa, M.

De Freyne, L.

Aldenham, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Annaly, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Downshire, M.

Arran, E.

Eccles, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Astor, V.

Elibank, L.

Balfour, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bauer, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bethell, L.

Flather, B.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Boardman, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Borthwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Burnham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnock, L.

Hood, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hooper, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hothfield, L.

Chesham, L.

Howe, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Huntly, M.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cockfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kenyon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kimball, L.

Courtown, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lawrence, L.

Cranborne, V.

Layton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cross, V.

Long, V.

1166

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sharples, B.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Marlesford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Marsh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stewartby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

[Teller.]

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Nelson, E.

Tebbit, L.

Newall, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Norfolk, D.

Torrington, V.

Orkney, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Peel, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Prentice, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pym, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wharton, B.

Rees, L.

Wise, L.

Renton, L.

Wynford, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Young, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert:
("(2A) Where a court makes a secure training order under subsection (1) above it may specify that the period of detention shall be in secure accommodation provided by the local authority or by a person or organisation with whom the local authority has made arrangements for the provision of secure accommoda-tion.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5, to which it is closely linked. I can be brief in regard to both amendments. I believe that I can separate our discussion on the first two amendments from the debate on Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 because the principles are split. It is therefore possible for noble Lords to agree with the first two amendments but to disagree with these two, or vice versa. Had the first two amendments not been agreed to, these two would not have been moved at this time. However, the first two having been accepted, I urge your Lordships to support Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 as well.
In this experimental sphere—let us not forget that dealing with children of this age is an experimental sphere —it is right that there should be some flexibility not only about where and how the sentence of a secure training order should be carried out, but also about the ability to switch in mid-stream if it should be thought necessary. What I and my fellow supporters feel, however, is that the decision to switch should remain very much a decision of the court and not a decision of officials at either central or local level. The amendments provide a power for a local authority, if a child has been put in local authority secure accommodation, to go to

1167
the court and say, "Please will you change this and perhaps send this child to one of the new units or to some other form of care". Similarly, if the court has sent the child in the first place to one of the new units, the director of the unit should be able to go back to the court and say, "Having had this child in my care for some time, we think it would be advisable that he or she should be switched to some other form of treatment under a local authority or should be treated in some other way". The court remains in control. If these amendments are passed the opportunity for flexibility is continued. I hope that the common sense of that will, without further argument, commend itself to your Lordships.
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am not in favour of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley. It overlooks the main provision of Clause 1 that the court shall not make a secure training order unless it is satisfied about the offender's age; and,
"(b) that the offender has been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences; and
(c) that the offender, either on this or a previous occasion—

(i) has been found by a court to be in breach of a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, or

(ii) has been convicted of an imprisonable offence committed whilst he was subject to such a supervision order".

In other words, we are dealing here with a very small hard core of persistent young offenders. The amendment would add confusion to what is envisaged by the Government, with or without the modification—I voted against it—which has been carried by your Lordships under Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. If we add to what is in the Bill and if we add to what is in Amendment No. 2, there will be great confusion—especially if we apply the further complication of what is put forward in Amendment No. 5.
I need not invite your Lordships' attention to the details for they are there for all your Lordships to see. But I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will not accept the amendment and that your Lordships also will not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, seems to think that a new degree of confusion will be introduced if the amendment is carried. Perhaps I may point out to him that the powers sought in the amendment are by no means new. For example, the power to move from one institution to another a young offender detained for a long term has existed since the passing of Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that the powers are not new. But the circumstances in which they are being imposed are new; and they do not dovetail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg leave to doubt that as well. What is sought in the amendments is power to apply to the court to change the institution in which the young offender is kept; whereas what is provided in the 1933 Act is the power for the young offender to be moved from one institution to another
1168
without even application to the court. So I suggest, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he is not merely exaggerating the extent of confusion that is possible but suggesting confusion which would be resolved by these amendments.
In my view, the amendments are a necessary complement to the amendments which have just been carried. They could not be debated together because the wording is dependent on the wording of the first two amendments. But I suggest to the House that those who supported the first two amendments should also in logic to support these two.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we have been talking so far about putting these youngsters into centres, but we must remember that they are going in for only six months or a year. They will then come out again, and they will come out probably with very little extra training. If, during the period of their detention, those working with them feel that there is a better chance that when they come out they will be improved by perhaps being sent home or sent for some other treatment, surely that chance must be taken. If one just locks them up and waits six months for them to come out, they will come out just as bad as they were before. It may be the case, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, that local authority accommodation is very much better than the secure training centre, or perhaps that may be so in some cases. There must be the option to change if it is felt advisable. Only the court can make that decision. There is no danger, as some people seem to think, of suddenly the local authority sending these youngsters on safari. It is a court decision. It is not for any of the workers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is not only those who voted for Amendment No. 1 who ought to support this amendment. I voted with the Government because I thought that we had been harrying the Government for years and saying, "For heaven's sake, do something about this terrible problem". They have produced a Bill which does something about it. I felt that as a result of all that harrying there was some justice in giving them a chance to implement what they were doing at our request. However, if the amendment passed by the House remains in the Bill, Amendment No. 3 would be indispensable to it. If the magistrates have made the decision to send a person to a local authority home and it does not work because of the character of the individual, to me it is good sense that those concerned should be able to apply to have that individual transferred to one of the five centres. The two run together.
I make that point because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that those who voted for the first amendment should support this amendment. Now that that amendment has been passed and if it remains and is part of the statute, the extra amendment is part of making a provision that might be workable.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has a very good point. During the discussion on the previous amendment I mentioned the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 2(4) to

1169
transfer persons sentenced to secure training orders. They apply only to transfers of the offender from the secure training centre to such other place and on such other conditions as the Secretary of State may direct.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, rightly pointed out, the Secretary of State does not have the power, and he would not have needed any such power if the amendment had not been passed, to transfer a person from a local authority secure unit to a training centre or from the local authority secure unit to any other place such as he may direct. If this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, has moved had not been in the Marshalled List, the Government would have had to bring forward an amendment of their own to enhance the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 2(4) so that the transfers could have been made either way.
When the noble Earl comes to reply, can he tell us why he thought it appropriate to give these powers only to the Secretary of State? It seems curious to me that the courts, as I mentioned in connection with the last amendment, knowing the circumstances of the offence and the offender, are not given the power, but the Secretary of State, at some later date, and of his own volition and based solely on his paper knowledge of the case, is able to make transfers from one place to another. Not only those who supported the last amendment would have to agree that these powers should be conferred on the courts; but everyone else who did not support it should pay attention to the wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and consider whether or not the additional flexibility which this amendment gives would greatly enhance the abilities of the courts under the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. I voted with the Government at the last Division. I accept that in a sense this amendment is a logical development from what was decided by your Lordships at the last Division. It is not an inevitable derivative. I ask your Lordships to consider how far we should go. I suggest to the House that this amendment goes too far. I am concerned with what we do with these young people who are persistent, hardcore criminals. Something has to be done. For years, when I sat as a recorder—I am too old to be one now—we were powerless to do anything with them.
Since then the Government have taken the initiative to try to do something. That is what the people of this country, by and large, and outside this House, broadly wish. They wish for deterrence. One needs to have an element of deterrence. I was chided by my noble friend Lord Elton the other day who said, "These are young people who stand only as high as the Dispatch Box". They are committed, hardened criminals who are unable to be dealt with effectively. The only thing they understand is the element of deterrence. Although I totally agree that rehabilitation is an important and essential element in all this, and I do not derogate from that at all, I do not believe that that will start to work
1170
until we have effective deterrence which is known and understood. I support the Government up to the hilt on this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when my noble friend speaks of looking for deterrence, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, should have argued in the opposite sense. We have now devised a system in which there are two routes which such a sentence can follow and there are two institutions in which it may be served. From what my noble friend has said and from the inference which I draw from others of his persuasion, it is thought that the secure training centre will be a tougher option than the local authority secure unit. If that be the case, surely the director of the local authority secure unit should be able to tell the unmanageable young tearaway whom he cannot control, "If you do not come off it right away, young friend, you will be sent to the dark black hole and swallowed up".
On the other foot, there is the argument that it should be possible on occasion to release somebody from the most severe to the less severe treatment on the ground that the child had made sufficient progress to warrant it and understood that this was the carrot.
When you have both the stick and the carrot you have discipline, which is what this matter is all about. I believe that the amendment which my noble friend and my colleagues and I have devised is an instrument which can be used for discipline creatively in order to strengthen the system and not to weaken it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support this amendment. Perhaps I may point out two matters. The first is that every child is an individual and different from every other child. The family is different. Some children will need much more help than others. I believe that the needs of each child should be met. In both the secure training unit and the local authority unit not only are the social workers in touch with the children but there are also psychiatrists, psychologists, teachers and the parents. If a child makes rapid progress, as some of them do, then the needs of that child should be met. It ought to be possible to return to the court and to ask the magistrates to vary the order.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am always hesitant when someone refers, as my noble friend Lord Carr did, to the common sense of the amendment which rather insinuates that anyone else who takes a different view is lacking in common sense and cannot see the rectitude of the other's ways. I was also fascinated by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls who spoke for this amendment. He did speak for the last amendment, although I am glad to say that he voted against it. He now speaks for this amendment and I hope that he will be sensible enough to vote against it too when the time comes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seems to have vaporised. I do not know where he has gone, but he has gone.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, he has levitated.
Earl Ferrers: That is an unusual thing and a bit in advance of his time. He said that this amendment

1171
complements the other one. Had the noble Lord been here, I might have said that he was talking rubbish, but I would not say that in his absence. I merely say that he was guilty of an erroneous description. The fact is that these amendments have nothing to do with the previous amendments. This is a very different amendment which enables the court to vary the order when the sentence is under way.
Let us be quite clear where we are over this matter. The last amendment which, in my view, your Lordships decided injudiciously to put into the Bill, has given the courts the ability to choose whether to send a youngster to a secure training unit or, for the first time ever, to send the youngster to local authority secure accommodation. This amendment allows the courts to move the youth from one to the other. I do not believe that that has anything to do with the last amendment because this amendment covers a totally different concept.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked why should the Secretary of State make transfers from secure accommodation to another place under the Bill. He is right that Clause 2(4) will have to be amended—if the earlier amendment remains in the Bill—to enable the Home Office to transfer a trainee from secure accommodation to another place. He referred to the power in Clause 2(4) to transfer youngsters out of secure places. That provision was included in order to cover exceptional cases where, for instance, a juvenile needs to be moved because he is mentally ill. That decision would be made by the Home Office and not by the court.
This matter is very different. Much of what I said in the earlier debate has equal force now. We believe that those who are subject to the secure training order should have the opportunity to serve the secure part of their sentence in the specialised new units which are being established. There they will receive the specialist education and training which they need. To allow the sentence to be chopped and changed, as between one establishment and another, would be bound to reduce the effectiveness of the new order.
There are three further reasons why I think that these amendments are undesirable. The first is a matter of principle. I know that this will appeal to those of your Lordships who are of a legal disposition. A secure training order is a custodial sentence. That means that the length of the sentence must reflect primarily the seriousness of the offending. That is a decision which must be taken when the courts impose the sentence in the first place. I think that your Lordships will find it difficult to reconcile this philosophy, which governs all custodial sentences, with the philosophy behind the amendment which would allow the courts in this one particular type of sentence to alter it in midstream.
The second problem is a more practical one. I am not at all convinced that the courts would necessarily welcome the highly involved role in the mechanics of the sentence which this amendment would inevitably give them. It would be time-consuming, complicated and, I suggest, unnecessary.
The third question relates to the availability of secure accommodation, which we talked about earlier. As with the earlier amendment, this one envisages local
1172
authorities somehow having access on demand to a number of vacancies for persistent offenders. That would pose particular difficulties for the local authorities. The simple fact is that it is to the secure training centres to which we must look for the secure training order to be served, and not elsewhere.
If your Lordships consider that it is necessary or desirable also to have local authority secure accom-modation—your Lordships did consider this—that is fine, but it is another matter. Perhaps I should not say that it is fine because it is an erroneous decision. Nevertheless, that is one thing; it is quite another thing to say that once a youngster is placed either in local authority secure accommodation or into a secure training unit, he should be swapped around between one and the other—even if that is with the approval of the courts. I hope that my noble friend will realise that that would be an undesirable addition to the Bill.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I must be in a cantankerous mood, but I really do not find it easy or possible to understand the Government's thinking. I understood the Government's thinking on the first two amendments, although I profoundly disagreed with them; but with respect and in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, I find the arguments that have been advanced by my noble friend very difficult to appreciate or understand. I cannot help noticing that Clause 2(4) provides for the Secretary of State to alter a sentence in midstream. I know that the circumstances are not quite the same, but the principle of altering a sentence in midstream is written into the Bill.
I beg your Lordships to remember that this is a highly experimental area. For the first time in our history, we are putting children of 12 and 14 into prison. Although I deeply regret it, I agree with the necessity for it. We are treading new ground. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we should show greater flexibility. It is possible that a court may send a child into local authority secure accommodation to start with. That centre may then find that it cannot cope, so it returns to the court so that the young child can be sent to one of the new units. Indeed, the same may arise vice versa, given that the secure units are available. I cannot understand why it is not wise to be able to provide that flexibility.
Although I had hoped not to have to seek to divide the House again, I feel that what the Minister has recommended is so irrational—I am sorry to have to say that—that I must seek leave to take the opinion of the House.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ackner, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Addington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Attlee, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Avebury, L.

1173

Bancroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jacques, L.

Blyth, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Borthwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bottomley, L.

Judd, L.

Brain, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brentford, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Brightman, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carr of Hadley, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chapple, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chester, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cross, V.

McNair, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Molloy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davidson, V.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elton, L.

Richard, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Geraint, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gisborough, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Glenamara, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gray, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Strafford, E.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tenby, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L.

Varley, L.

Henniker, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollick, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hunt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ailsa, M.

Astor, V.

Aldenham, L.

Balfour, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Bauer, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Annaly, L.

Beloff, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Bethell, L.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

1174

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Burnham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chesham, L.

Monson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Munster, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Courtown, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cranborne, V.

Northbourne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Northesk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Peel, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Prentice, L.

Downshire, M.

Pym, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank, L.

Rees, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rennell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Flather, B.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

[Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Sudeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swansea, L.

Hood, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Torrington, V.

Huntly, M.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Kenyon, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kimball, L.

Wise, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wynford, L.

Leigh, L.

Young, B.

Lindsay, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("one half) and insert ("between one half and one third").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. I wish that the previous amendments had not happened, because my amendment is of a rather different provenance. While I do not disagree with what has been done, I should like your Lordships, if possible, to consider my amendment in its own right. With the permission of the House perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 10 separately rather than as a group.
The reason for my setting down the amendments relates to the debates which took place on Second Reading and in Committee when many noble Lords

1175
referred to the fact that the incarceration of young offenders appeared to have the effect of making them reoffend more frequently or embracing the probability of them reoffending, but no one addressed the question of why. The two amendments address two of the reasons —there may be many—why young offenders who have been locked up are more likely to reoffend.
In discussing the subject we have perhaps tended to blur—the Government may even have tended to blur them in their own mind—the two elements which there are in such a sentence: the element of punishment, and the element of rehabilitation. My view is that the element of punishment is very necessary, and should not be ignored, but punishment and rehabilitation make poor bedfellows.
If one talks about rehabilitating a persistent young offender, one is talking about changing the value system of a young person. We are not just talking about naughty boys here; we are not talking about someone who has a set of values which he or she accepts but has transgressed for fun or because he or she was tempted. We are talking in the main about young people who are alienated from the values of society. One may ask why they have been alienated. In some cases it can be because their families themselves have values which are different from the values that your Lordships and I would accept. There are other cases where the young person has perhaps been rejected by his family and accepts the values of a peer group (a street gang, a group of friends) which once again are alien to the values of society.
If we are trying to rehabilitate those young people, we have to change their value system, and that can be done only by someone whom they trust and respect, and it can be done only over a substantial period of time.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to make it possible for the court to change the ratio between passing the part of the sentence which is devoted primarily to punishment and the part of the sentence which is devoted primarily to rehabilitation. I have suggested, perhaps modestly, only that the courts should be given the option of making a one-third punishment/ two-thirds rehabilitation division rather than a 50/50 division. I should like to hope that the Minister may be minded to consider the proposal favourably, or at least to give me an assurance that we might discuss it further. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel that it creates a degree of flexibility as to what the court can do under Clause 1, without interfering in any way with the basic principles of the clause, and without adding any confusion or complication. As we all know, nearly every case is different. The offences committed by each offender may be different and have different circumstances attached to them. The circumstance and personality of each offender may be different, and to give the court just that degree—it is only a small degree —of flexibility which the amendment would give would be an advantage.
1176
It is not a question of the court having to choose to have half or one third of the sentence served in detention; it is a variation between one third and a half. It is a very minor change. It is a very reasonable change. I hope that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Renton, have said. The Minister and his colleagues have, on a number of occasions, told us of their enthusiasm for the cause and principle of flexibility. This gives them the opportunity to adopt the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, cases coming before the courts in relation to the matters that we are now discussing will cover a wide range. The amendment gives the courts more power to take account of those special circumstances which may apply to an individual offender.
I hope that if the Minister does not give us an affirmative answer today he will indicate that he is at least prepared to consider the matter between now and Third Reading, with a view to adopting the course proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question as to the meaning of the amendment, if it were carried. The phrase used is:
"between one half and one third".
In the ordinary use of language that would mean that it cannot be either one half or one third, because that would not be between the two. What will be the effect of the amendment, as a matter of drafting, if it is carried?
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has caught me out completely. I suspect that by going down to millionths of a unit we can get very, very near to a half or very, very near to a third.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. We seem to have forgotten that the secure training order may be imposed, but does not have to be imposed. It is an option. I agree with my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley that we are in an experimental stage.
I agree that we are concerned with young people who are alienated from society. It must be common ground that as yet we have not discovered how to deal effectively with them. The time has come when, if needs be, we must have at our disposal means with which to deal with them. At this stage of the experiment, I see no reason for qualifying the clause as it stands.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what my noble friend said. Clause 1(3) provides that the minimum period of detention and supervision together must be six months. Subsection (4) provides that the period of detention as a proportion of that shall be not less than one-half. Therefore, there is an absolute minimum of three months' incarceration. The amend-ment proposes to allow that to be dropped to a period nearer two months.

1177
I do not have enormously strong feelings about the matter, but I hope that in reflecting on it my noble friend will try to cast his mind back to the time when he was 12 years old. That is only a little further away from the time I was 12 years old. Perhaps he will remember what an eternity of time a single month or a single day then was. Therefore, the currency with which we are dealing has been debased by our old age. We now think of six months as something to toss aside and, after all, it is not even a complete year. To a child, it is several careers on the end of a lifetime and therefore I hope that my noble friend will remember that the currency with which he is dealing is very valuable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am not sure that I go along with him philosophically in his analysis that there must be a period described as a period of punishment to be followed by a period described as a period of rehabilitation. I suspect that in practice the two will overlap and that they will not coincide with the period in incarceration, if that is the right word.
Certainly, the degree of discretion which is proposed in the amendment is consistent with and complementary to the view that was taken by the House on Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, although I would not claim that it is dependent on the earlier amendments. Noble Lords who supported Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, in particular, may well believe that this amendment provides an appropriate extension to the flexibility available to the courts.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am not clear who will exercise the discretion as to whether the period is one-half or one-third. Subsection (3) provides that the court shall determine but there is no such wording in subsection (4). Nor does the phrase "the court determines" appear in the amendment. Is it intended that the court shall decide between one-half and one-third when the original order is made or is it a decision that someone else will make at a later date, depending on how the offender is spending his time?
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. The answer is perfectly clear. Subsection (4) begins,
'The period of detention".
That phrase is used in subsection (3), where we learn that it is a period decided by the court.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may urge a little caution as regards what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He said that the amendment was complementary to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, which were accepted. When we dealt with Amendment No. 3, the noble Lord said that it was complementary on Nos. 1 and 2. I wish that he would get out of the habit of trying to join all the amendments together so that all those noble Lords who are not too familiar with the proceedings will believe that they are consequential. They are nothing of the kind. This amendment stands totally separate and has nothing to do with the previous amendments. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is wrong!
1178
The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to change substantially the balance of the secure training order. The order, as it is currently provided for in the Bill, consists of two halves. The first half is spent in security in a secure training centre and the second half is spent under supervision in the community. The minimum length of the whole order is six months and the maximum length is two years. That means that the minimum period in security is three months and the maximum period is 12 months.
That arrangement gives the courts a good deal of flexibility in determining the appropriate level of sentence. In determining the length of the sentence, as with all custodial sentences, the courts must have regard to the seriousness of the offending. The Bill as it stands offers a wide range of sentence lengths.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 would be to allow the period in security to be not one-half but any proportion between one-third and one-half. In trying to persuade your Lordships towards the amendment, my noble friend Lord Elton asked me to look back to the time when I was a child, when a month was a very long time. Of course, it is a very long time, and one evening in your Lordships' House debating the Criminal Justice Bill is almost as long as is a month to a child.
If I look back to the time when I was a child, as if a month spent in a secure training centre would be terrible, I can say only that I like to think that I did not behave in the way that some of the characters who will be subject to a secure training order have behaved. If they find a month a long time, it would be better if they should not offend and subject themselves to such a sentence. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's argument on that point is absurd.
Despite what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton, I agree with my noble friend Lord Brentford that it is not clear in the amendment who will make the decision about the proportion of the sentence to be spent in security. It might be the secure training centre itself which will make the decision on the basis of the youngster's progress within its establishment and his readiness for release. I agree that there are some attractions in having a non-rigid approach, but there are also some overriding objections. Such a system as this could well be unfair and there would need to be at least some arrangement for a quasi-judicial decision on whether or not to release a youngster. The Government considered this carefully but we decided that there were bound to be difficulties.
Experience of indeterminate sentences has been that the length which was served has often related rather less to the needs and progress of the individual offender than to the state of supply and demand for the places in the estate.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 4 means that the proportion of the sentence to be spent in security should be determined by the court. On the face of it, that seems reasonable but I see two difficulties. First, on what basis would the court make the decision that someone should spend half his sentence in custody whereas another could spend one-third in custody? Would it relate to the

1179
seriousness of the offence or would it just be an estimate of the progress that he is likely to make? I believe that we should keep the matter simple.
The magistrates—and we must remember that there are some 5,000 in the youth court—will already have to determine how long the sentence should last. Should it be six months, 12 months, 18 months or two years? To complicate the matter further by then saying that they must decide how much of the chosen length of the sentence should be spent in custody—should it be one-third, three-eighths or one-half?—really seems to be making it all unnecessarily complicated. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that if the legislation provides that the period must be between one-half and one-third, it cannot be exactly either, and that shows how much more complicated the matter becomes.
This is a matter to which we have given careful consideration. There are many factors to weigh up in determining how a sentence should work; for instance, the maximum length, the minimum length, the arrangements for early release and whether release should be based on an offender's progress. We consider that the secure training order should be a determinate sentence but a flexible one. At one end of the scale, the maximum order for two years, with one year in the secure training centre and one year under supervision, is designed for youngsters whose offending is the most serious and where the need for custodial training is that much greater. At the bottom end of the scale there is a minimum of six months—with three months in the secure training centre and three months under supervision. That sentence would be more appropriate for the less serious offender who needs a brief change of environment to stop him re-offending but whose offending suggests that a rather less extensive sentence will be required.
Between those limits, courts will have flexibility. They will be in the best position to assess what is an appropriate sentence, bearing in mind that the length of the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence or, in the case of sexual or violent crimes, the need to protect the public from serious harm. I believe that there is sufficient flexibility in the arrangements as they stand. I hope that the noble Lord will see the wisdom of that.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am very disappointed by that reply because it seems that he has entirely missed the point of the amendment, which is that the ratio between incarceration and rehabilitation should be different from the ratio provided in the Bill as it stands.
I contemplated the idea of simply changing "one half to "one third", but I felt that that would lead to the complaint that I was shortening the maximum sentence which can be given to a serious offender. I am saying, "Yes, if you like, let us change the wording of the amendment so that the most serious offender can spend a year in a secure unit but in that case, he needs at least two years in rehabilitation".
1180
I am not going to divide the House on this issue but I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to meet me to discuss further the principle underlying the amendment before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("(4A) While any secure training order in respect of which a court has made such a specification as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above is in force, a court may, on the application of the local authority, and if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so, order that the remainder of the period of detention shall be replaced by—

(a) a period during which the offender shall be required to live in other local authority accommodation;

(b) a period of supervision; or

(c) a period of detention in a secure training centre.

(4B) While any secure training order in respect of which a court has not made such a specification as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above is in force, a court may, on the application of the director of the relevant secure training centre, and if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so, order that the remainder of the period of detention shall be replaced by—

(a) a period of detention in secure accommodation provided by a local authority or by a person or organisation with whom a local authority has made arrangements for the provision of secure accommodation;

(b) a period during which the offender shall be required to live in other local authority accommodation; or

(c) a period of supervision.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("three or more imprisonable offences") and insert ("one or more imprisonable offences on three or more separate occasions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this is a drafting amendment because it is intended to give effect to the repeated statements of Ministers, both here and in another place, that secure training centres are designed for persistent young offenders.
I make the point about persistent young offenders because, of course, under Clause 16, there is provision for those young offenders who are convicted of very serious crimes—those which, if they were adults, would be subject to a prison sentence of 14 years or more—to be sentenced to long-term detention under separate powers. Therefore, let us be clear that we are talking about persistent young offenders rather than those who commit very serious offences.
As I said, there have been repeated references by Ministers to the word "persistent". In the debate on Second Reading in another place, the Home Secretary said:
"At present the courts are unable to deal adequately with persistent juvenile offenders, especially those aged between 12 and 14".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/94; col. 23.]
The Minister of State on the same day at col. 115 said:
"There is clearly a problem with persistent juvenile offenders … A few persistent offenders can be responsible for a vast amount of crime".
On Second Reading the noble Earl said:
"I suggest that Parliament has a right, and, indeed, a duty, to protect the public from persistent offenders".—[Official Report, 25/4/94; col. 381.]
And yet, curiously enough, the Bill does not provide that secure training orders shall apply to persistent young offenders. It provides that the criterion shall be:
"three or more imprisonable offences".
Of course, three or more imprisonable offences could occur at a single court appearance; indeed, the current court appearance. I cannot believe that it is the intention of Ministers that young people—as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, rightly reminds us, children—should be sentenced to secure training orders on the basis of a single court appearance at which they are dealt with for three or more imprisonable offences.
I hope that the Government will agree that the amendment gives effect to their repeatedly-expressed intentions that the order should be used for persistent offenders. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I was glad to put my name to the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I have always been struck by the fact that the Government have said constantly that they are seeking to deal with a small number of persistent offenders for whom everything else has been tried. The noble Lord referred to what the noble Earl said on Second Reading on 25th April. On that occasion he gave as an illustration, suggesting that that was one among the kind of cases which the Government had in mind —the case of a 14 year-old boy who had admitted taking part in more than 1,000 burglaries in two years. On a single night he and other teenagers raided 23 branches of one particular store; and he had been arrested 40 times.
However, the entry qualifications in the Bill fall a long way short of such cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said so succinctly in Committee:
"the criteria on the face of the Bill are radically different from the descriptions that we are given of the customer we are hoping to catch".—[Official Report, 16/5/94; col. 37.]
I appreciate that the courts must have regard to the restrictions on imposing custodial sentences provided in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, but it does not seem at all consistent with the Government's proclaimed policy that a single afternoon's shoplifting expedition in three stores and the breach of a single supervision order are all that is needed to qualify for consideration.
This modest amendment would help towards making the provisions of the Bill go just a little bit nearer to what the Government have said that they are hoping to achieve. I hope that the House will agree to it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the amendment, perhaps he will consider which of two things it would have the effect of achieving. Does it mean that the offender should have been convicted on three or more separate occasions of one or more imprisonable offences; or does it mean that the offences must have been committed on three separate occasions? It can mean either but I do not believe that it can mean both.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am troubled by subsection (5) (b) as it stands. It does not seem to be in line with what the Government have been saying about this matter from the beginning. On the one hand, we have heard that the new order will probably apply to not more than 200 children throughout the whole country. And yet one of the tests would bring in, I imagine,
1182
thousands of children. I know that that is not the only test which must be passed but it seems to be very much out of tune with "persistency", which is the word that Ministers in this House and in another place have used frequently.
While I have no particular attachment to the words chosen in the amendment, I believe that it raises an anomaly as it stands in relation to the Government's own repeated words on the subject.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, further to the question put by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, perhaps I may ask whether the Minister is aware that, if there are three imprisonable offences, they are not all tried on the same day in the same trial. Of course, one applies to sever the indictment so mat conviction on one will not prejudice the other. That process applies irrespective of whether the three offences are committed on the same day, on three separate days or on one or two days. That process of severing the indictment is always conducted with scrupulous fairness by the judiciary. If my noble friend the Minister could take that concept on board—and I speak subject to correction as there are noble and learned Lords present in the. Chamber—surely the Bill as drafted takes account of any possible: unfairness in that regard.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for recalling what I said in Committee. It is a matter of considerable importance. In Committee we were invited to divide against the Government by my noble friend Lady Faithfull regarding the whole concept of this sentence. With great conviction, but perhaps not great eloquence, I urged noble Lords to resist my noble friend's cause because I believed that there was only a handful—probably one or two hundred—of young people who fitted the description given from the Dispatch Box.
However, if the description in the Bill covers a much larger number of people, and is to remain so, I feel mat I may have made that speech and taken that decision in Committee under something approaching a misap-prehension. My noble friend and his right honourable friend have come to Parliament requesting a provision to deal with a specific ill. All we are asking is that that ill should be accurately described on the face of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that we are discussing almost a drafting amendment. I do not wish to tell him yet again that he is wrong, but I believe that it is a little more than that—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that I hoped it was so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, noble Lords are quite right always to have what estate agents call "hope value". May the noble Lord continue in that vein, so long as it goes no further.
Frankly, the effect of the amendment would make it more difficult for the court to make a secure training order. It would require the necessary convictions to have

1183
been obtained on at least three separate occasions. The Bill at present does not say on how many occasions the convictions must have occurred.
I can understand some noble Lords wishing to see the secure training order reserved for those juvenile persistent offenders who really have proved that they need to be locked up. To an extent the Government share that view. However, I think that the amendment is unnecessary and I shall explain why.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned the juvenile to whom I referred earlier who had committed 1,000 offences. He then said in a rather censorious way that the Bill falls far short of that. So it does; indeed, I should hope so too. My noble friend Lord Carr said that the provision is out of tune with the Government's thinking because many people would be caught. That is perfectly true. In theory, many people could be caught. Moreover, many people could be caught, in theory, for burglary and speeding. However, if one used such arguments one would never pass any law.
The Bill specifies that a juvenile must have three or more convictions to qualify for a secure training order. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was worried about that aspect of the matter. I shall try to explain it to him. In theory, the convictions could be obtained on one occasion, perhaps for three separate offences of theft or burglary. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was similarly worried. However, in theory, the offences could all have been committed on one occasion, but they could also have been done on two or three separate occasions.
There are further criteria which must also be met. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he did not want a secure training order placed on a youth on his first appearance in court. Of course, I understand that; but it will not happen because the juvenile must already have been subject to a supervision order on a previous occasion. He must either have offended while he was subject to the supervision order or he must have been in breach of it. The juvenile must have offended and done something pretty awful to begin with to be given a supervision order. Therefore, there will have been at least one other previous court appearance when the supervision order was made. To have qualified for a supervision order the offence must have been sufficiently serious to warrant a community sentence. In practice, it is likely that in most cases offenders who are sentenced to a secure training order will have had a good deal more than just one previous court appearance.
The kind of youngsters for whom such a sentence is designed are those who offend over and over again and who have defied all the efforts that have been made to help them. Courts are sensitive to children—heaven knows, we know that from the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Carr and others. The courts will not impose a secure training order unless they really think that it is necessary. Most of those children will have been cautioned and many of them will also, regrettably, have had many convictions.
I do not believe that it is right to tie the hands of the courts too closely in reaching their decisions about
1184
individual cases. There must be a balance between stipulating the kinds of cases on the face of the statute and giving the courts the right level of discretion to sentence effectively. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Bill has got the balance right.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I cannot help but say that the Minister has been even more inconsistent as regards this amendment than he was on the previous three. He admitted that the Bill is designed to catch—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I rather fancy that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, might be erroneously and unsuspectingly out of order. I believe that at Report stage noble Lords are not permitted to speak after the Minister.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I was hoping rise to speak before the Minister sat down. I want to ask him whether he realises that he is now being even more inconsistent than he was on the previous three amendments. The Minister said that the Bill was designed to catch the offender who committed a great many offences. Yet, on the face of it, the Bill refers to only three, whether or not they were committed on one or more than one occasion. Does not the Minister think that that point is of sufficient importance to justify the passing of the amendment now before the House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to offend the rules of procedure, but the answer is no.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for confirming in his speech what I have always understood to be the meaning of the word "persistent". He referred to someone having offended "over and over again". I believe that that is what we all understand by the word "persistent". However, the problem is that the Bill does not provide for it. That is not just my view. After all, the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place in its report Juvenile Offenders published last year was, in a sense, the origin of the legislation now before us. Paragraph 152 of the report says:
"If Parliament approves the concept of secure training orders, we recommend that more suitable criteria would be that (a) the juvenile has been convicted of three offences committed on separate occasions, (b) the offences are each serious enough to justify a custodial sentence, and (c) he or she has been found by a court to have breached the conditions of a supervision order or of bail on more than one occasion".
The Minister has not denied that the Bill as drafted allows for the possibility of the imprisonable offences being committed on a single occasion and coming before the court at one time. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said about severing hearings when they are genuinely separate offences. However, a single break-in could involve three offences. Moreover—leaving aside break-ins—a single offence of joyriding, for example, could involve three offences, each of which could be imprisonable and they could be dealt with on one occasion.
The Minister has sought to defend the wording by reminding the House quite correctly that there is a further condition in Clause 1(5) (c) that the offender,

1185
"has been found by a court to be in breach of a supervision order".
That is true. But a supervision order can be awarded for something that is not an imprisonable offence. The understanding that we have is that the secure training orders (which are the equivalent of prison for children) are to be for imposed for imprisonable offences.
Therefore, we are left with the fact that the Bill provides that if a child who has committed an offence for which he has been put under a supervision order then breaches that order and appears before a court on one occasion for three or more imprisonable offences, he can be given a secure training order. That is not a case of persistent offending; it is not a case of offending over and over again. I appeal to the Minister to put the very excellent words which he and others have expressed onto the face of the Bill by accepting this amendment. If he will not do so, I shall ask the House to accept the amendment.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Greenway, L.

Addington, L.

Gregson, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ardwick, L.

Harnwee, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hardinge, V.

Attlee, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Avebury, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller]

Barnett, L.

Healey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Henniker, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Howell, L.

Brain, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brightman, L.

Hughes, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jay, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Chester, Bp.

Kagan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Listowel, E.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Longford, E.

Desai, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eatwell, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Faithfull, B.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Foot, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Mulley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

1186

Redesdale, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Richard, L.

Tenby, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Thurlow, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Varley, L.

Serota, B.

Weatherill, L.

Shannon, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Whaddon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

White, B.

Simon, V.

Wigoder, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stedman, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Strafford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Holderness, L.

Ailsa, M.

HolmPatrick, L.

Aldenham, L.

Howe, E.

Aldington, L.

Huntly, M.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Annaly, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kenyon, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Leigh, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bauer, L.

Liverpool, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Burnham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Nelson, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Norrie, L.

Chesham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Northesk, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Orkney, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Courtown, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V.

Peel, E.

Crathorne, L.

Pender, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Prentice, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Reay, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rees, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Downshire, M.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elibank, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elphinstone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Flather, B.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L

Gainsborough, E.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Goschen, V.

[Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Torrington, V.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

1187

Tugendhat, L.

Wise, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.8 p.m.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("section") to end of line 14 and insert ("shall have effect, as from the day appointed for each of the following paragraphs, with the substitution in subsections (1) and (5)—

(a) of "14" for "12";

(b) of "13" for "14";

(c) of "12" for "13";

but no substitution may be brought into force on more than one occasion.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment to subsection (10) of Clause 1 which allows the progressive implementation of secure training orders for 14 year-olds, 13 year-olds and 12 year-olds. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Secure training orders: supplementary provisions as to detention]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 20, after ("place") insert ("other than to police detention").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment on which I need take only a moment or two. We are concerned about the possibility of children finding themselves in detention in police cells. We believe that that is wrong and bad in principle. Hence the amendment.
I speak entirely for myself, not having had a chance to speak to my colleagues about the matter, but I could be persuaded that there may be particular circumstances when, in an emergency, a child may have to be held in police cells for a few hours. I am reluctant to accept that, but I would not press the matter too far if the Minister were to offer some safeguard against a child being kept in a police cell, except in an extreme emergency, for a very short time, measured in hours rather than longer.
I say no more for the moment. I simply stress how seriously we take the possibility of children between the ages of 12 and 14 being held in police cells at all. That is the point I want to underline. It is something that must be prevented from happening: it can be permitted only in an extreme emergency for a very short time. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is not intending to press the amendment, he will require from the noble Earl the clearest possible guarantees in the most unambiguous language. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, will recall, it was thought to be unlawful before 1981 to hold anyone in a police cell who was in the type of situation we are discussing in connection with the amendment. In 1981, as a result of an industrial relations crisis in the prison system, a temporary provisions Bill was introduced. The only part of that Bill retained permanently on the statute book was the power for the police to hold Home Office
1188
prisoners. As we know, in Merseyside and Greater Manchester significant numbers of people are still held in police cells.
The issue put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is this: would it not be entirely unacceptable to have 12 year-old children held in police custody in a situation in which some adults have been held in police custody? In my view it would be intolerable for that to happen.
Of course an emergency can arise. However, I should have thought that there were many other places where children could be sent other than a police cell. The idea that the police have the capacity to look after 12 year-olds in police custody is absurd. They do not have the capacity. They have tried manfully, but with an increasing degree of resentment, to accept Home Office prisoners. Were they now to find that 12 and 13 year-old children could be placed in police cells because the centres could not hold them, I believe that they would resist that possibility with the utmost strength at their disposal.
I believe that there are two possible answers if an emergency arose. Other accommodation should be used. It is very difficult to imagine what the emergency could be. However, let us assume that such a situation arises. It will not be enough for the noble Earl merely to say that it is inconceivable that that will happen. One of the issues which a number of us raised following publication of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was whether the Government would accept the Woolf recommendation on this issue. The Government did not accept the recommendation in terms of what should follow if people were to be held in police custody.
If the noble Lord, Lord Carr, decides not to press the amendment I hope that the noble Earl will say in the most explicit terms, first, what would happen in situations of this kind and, secondly, whether Parliament would be consulted in the way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, suggested it should be consulted or notified were police accommodation to be used. I specifically ask the noble Earl whether, if the noble Lord, Lord Carr, does not press the amendment, at Third Reading he will accept an amendment to this part of the Bill which would provide the safeguards as set out in the Woolf Report on the prison disturbances.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, having visited a number of police cells when they were in frequent and intensive use for prisoners earlier, I am convinced that they are not suitable for that use for adults and even less suitable for children. I recognise that if a court makes a secure training order and there is no suitable place for the child to go a dilemma presents itself. However, before it makes such an order the court is surely under a duty to satisfy itself whether accommodation is available.
Adult prisoners were frequently sent to police cells either because the prisons were full or because the Prison Officers' Association laid down rules as to when prisoners could be accepted and those rules did not coincide with the times when the courts wanted prisoners to be delivered to prisons. That was a temporary difficulty.

1189
However, your Lordships will see that Clause 2(2) (a) provides the power for a court to commit the offender to a place such as the Secretary of State may direct other than an STC for a period not exceeding 28 days. Under extreme circumstances that may be acceptable for adult prisoners, but I do not think that any of us would wish to give the courts the power to sentence a child to a month in a police cell which does not even have any of the primitive facilities of our oldest prisons. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something both about the great duress which the system would have to be under before recourse to such action and also about limiting the period of a month. That would be too long to send a child of prep school age for incarceration. My noble friend and I hope to be given those assurances in a solid and convincing form if we are to let the matter rest.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment was moved with great moderation. I can imagine that there are individual policemen and policewomen in police stations who would act very kindly towards a child put into a police cell. There would hardly be brutality from the police in those circumstances. However, one must think about the other people who would be in those police cells—the drunks, the drug addicts and people of that sort who would be in adjoining cells. The thought is appalling. I support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if one really believes that a child should not be put in a police cell, other ways can be found of dealing with the situation. In my authority three policewomen, the wives of policemen, agreed to take a child in an emergency rather than the child being put into a police cell. In that way, except on one occasion, we always avoided a child going into a police cell.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can well understand your Lordships' concern that children should not be subjected to being in police cells. My noble friend Lord Elton said, I thought rather extravagantly, that Parliament must not send a child to a police cell for a month. Of course there is no question of that being the intention underlying the Bill. The clause allows a court to commit an offender to alternative accommodation. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that she knows of plenty of places where there is alternative accommoda-tion. She is quite right; there is alternative accommodation. However, the Bill allows the Home Secretary either to direct where that alternative accommodation shall be or to contract with suitable providers for such accommodation. That would be, for example, local authorities, child care organisations or providers of children's homes which are registered under the Children Act 1989. There are many alternatives.
We certainly would not envisage police cells being appropriate accommodation. Of course they are not appropriate accommodation for children. It is not our intention that police cells should be used. I stated in Committee—I repeat it—that I would be reluctant to prevent by statute those places from ever being used.
1190
For them ever to be used there would have to be some highly exceptional circumstances in which there would be no choice but to make such placements on a temporary basis. For example, there might be a fire, or some other emergency which puts large numbers of places in secure training centres out of commission. Some foul disease might have broken out in secure accommodation so that those resident there would have to be placed elsewhere.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has other alternative accommodation. But in such a situation it might be necessary to hold youngsters on an emergency basis in police stations. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not want to put them in police cells. The police do not want that People who care about children do not want that. Your Lordships do not want it either.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether Parliament would be consulted. I am bound to say that I think that that would be going too far. Where there is an emergency, action has to be taken and taken forthwith. I can only repeat to your Lordships the assurance that I gave in Committee that police cells would be used only in emergencies such as I have described. In those unusual circumstances I can also assure noble Lords that the Home Office would work closely with the police to ensure that the conditions in which the youngsters were held, if they are to be held there, were as suitable as possible, and that the time during which they were held there would be as short as possible.
I can only repeat to your Lordships that those would be total emergencies and that it is not our intention that police cells should be used other than in those cases.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat, perhaps I may ask him one question. As he will recall, I specifically put to him the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, regarding what should be done if people had to be kept in police cells. As I pointed out, the Government did not accept that recommendation.
Between now and Third Reading will the Minister consider whether the procedure suggested by the noble and learned Lord could be adopted? If so, it would put the minds of many of us at rest, including, I suspect, that of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. He asked the question and I failed to reply to it. I shall consider the matter and get in touch with him before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, this is a serious matter. I am prepared not to ask the House to go further on this occasion. However, we must have some more specific assurance at Third Reading. Of course, I accept his word. But these matters drift. In a few years from now, with different Ministers, different officials, and different policemen in office, matters could go wrong. At Third Reading we must return to the issue.
I understand that there can be some great emergency. However, I cannot believe that the emergency can be so great, in particular considering the small number of

1191
people who fall into the category to which we refer, that it could last more than an hour or two at most. I shall wish to return to the matter at Third Reading, but I do not press the matter further at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
( "Removal of young offender from previous influences
.—(1) Upon application from any of the persons listed in subsection (2) of this section the court may at any time (luring the currency of the sentence make an order requiring the relevant local authority to take the young offender into care and to provide for him to become resident and to be fostered or otherwise cared for after completion of detention at a place sufficiently remote from his previous place of residence to remove him from the influence of those who may have influenced him to offend.
(2) Persons who may make application to the court under this clause are—

(a) the young offender or a person representing him;

(b) any parent or legal guardian of the young offender;

(c) the secure training centre to which the young offender is committed; and

(d) the relevant local authority or probation service in whose area the young offender has been living during the year immediately prior to the offence.

(3) Before making an order under this section the court shall give an opportunity for any of the persons listed in subsection (2) of this section to make representations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is another attempt to break the mould by which in the past persistent young offenders who have been sentenced to detention have quickly re-offended. The argument is —I believe it to be true of some young offenders—that the worst thing one can do having rehabilitated them and convinced them to change their ways is to plunge them back into the same environment in which they lived before they were sentenced. There are many different reasons why the environment may be unsuitable. The environment of the family may be unsuitable, or the peer group, the street gang, to which the child belongs.
I became conscious of the problem in the context of the family environment about two years ago. I found myself sitting on a log beside a camp fire trying to persuade a little girl of 12 not to steal chocolate biscuits from her friends. From the conversation it emerged that her father was at that time serving a sentence for burglary and that the family lived effectively by shoplifting. I found the task too much for me; the odds were stacked against me. In a family like that, it may well be appropriate to find some other solution for the young lady concerned.
Similarly, I do not envisage a young man, having spent his time in a secure training unit, going back onto the streets, meeting his mates and saying, "Sorry lads, I'm going straight now. I shan't be able to join you on any of the jobs like those we used to do together". That would take tremendous moral courage. I do not believe that many of your Lordships would have such moral courage; I am quite sure that I would not.
I apologise for the wording of the amendment; it may well be subject to criticism. I hope that noble Lords will not waste too much time tearing the wording of the amendment to pieces; it is the spirit of the amendment that I draw to your Lordships' attention. I suggest that the court ought to be given power to say, "This young
1192
person should be settled away from home for a while in a new environment where he can make new friends, go to a new school and join a new group". If those young persons go back into their old environment not only would they have to have the courage to turn away from their old group of friends but, having themselves been the tearaways, the good guys would not speak to them either. Apart from anything else, in their old environment those young persons will not have any friends and that will push them back into the old bad lot.
Those young people could go, say, 50 miles away. I suggest that that can be achieved in many ways. They can be put into a good fostering environment. They can be sent to excellent institutions such as the Caldicot community. Under certain circumstances they could be put into local authority care. I do not believe that the proposal would weaken the Bill.
The argument may be adduced: why do we not leave it to the local authorities to do it? The answer is funding. It is quite expensive for a local authority to place a young person outside the authority's area. I believe that it must be required to do so and possibly funded to do so, otherwise it will not happen. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, speaks from valuable experience in helping voluntary societies in East Kent who have tried to help delinquent young people. He has put forward a suggestion which breaks new ground and I find it rather interesting. The position is this. It anticipates a situation in which persistent young offenders have completed their secure training or are about to do so. They have become reformed characters. However, there is a risk that all the good that was done by their training might be undone by their returning home to a criminal background. That is one possibility. Alternatively, the young people may have suffered in the past from an unhappy home in which they had been maltreated or neglected. It would be depressing to contemplate that kind of situation.
I do not say that the precise proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would necessarily be acceptable. A great deal would depend upon when the court was asked to make an order. But the noble Lord is right in assuming that it would need to be made before the end of the sentence of secure training so that there is no gap during which harm could come to the offender. In those interesting and unusual circumstances all I suggest at this stage is that my noble friend Lord Ferrers might give the proposal what I would call, "without commitment, sympathetic consideration".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the thinking which underlies Amendment No. 10, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the concern to try to ensure that the youngsters who leave the secure training centres do not fall back into their old ways. However, I do not believe that the mechanism which is proposed by the amendment is either desirable or necessary. Perhaps I could explain my reasons for that.

1193
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would allow various parties to apply to the court during the time when the secure training order is in effect, whether that is when the child is in custody or when he is back in the community. They will make an application for another order which would require the local authority to care for the juvenile after his release from the secure training centre. That would be done at a place which is sufficiently far from his home to avoid the bad influences which may have contributed to his offending, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said.
There are two substantial difficulties which we find with this approach. The first is that the youngster would already have been made subject to a secure training order. He will have served the first half of his sentence in a secure centre and he will serve the second half under supervision. If a further order were made it might appear to the offender that he was being punished twice for the same offence. I quite see that the order which is proposed by the amendment is not intended to be punitive and that it is intended to help in his rehabilitation. But the young offender may not see it in that way and he may not recognise the distinction, particularly as there is no time limit set on the duration of the new order. It could at least in theory go on for a long time after the secure training order itself has come to an end.
The second problem is that the new order might well cut across the requirements of the secure training order. An essential component of the secure training order is the high quality supervision which will take place in the community and which will be undertaken by one of three types of agency: the social services department, the probation service or any other agency which may be designated by the Home Secretary. I can foresee serious difficulties in carrying out the supervision according to the national standards if the juvenile, when he goes back into the community, is moved a great distance from his home. Indeed, one of the chief purposes of supervision is in order to re-integrate the youngster back into his community with his family, his school, his training and his work opportunities. It is, among other things, to equip him with the skills which are needed to resist the influence of bad company in the future. The order which is envisaged by this amendment would go in the opposite direction by taking him away from all that he knows.
I hope that I can relieve the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, of some of his anxieties by telling him this. There will, of course, be situations—and I recognise that—in which it is entirely inappropriate that an offender under supervision should live at a particular place. There are two ways in which that situation could be met under the existing legislation.
First, we intend that the notice of supervision for those who are subject to a secure training order might include a requirement that an offender should reside at a particular address or should refrain from residing at a particular address. Failure to comply with that kind of requirement could lead to breach of proceedings being brought and the person concerned being returned to the secure training centre.
1194
The second point is that the local authorities have a continuing duty to safeguard and to promote the welfare of children who live in their area. Those duties apply to all children and where a youngster meets the criteria in the Children Act 1989 there is nothing to prevent the local authority from making an application in the family proceedings court for a care or supervision order. Under such an order, the welfare of the youngster must be the paramount consideration. In determining how to care for such a child the extent of bad influences in his environment is bound to play a part, but only a part, in the considerations. There will be other considerations too and the Children Act offers the best framework within which they can be weighed up.
It is for that reason that the Government feel that the existing arrangements for juveniles are sufficient to meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I hope that I have been able to allay his anxieties.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I realise that I forgot to tell noble Lords the sequel to the story of the young lady and the chocolate biscuits. About six months later, when she had attempted to stab one of her teachers with a pair of scissors, she was dragged away screaming: "Let me go. I'm going to be adopted by Lord Northbourne"! So perhaps I got through to some extent anyway.
Turning to the noble Earl's helpful reply, I shall not press the amendment. I know of three cases of young people from Tower Hamlets who said: "We can't get out of this situation until we move away from Tower Hamlets". They "put their money where their mouths are" and when they became 18 and were independent they moved away from Tower Hamlets and are now living in the Medway towns.
Thus there is room for the thought—and that is why I put in "the young offender" as one of those who could apply for the arrangement—that some young people would like to get away from the pressures that they are under in their home towns. Having said that, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Supervision under secure training order]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 18, after ("person") insert ("possessing a certificate of qualification in social work").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is a probing amendment at this stage as I seek information. Where a child goes to a local authority secure place it is in the child's own area. It is likely that for a one-year order the child would spend six months in the unit and six months being supervised in the community. If the child is locally based it is very likely that a probation officer or a social worker of the local authority would be the person to offer supervision or be asked to supervise the child. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister can help me on one point. Will the person supervising a child who comes out of the training centre, which will probably be a long way from where the child lives, know the child and be a qualified social worker?
I believe that supervision in the community after a child has been in a secure training unit should be undertaken by a qualified social worker. Social workers have to work with other colleagues in education, health, social services, the youth training schemes and social security to find accommodation and so on. Social workers have to know where to seek help. Should a child break down, they have to know which psychiatrist or organisation can best help the child. With reference to the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, if a child specifically does not want to return to its area, the social worker should be able to assess whether or not the child should return.
I consider that anyone undertaking supervision of a child during the second part of the child's sentence, when he or she is in the community, should be a qualified social worker who knows the area where the child lives, knows all the facilities, knows the law and knows how that child is to settle down. They must also know how to help the parents with the child. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I assume that we are pushing at a half open door in this debate, which I expected would be replied to by the noble and learned Lord but which in fact will be answered by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In that case, I shall have to explain the background in a little more detail.
We debated this issue in Committee. I should like to quote what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said on that occasion. It is on the precise issue raised in this amendment. He said that,
"that amount of flexibility—to use the controversial word — would allow the Secretary of State to appoint someone who did not fall within one of those categories but who nonetheless had, for example, what the noble Baroness speaks of: the necessary training and skills. One might think of someone who might, for example, have been employed formerly by the social services department or the probation service but who may have left temporarily because, for example, she had had a baby, but who nonetheless had all the skills necessary to provide the required supervision. In such a case the Secretary of State might well designate such a person".
I intervened and asked the noble and learned Lord:
"Is it a fact that the noble and learned Lord would be happy to accept an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to appoint only someone who has a recognised social work or other qualification?".
The noble and learned Lord replied:
"It would depend on what the amendment said, but if the spirit of what I have said could be captured in an amendment then obviously the Government would examine that amendment".— [Official Report, 16/5/94; col. 71.]
This is therefore the central question. The noble and learned Lord having said that on the last occasion, what will the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, say on this occasion? I hope very much that he will accept the amendment. Although it was described by the noble Baroness as a probing amendment, it seems to me to give the Government an opportunity to accept and to put on the face of the statute precisely the approach which the noble and learned Lord said on the last occasion was entirely consistent with what the Government were trying to achieve.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is on the amendment and I should like to support it. I was rather sorry that the noble Baroness called it a probing amendment. I thought that, following upon what the noble and learned Lord said previously, the amendment would be accepted. I still hope that it will be accepted. If so, I should have thought that the noble Earl would already have jumped up, saying that we need not spend more time on it and he would accept it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the Minister said that these young people have proved that they should be locked up. They will have proved that they are very difficult young people indeed, having difficult problems to overcome. Would it not therefore be wise to ensure that the people who will be in charge of their after-care should be trained in the profession of probation officer or social worker? I ask the Minister to tell us who will supervise these very difficult young people, who may come from problem homes in which child abuse, alcohol abuse and marital problems abound, if it is not a probation officer or social worker? Who will it be?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that this is a probing amendment, even though the noble Baroness, Lady David, would have preferred otherwise. I was rather taken aback when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he assumed that he was pushing at a half open door. He also thought that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate would reply to the debate and looked rather surprised to find that it would be me. I was not quite certain whether that meant that the door was fully open or fully closed. He went on to say that as it was I and not my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate who would be replying, he would have to explain in more detail. I do not know whether that was a reference to my intellectual capacity. If so, I quite understand and I do not bear a grudge against him for that.
The amendment would place a restriction on whom the Secretary of State may appoint as a post-release supervisor for a juvenile who is given a secure training order. Under the amendment he would only be able to appoint a person who possesses a certificate of qualification in social work. We discussed the matter in Committee on an amendment tabled by noble friend Lady Faithfull. There were a number of requests from the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Wigoder, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend for an amendment to the clause addressing the point. We considered the matter very carefully but have concluded that it would not be right for a number of reasons.
A restriction such as that proposed would exclude from providing supervision under the new secure training order many people who at present provide supervision in the community and who are not required to have the specified qualification but who in fact provide supervision under existing arrangements.
The purpose of subsection (2) as drafted is to allow the Secretary of State to appoint the most suitable person as the post-release supervisor, whether that

1197
person is a social worker of a local authority, a probation officer, a member of a voluntary body, or possibly a member of staff from the secure training centre. Those are all the people who could be appointed. That was the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
The assessment of who or what agency should provide the post-release supervision will be made on an individual basis for each trainee. As drafted, the subsection therefore gives the greatest flexibility. In many cases the chosen supervisor's qualification may be the certificate of qualification in social work. But the Government do not believe that that is the only suitable qualification. And we would not want to be restricted to that alone. However, I should like to assure your Lordships that the person appointed as a trainee's supervisor will be required to be suitably qualified and properly experienced. The supervision process will start during the secure part of the sentence and the supervisor will therefore know the child by the time the second part of the sentence begins, where that is undertaken in the community.
Subsections (9) and (10) provide for the making of rules governing supervision and the incorporation in these Rules of National Standards. They will ensure that the supervision of juveniles who are given secure training orders meets the required standard. The possession of a certificate in social work alone cannot do that.
It is for that reason that we believe it would be a pity to inhibit the spectrum from which people can be drawn, which would be the effect of the amendment. I hope therefore that my noble friend can understand the reasons why we consider the Bill to be best as it is, and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I said that it was a probing amendment because I feared that the answer I would receive would be the answer he gave. I am worried because, first, the Bill does not state what training a supervisor will have as a member of staff of the secure training unit. We do not yet know what training the staff of the secure training units will receive. I sometimes wonder how all those fully qualified staff will be found.
Secondly, can my noble friend say what other qualifications he considers suitable? He may say that the person should be an ex-teacher, an ex-doctor or an ex-psychiatrist. But I suspect that none of those kinds of people will be on the staff of the secure training unit. He said that it is probable and likely that a member of staff who had supervised a child inside the unit would supervise the child in the community. However, even if the supervisor were highly qualified, he may not know what facilities are available in the area where the child lives. I am therefore unhappy with my noble friend's reply, but I do not at this stage intend to divide the House. I shall give consideration to the matter and ask whether I can see my noble friend to discuss the situation before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Management of secure training centres]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) Rules made under this subsection shall ensure that—

(a) each offender in a secure training centre shall receive no less than 25 hours per week of education or vocational training; and

(b) each offender aged under 16 in a secure training centre shall receive a curriculum which—

(i) is appropriate to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs which he may have;

(ii) as far as possible satisfies the requirements of the National Curriculum; and

(iii) is determined, where appropriate, in consultation with persons involved in the offender's previous education and in the school which the offender will attend on his release." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause (5 deals with the conditions in secure training centres in a variety of respects. In Committee I drew your Lordships' attention to the important nature of the provisions that would apply, because the bill of sale offered to us for the STC implies that it will be such a specialist and effective treatment that the children will have a better chance of becoming proper and well-conducted citizens after attending than they would if they went elsewhere. However, in debate it transpired that children in a secure training centre, although of school age, would not be subject to the education Acts and therefore there would be no requirements for the child to be educated.
It seemed to me that, although the units are called "secure training centres", education rather than training must be at the core of rehabilitative and corrective programmes. I therefore tabled Amendment No. 12 which will import into the Bill the various bones of what would be required to ensure that such an education was given even though the children, and indeed the centres, were not subject to the education Acts.
Since then my noble and learned friend has been kind enough to have sent to me an administrative paper providing the proposed rules for secure training centres, a copy of which is in the Library. On page 3 1 was happy to find most of my amendment incorporated in the text of the draft rules; that is to say, a reference to the trainee receiving a curriculum appropriate to his age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs he may have. That is welcome. As far as possible the centre must satisfy the requirements of the national curriculum, and that too is welcome.
While I pause warmly to welcome those factors, perhaps my noble and learned friend will go a little further in two respects. The first is that, in consulting on the draft rules—I take it that that is his intention and perhaps he will confirm it—he will consider importing the third leg of my proposals; that is to say, that in devising the curriculum for the incarcerated pupil the authority shall, as far as possible, consult with those who have been responsible for the child's education hitherto and with those who will be responsible for the child's education when he is returned, as he must be at the end of his sentence, into the community.
That seems to me to make sense and to be extremely important. If a child is taken out of education completely and given some other curriculum or treatment, and then is put back in, he is virtually

1199
condemned to re-offending, making a totally frustrated and bewildered pupil. The object of the education in the STC must be not only corrective as to his social behaviour, but also progressive as to his educational behaviour. The object of the staff must be not only to secure better behaviour from him, period; it must be also to render him in a condition where he can take up his educational progress again with minimum difficulty. He will not be disposed to overcome that difficulty himself and must be taught how to do it.
I hope therefore that my noble and learned friend will say that that aspect also will be taken into consideration, and indeed that consideration will be given to the objects of the educational process in the STCs being described in the rules so that those responsible for it understand that their job is to try and create a pupil who is acceptable into school in his home area.
My other question, of which I gave my noble and learned friend minimal notice, is whether he will kindly remind your Lordships under what parliamentary process the rules will become—as I understand they will do—subordinate legislation. That will determine the extent to which we shall be able to influence them later. If it is a small influence, then we shall obviously have to try to influence them early. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. A number of us felt extremely anxious about what education will be provided; whether it will be by qualified people and whether it will be adapted to the young people attending. I obtained from the Library this morning part of the specifications for the training centre. The document is called, Schedule: Staff Selection, Training, Qualifications and Certification. It did not totally convince me that everything would be all right. In paragraph 8 it says,
"In addition to the considerations listed above the Service Provider should note that teaching staff will normally be expected to have qualified teacher status. Expertise in the management of youngsters with special educational needs and prior professional training in handling difficult or aggressive behaviour would be an advantage. Consideration should also be given to the appropriate skills and experience required for the development and delivery of a suitable curriculum."
That is not totally convincing. I should like to hear a little more about what is intended. I know that Ofsted is to examine the education provided in these establish-ments. But we need a little more convincing that the right thing will be done, and I should very much like to hear what the Minister has to say.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, when she started quoting I had assumed that she was quoting from the document that I have before me and which I have already described. She seems to be quoting from something else. Will she kindly tell the House what it is and will the Minister say how they both relate to each other?
Baroness David: My Lords, when I asked for the specifications from the Library it gave me various documents. The one from which I quoted was called Schedule: Staff Selection, Training, Qualifications and
1200
Certification. I can assure the noble Lord that the Library has it. We are told that consideration must be given and so on, but there is no real confirmation that that will happen.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, education for these difficult children is vital. Many of them will not have done well at school. Many will have truanted. They are children of school age. They should be in a secure school environment, not a prison environment. Education can give them hope—perhaps the only hope for a life of going straight.
Prison can mean despair, giving these difficult children a passport to a life of crime. I hope the House will recommend that education is so important that it is unwise not to write it on the face of the Bill.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, when the matter arose in Committee there was on all sides a recognition that education is important. Initially there was some surprise that there was not more reference to it on the face of the Bill. As I explained then, the mechanism under Clause 6 of the Bill is for rules to be made under the Prison Act 1952 by amendment of Section 47 of that Act. The rules will become like other rules made for prisons and other institutions under Section 47. The rules accordingly will be subject to the procedure for rules provided by the Prison Act 1952. I can tell my noble friend Lord Elton that that is the negative resolution procedure.
The documents placed in the Library of the House are two in number. First, there is the administrative paper outlining the proposed rules for secure training centres. The paper is intended to be made available to those who are thinking of tendering so that they can see what the rules are likely to provide. It is not an absolutely final form but nonetheless one has in it a very clear indication. It is an indication of what will be put into secondary legislation. That in its turn is supplemented by the operational specification which noble Lords will have seen. It will be made available to those who are intending to tender so that they should see what is required of them if they propose to offer to run one of these centres. To get the flavour one has to read both sets of documents together.
My noble friend Lord Elton drew attention to the fact that on page 4 of the administrative paper outlining the proposed rules one finds reference to at least two of the matters which are specifically referred to by him in his amendment; namely, in sub-paragraph (i) the need for a curriculum which is appropriate to age, ability and aptitude, and in sub-paragraph (ii) the need for a curriculum which as far as possible satisfies the requirements of the national curriculum. My noble friend drew attention, however, to the fact that what is set out in sub-paragraph (iii) of the amendment does not as such appear in the draft of the rules. That is intentional because it is recognised that it will not always be possible for consultation, and so on, in every case to be exactly in the form which might be envisaged by my noble friend's amendment. As he himself will recognise, there will be cases where unfortunately these children have had very little contact with an education

1201
system in the past and therefore contacting people who were involved in previous education may not be appropriate in a number of cases.
Although it cannot be made for that reason a rigid part of rules and therefore does not appear in the proposal for the rules, nonetheless your Lordships will see from the operational specification that it is envisaged that in connection with education and vocational training there will be contact with the previous person involved in education. One finds at the bottom of page 19 and at the top of page 20 of the operational specification:
"In deciding what are the appropriate requirements for education and training the service provider must quickly acquire details of a trainee's education records to date. The service provider should state how he proposes to gather such information".
That would be one of the contractual duties. Your Lordships will see that it involves finding out what the details have been of the education to date.
Your Lordships will also see in what is described as "What is to be done in planning the component"—in (ii) on page 20—that trainees who are of school age on release will return to the education system. Attempts should be made to ensure that they continue their education in the light of the national curriculum and that examination course work is maintained or initiated through close contacts with trainees' schools so that they are not unnecessarily disadvantaged by their period in security. The matter in (iv) on page 21—the idea that they should have regard to the national curriculum and so on—is there specifically because what is to be done is framed against the consideration that their peers are learning within the national curriculum to which they will be likely to have to return.
Your Lordships will also see that the specification provides in paragraph 7, on page 23, for the service provider to state how many staff he will employ or contract for education and/or vocational training, what qualifications and/or levels of experience of the relevant age group they will require and how they will be deployed in such areas as time-tabling of subjects, staff/trainee ratios and what other duties they might undertake. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has the advantage of me with regard to the particular document from which she quoted as I could not immediately trace it in the papers which I have before me. Perhaps she will allow me to write to her in connection with the matter which she raised.
I hope that noble Lords will see that partly through the use of secondary legislation, but where that is felt not to be appropriate because it would not be proper to provide absolutely for duties on the face of legislation, nonetheless in those cases, through the operation of the contractual duties, we have built up a regime which should provide for this very important educational component of training for these young people. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for that detailed reply, which I shall read with great care. I shall possibly return to the matter. My difficulty is that while at the outset I was very much
1202
attracted by what I saw in the draft rules and in particular the 25 hours for classroom teaching, and so on, there is a certain amount missing. I thought that that certain amount should be in the statute. I thought that it was the statute which was supposed to drive the system and that Parliament said what should be in commercial documents.
As I listened to my noble and learned friend I wondered whether he was getting the commercial horse in front of the legislative cart. It sounded to me as though he was saying, "This is laid down in a commercial document, so we need not have it in the statute". The commercial document on which the contract is let is valid for the period of the contract. It is subject to variation by agreement between both parties. I do not suggest that the whole detail of this should be imported into legislation, but it ought to show the minimum criteria which should be in the commercial document. It need not be on the face of the Bill; it can be in the subordinate legislation which, I am sorry to hear, is to be introduced by the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. That is a subject on which we have all become well-versed lately. I therefore give notice to my noble and learned friend that I shall be looking with great care at what he has said in the light of the two documents to which he referred, with the possibility of returning to this matter at a later stage in order to knock this other nail into the framework. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Contracting out of secure training centres.]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) Where the Secretary of State grants a lease or tenancy of land for the purposes of any contract under this section, none of the following enactments shall apply to it, namely—

(a) Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (security of tenure);

(b) section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (restrictions on and relief against forfeiture); and

(c) section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (covenants not to assign etc.).

In this subsection "lease or tenancy" includes an underlease or sub-tenancy.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment enables the Secretary of State to lease land to a contractor for the purpose of building and operating a secure training centre, without losing the ability to reclaim possession of the land. This is achieved by disapplying the protection which is normally afforded to tenants by legislation.
This will enable the Home Office to regain control of the land (and the centre on it) on termination of the contract for the secure training centre, and so avoid the need to enter into potentially protracted litigation for repossession. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will go a little further. I refer to paragraph (c) of the amendment which states,
"section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (covenants not to assign etc.)".
I do not understand how it is necessary to set aside the power to make a covenant if it is not intended to use it.

1203
I may have misunderstood what my noble friend was saying, but if he can enlighten me on that I shall be most grateful.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall do my best, but I will not guarantee success. Where a centre is to be built it may be built on land which will be leased to the company concerned for a period of about 15 years. If it were to transpire that the company did not carry out its responsibilities properly, it may be necessary to terminate the contract. By doing so, the centre would revert to the ownership of the Home Office through the payment of a sum of money. It would be wrong for that to happen with the contractor owning the lease of the land or, in the case of paragraph (c), it would be wrong for him to have sublet it to somebody else so the Government could not get back into their possession the land on which the building was erected and for which the contractor would have been paid in the event of the arrangements for the centre coming to a conclusion. I hope that I have explained that adequately to my noble friend. I shall read what he has said in the quietness after this debate. If I have misdirected him, I shall get in touch with him.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say exactly where are the secure training units to be built? We have heard that they are to be built in prison grounds. Does that mean that some will be, and others will not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are in danger of becoming out of order. I do not wish to prevent my noble friend from asking a question, but I believe the convention is that once the Minister has spoken, speeches as such do not continue. The answer to my noble friend's question is that it is anticipated that these buildings will be built on Home Office land.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Powers and duties of custody officers employed at contracted out secure training centres.]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 7, line 43, at end insert:
("() When exercising the powers conferred by subsection (2) above the custody officer shall have regard to items of clothing worn in respect of religious beliefs.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I had an amendment similar to this one. My noble friend the Minister said that he would consider including this requirement in Home Office guidance covering the undertaking of searches by custody officers in secure training centres.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for writing to tell me that he has done that, and for telling me that the relevant guidance that I require will be included. I had already tabled my amendment before I received the letter, but I thought that I would move it in order that my noble friend might be able to tell the House, and therefore have a record, of what he told me in the letter. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as we are discussing clothing, what will be the clothing worn by the staff at the secure training centres? Will it be prison uniform or ordinary clothing? It makes a difference to children in a school environment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as these are not prisons, staff will not be in prison uniforms. I should like to consider whether there should be some form of uniform used. Perhaps I may get in touch with her about that.
As regards the amendment, the need to have regard to items of clothing which are worn in respect of religious beliefs is acknowledged; but, as I stated at Committee, I do not think that it would be right to deal with this sort of thing in primary legislation.
But I can assure my noble friend Lord Mottistone that this matter will be addressed in the guidance which will be issued to secure training centres by the Home Office in respect of the undertaking of searches.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend both for his letter and for his remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Mandatory pre-sentence reports for under 18 year olds
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a court shall obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming any such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section 1 or 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in the case of an offender under the age of 18 years.
(2) Where the offence or any other offence associated with it is triable only on indictment, subsection (1) above does not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 179 and 182. The anxieties lying behind these amendments were clearly and admirably expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, during the Committee stage of the Bill. At the time I felt that the Minister, though unyielding in the end, as is his wont, was not entirely unsympathetic to the compelling case made. I hope that in the intervening period he and his right honourable friend in another place may have moved to a more conciliatory position. We shall wait in pious and earnest hope. At the time it was clear that there was a substantial body of opinion within the House which had reservations about the concept that a request for a pre-sentence report should no longer be mandatory—those anxieties being heightened in the case of juveniles.
The objective behind the Government's proposal is clearly financial. Fewer reports mean a reduction in the demands on the probation service which has to prepare them. But is the game going to be worth the candle? Is the saving going to be worth the real danger to the effective—I stress the word "effective"—disposal of cases? The Government have already said that this change to one of the cornerstones of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is necessary to alleviate the problem, which was not foreseen at the time, that the increased workload of the probation service would lead to greater delays in the preparation of reports and therefore in disposals. But it would scarcely have taken an Einstein to foresee such

1205
an outcome, especially since five pilot schemes in certain probation areas were put in hand at the time. As a result, ways have been found of simplifying and standardising reports. Although there is still much to be done in reducing the delay between a request from a court and delivery of the report, there are distinct signs that we are getting there. So this is hardly the time to run up a white flag, one might think.
As the Minister may say—and if the noble Earl does not say this others already have—this provision does not mean that pre-sentence reports cannot be requested where custody or a community sentence is a possible outcome; only that they do not have to be requested. We understand that. However, I think it very likely that most magistrates will ask for a pre-sentence report and that, accordingly, the saving to the public purse will be minuscule. The point is that the dangers far outweigh any possible savings. It may be that in only a handful of suitable cases would an up-to-the-minute pre-sentence report not be requested, but even if it were to be only one case, that would be one too many.
No one is arguing for a "sky's the limit" policy. If someone from an adult court is already enjoying a stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure we can all agree that to request a pre-sentence report in respect of a later offence would be an unnecessary extravagance. Noble Lords will note that in an effort to reach some sort of accommodation with the Government—to show good faith, as it were—the amendments now suggest that pre-sentence reports should be mandatory only for 18 year-olds and under.
Perhaps I may make another point clear. In case anyone should mistakenly think that this apparent solicitation towards offenders is another manifestation of the bleeding hearts' club—or the sticking plaster industry, as it is sometimes disparagingly described— please bear this in mind: while it is true that a fresh report might save someone from what would otherwise be a custodial sentence, it might equally work the other way. The Magistrates' Association, the members of which deal with the overwhelming majority of juvenile offenders, opposes in strong and unequivocal terms the removal of the mandatory obligation for fresh pre-sentence reports, as does the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and all the other associations involved in probation work.
I have been a magistrate for some 20 years. Although I much regret that I have not served on a juvenile panel, I know from my experience in the adult courts what an indispensable tool in the sentencing operation up-to-date reports from the probation service are. In my own area of north-east Hampshire, I and my colleagues may have been particularly fortunate in the helpful contributions that we have received from the probation service, first through the social inquiry reports and latterly through pre-sentence reports, but I am confident that in general that high standard is reflected throughout the country.
Sentencing is a serious matter that affects not only the future of individuals, but, even more importantly, the protection and wellbeing of society. Therefore, when sentencing it is essential to have at one's disposal every single piece of fresh information about the
1206
accused. That requirement is self-evident in the adult court; but how much more important it is when dealing with juveniles.
Adult offenders often, regrettably, settle into a predictable pattern of anti-social behaviour. The circumstances relating to juveniles can, however, change dramatically—sometimes overnight. A pattern of criminal behaviour of hair-tearing frustration can suddenly stop just like that. Indeed, there have been cases of defendants totally changing their patterns of offending—perhaps even giving up altogether—bet-ween being charged with the offence and being brought before the court. Given that state of affairs, is it really desirable to sentence without the latest available information? In this context, the reversal of the measures contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are highly regrettable—I am trying to choose my words with care.
This is not a political matter. It is a matter of common sense. Oh dear, those dreaded words, referred to by the noble Earl, are rearing their ugly heads again. I hope that the Minister will accept my apologies for using them, but I will. It is a matter of common sense, inextricably linked principally to the effective running of the lower courts and, as such, it transcends party division. The plain question is: are we going to interfere seriously with the ability of Benches to deliver realistic and fair sentences in order to produce savings which are probably illusory and almost certainly derisory? I hope not and I think not. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like briefly to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has just said. As your Lordships know, I am advised by the Magistrates' Association and the noble Viscount has more than covered all the points that it would want to make. The basic point is that youth court justices do not feel constrained by the present arrangements, so it seems strange that we should have these changes forced upon us. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us encouragement on this amendment, even if he does not accept it as drafted.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Unless one has been involved in sentencing, one does not realise how necessary it is to have all the up-to-date information that is available. Without that up-to-date information, there is a risk that one may be too harsh or, alternatively, that one may be too lenient. To an extent, one is sentencing in blinkers if one is thrown back on material which may, at the material time, be out of date.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the increase in drug abuse, it is most important that people's drug habits should be made known to the courts in case drug rehabilitation is more appropriate than another custodial sentence. Also, with so many people with learning difficulties in the community, such conditions should be known to the magistrates and the courts. I support the amendment.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It simply is not good enough to say that a safeguard is provided in the proposed changes in that

1207
magistrates can use an old report. New and up-to-date reports are absolutely essential because they contain information which no old report, even a relatively recent old report, can contain. An old report will not be able to deal, with, for example, the current offence; why it was committed; or with the defendant's remorse or likelihood of further offending. Even more important, an old report will not deal with the response to the sentence that was imposed for the offence for which that original report was prepared.
An old report will not deal with changes in circumstances. It is not good enough to say that no doubt a court will be alerted to such changes by the barrister or solicitor who is representing the young person. Often they will have spent only 20 minutes or half an hour with their client, sitting outside the court, trying to update the facts that they have been given about the background. A young person in those circumstances is scarcely likely to be articulate about the important changes that may have occurred to him, his family, his circumstances or his problems.
Nor will an old report deal with the sentences which are available currently to the court. Of course, a sentencer knows in general terms the various options that are open to him, but he may well not know of particular local community programmes to help an offender in that category. Nor will he have from the old report a recommendation from the probation service as to which of those possible courses is open and available to him and suitable for that offender at that particular time in his criminal career.
There is a vast range of options open to a sentencer dealing with a juvenile. That sentencer needs advice, guidance and in-depth information about the offender even more than he does with an adult. It is essential, particularly with young people, where circumstances and problems are subject to rapid changes, not to cut out the requirement that that report and information should be the most up to date possible. To try to do so in those circumstances, when it was considered to be essential as recently as October 1992, when the 1991 Criminal Justice Bill was enacted, is false economy. I hope that the Minister will feel that he can accept the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, we too support the amendment. It is not just that pre-sentence reports are, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, more up to date; they have two other advantages over the remaining information that might be available to the court. One is that it is likely to be more impartial than any evidence or information produced by the defence solicitor and, through the defence solicitor, to the defence counsel; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, there will almost inevitably be far more information about the defendant's family background which is so important when trying to assess how he came to get into a life of crime, and, equally important, in trying to assess his prospects of rehabilitation in due course. That has the advantage of being impartial and fuller information than is otherwise likely to be available to the magistrate or the judge.
1208
I can only say, speaking for myself, having had the painful task of dealing with numerous young offenders, that the assistance given by a pre-sentence report has been invaluable, and I believe that miscarriages of justice would have taken place without it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone said that he hoped that I would be able to give your Lordships some encouragement. I shall do my best to do so. No one disputes for a moment that pre-sentence reports are of enormous value and importance.
The Government's aim in providing the courts with the discretion to dispense with a pre-sentence report is in order to meet concerns which have been expressed, in the light of experience, by many sentencers who believe that the existing arrangements for imposing custodial and major community sentences are inflexible and that in its present form the requirement imposes unnecessary burdens on the courts and unnecessary costs for the criminal justice system as a whole.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that the Government are doing this for entirely financial reasons. That is not so. It is not entirely financial. Of course finance comes into it, and we believe that a pre-sentence report is expensive and in some cases unnecessary.
The amendments would have the unhelpful effect of removing the court's ability to dispense with the requirement to obtain a pre-sentence report when considering whether to impose a custodial or a major community sentence on a young offender. The amendments would create anomalies.
It could result in one regime for over 18 year-olds, where they can dispense with the need for a pre-sentence report, and another for those under 18, where they could not. The Government have already imposed a requirement for the court to consider a previous report before the court can exercise its discretion to dispense with a report. They have anyhow to consider the previous one. That means that in every case involving a juvenile under 18 the courts will have had regard to a report on the offender. If the previous report is not relevant to the current offence or if it is out of date, the court would, of course, need to obtain a new one.
If the pre-sentence report which the court is bound to consider is relevant and up to date, it is pointless to turn round and get another one.
In order for the courts to satisfy the welfare requirement, which they are obliged to do under Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, we expect that the courts will obtain a new pre-sentence report in any case where there is any doubt whatever about the information in the latest report being up to date.
We have imposed that requirement precisely because we recognise that special considerations apply in the case of juveniles and because the court must have proper regard to their welfare requirements.
The noble Viscount said that it was common sense to have a pre-sentence report. I agree with him, but it is also common sense not to have a report if there already is one. The amendments would require the court to

1209
obtain a new report even though a recent one on that offender might contain all the information which the court needed to bring out the welfare argument. I suggest that the Bill as it stands provides the right balance. While I understand the reason why the noble Viscount has put down the amendments, I fear that they would involve arrangements which would be unneces-sarily expensive and bureaucratic.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this mini-debate, and who have, for the most part, put forward their point of view far more eloquently than I was able to do on the important points. I am also grateful to the Minister for his detailed and typically courteous reply to the points I raised. It showed, alas, that my hunch that there might be some movement on the Government's side was ill-founded. All along the Government's position has been that this is what they describe as a minor amendment. I do not so regard it. I am surprised that a government who were able, powerfully and rightly, to recommend that a pre-sentence report should be mandatory three short years ago could later argue the reverse without so much as a collective blush. That surprises me.
It is not a minor matter, but I should like to ponder upon what has been said tonight and exercise the right to return to the matter on the next occasion. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can we have cleared up what is actually going to happen? Is the debate going to resume or is the "debate" which I see taking place on the Front Bench going to continue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is always helpful. I was trying to suggest that it might have been helpful to him, as well as to other people, if we were to take the next amendment now even though the bewitching hour of half past seven has passed by about two minutes, as it is, even to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, uncontroversial.
Clause 20 [Secure remands for young offenders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 27 leave out from ("words") to end of line 30 and insert:

("(a) "person who has attained the age of fourteen";

(b) "person who has attained the age of thirteen"; or

(c) "person who has attained the age of twelve";

but no substitution may be brought into force on more than one occasion.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again at 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
7.40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Parliamentary Commissioner Act,

Antarctic Act,

State Hospitals (Scotland) Act,

Chiropractors Act,

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act,

Local Government (Wales) Act,

Sunday Trading Act,

Coal Industry Act,

Vehicle Excise and Registration Act,

Value Added Tax Act,

Commons Registration (Hast Sussex) Act,

Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Act,

London Underground (Green Park) Act.

Veterinary Profession: EU Training Support
7.42 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the decision of the Commission of the European Union to withdraw support for the sectoral directives and advisory committees on training for the health professions, with particular respect to veterinary training; and how this will affect the health and safe movement of animals moving within and into the Union.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask Her Majesty's Government what initiatives they are taking and hope to take as regards the sectoral directives and support for the various advisory committees and their sub-committees of the health professions in the European Union. Many who are not familiar with such matters have been taken completely by surprise to learn how serious the situation is. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to give a brief background to the situation.
The health professions in the European Union—for instance, doctors, veterinarians, dentists, nurses, midwives and pharmacists—have sectoral directives which were adopted by the European Community in 1975. They cover mutual recognition, training and advisory committees. Mutual recognition was a means to ensure the freedom of movement of professionals within the Community and it was based on the concept of a comparable high standard of training. I emphasise that it is not identical training between the different countries.
The advisory committees on training are the means whereby educational standards, including facilities, course content and clinical teaching experiences, are assessed with respect to the phrase "comparable high standards of training". It is important that each health profession can feel confident that professional persons

1211
from another European Community country meet the educational standards of the host country and are competent to practice that health profession in that host country. Of course, the importance of competence will vary between professions. No one would wish a totally incompetent health professional to be permitted to practice in their own country. But that is a very real possibility and we should be concerned about it.
But of even greater concern is the potential, though unforeseen, danger of this type of individual failing to recognise important diseases or, even worse, certifying that they do not exist. As regards the veterinary profession, that could mean a failure to recognise a highly contagious disease entity, especially one introduced from a third country, or an animal or group of animals, certified either mistakenly or even falsely to be free of disease. That occurred recently with serious consequences to the equine population of the United Kingdom with respect to equine viral arteritis.
With the development of a single market, the freedom of movement of animals and foodstuffs of animal origin occurs without border checks of the importing country. It is therefore imperative that the health of livestock, and also derivatively that of people in the European Union, be safeguarded by a competent veterinary profession within the Community.
It is these considerations that have led the veterinary profession in this country to be particularly active—in fact, the leaders—in their Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training. It initiated a system of visitations to veterinary schools—one in each member country of the European Union—to see at first-hand the quality of facilities for training, the curriculum, the staffing and the supply of clinical materials rather than rely solely on a written submissions. The visitations are similar to those that occur in this country, in the United States, Canada and Australasia. In those countries, schools failing to meet the requirements of that country are put on probation or, in some severe cases, the degree awarded is not recognised by the licensing authority.
Initially, one school per European Union country was visited. While the reports produced had no force of authority to discontinue the recognition of a given degree, in some cases a major upgrading of facilities resulted from the visitation report.
The success of the pilot scheme was acknowledged, and in 1990 the Commission agreed that the Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training could embark on a programme of visitations of the remaining EC schools, which would be completed by the end of the decade. The programme was to be funded by the Commission. However, in 1993 the Commission unilaterally announced that it would not fund the visitation programme after 1994; and if the programme were to be continued, the profession itself would have to organise and to fund it. At the same time, the meetings of the advisory committee were reduced from two days twice per year to one day per year. That is a totally inadequate time for the consideration of any reports that might emanate from the visitations. A similar curtailment of
1212
advisory committees was experienced by the other health professions in this country and in the European Union.
One is forced to conclude that the Commission of the European Union has little concern for the concept of ensuring comparably high standards of veterinary training, or indeed for other health professions such as dentists where funding for visitations has suffered a cut-back similar to that of the veterinarians.
The question might be posed: can the Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training and the visitations continue in the absence of Commission support? There are mechanisms by which this might be achieved; for example, through the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education. The deans of veterinary schools in the European Union have taken up the challenge but the task is daunting and considerable financial support will be required to fund and to organise the work of the visitations and the advisory committees. It is generally beyond the abilities of the veterinary schools in the various countries to fund that.
While there is no conflict between the aims of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which in this country is responsible for the assessment of the quality of veterinary education, and the Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training in the European Union in monitoring standards, the big difference is that the royal college has a statutory duty to carry out visitations under the terms of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. The Commission has no such powers and were visitations to be organised by non-Commission bodies, such as the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education, it would have to rely on the goodwill of schools agreeing to invite visitors in the first place and to accept any report that might be produced—and, more importantly, to do something about that report if it contained criticism. There are already signs that certain schools within the European Union have indicated that they might well refuse to be visited and reported upon by any group that can no longer be recognised as an official Commission visitation.
The responsibility for those issues lies with two directorates-general: DGXV, responsible for the advisory committee on veterinary training and the free movement and right of establishment of veterinarians throughout the Community; and DGVI which is responsible for agriculture and the free movement of livestock and the safety of food products. I am aware that the Minister must wear two hats when replying to this Unstarred Question.
Pressure is necessary on both those directorates-general since there is much at risk including the diagnosis of disease, the proper use of veterinary medicines and honest and accurate certification, to mention a few, as well as freedom of movement within the Community.
Because the mutual recognition directive of 1978 obliges the United Kingdom to register European nationals who graduate from European Union veterinary schools and who wish to work in the United Kingdom, it must surely be the responsibility of the European Union, through the Commission, to ensure an acceptable standard of veterinary training throughout

1213
he Community. An increasing number of veterinarians from the European Union are registering in the United Kingdom—up to 200 per year—and of course that number is likely to increase as the number of countries joining the union also increases.
There are differing, but nevertheless important, implications of inadequate training of graduates for each health profession. In the case of the veterinary profession the health standards of the national herds and flocks of farm livestock, as well as those of sports and companion animals in the United Kingdom, as well as in the Community, may be put at serious risk with enormous financial and important welfare implications.
Several health professions in the United Kingdom share the anxiety of the veterinary profession about the threat of the Commission to withdraw support for the sectorial directives and advisory committees. The implications of that are wide and I hope that the Government will be willing to mount a robust challenge to the attitude adopted on those issues by the Commission.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this very important Question. Although it is directed mainly at veterinary training, as the noble Lord said it goes much wider and affects all the other health professions. I must admit that until I was briefed for the debate, I was not aware of the implications of the actions of the Commission. I have been briefed by the BMA, pharmacists, dentists and nurses, all of whom share the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord.
With regard to doctors, it seems that 19 years after the adoption of what were called the doctors' directives, discrepancies in both basic and specialist training throughout the European Union are still evident. It is clear that the work of the advisory committee on medical training is of vital importance. However, it is equally clear that its effectiveness is severely limited. The problems are twofold; it is under-funded and under-staffed, and it cannot meet as often as necessary. On the whole, its recommendations have not been given the force of law and have gone unheeded in many European Union countries.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has written to me. It makes the point that:
"In most countries of the European Union the 'qualified person' in the pharmaceutical industrial company who authorises the release of a batch of medicine must be a pharmacist. Bearing in mind that medicines with a marketing authorisation in various member states should be able to move freely among these member states, the importance of a consistently high standard of education and training for pharmacists throughout the European Union is clear".
The noble Lord who opened the debate mentioned dentists. We know that dentists with an EU qualification and EU nationality are free to move and establish anywhere in Europe. That freedom will extend next year to the EFTA countries through the new European Economic Area. It is essential, in order to protect the public health, that there are proper safeguards of the quality of training throughout an ever-widening Community.
1214
With regard to nurses, the Advisory Committee on Training in Nursing is one of a number of committees established by the Council of Ministers to advise the Commission on matters relating to the education and training of health care professions. In the past, the ACTN has performed valuable work for the Commission in a number of key areas such as cancer, elderly people, primary health care, and continuing and specialist nurse training, and in the drafting of the legislation which now regulates the movement of nurses among the member states. Again, the ACTN has had its finance reduced and the number of meetings curtailed. The ACTN for the period 1994–97 should have begun its work in April 1994 but that meeting and a rescheduled meeting in May were cancelled. Those are just some brief remarks regarding the effect on other professions.
I turn now to the thrust of the debate which deals with the vital matter of veterinary education. The EC Commission, in a letter from Mr. Mogg, the director-general of the internal market and industrial affairs, to Professor Van den Bergh, the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training, dated March 1993, expressed the view that,
"the heavy involvement by the Commission in the system of visitation of veterinary schools is no longer appropriate … and would more appropriately be run by the profession".
How would it do that and with what teeth? What would the veterinary profession do about an inadequate veterinary school in one member state even if every other member state were unanimous regarding its inadequacy? Is it conceivable that a similar attitude would have been adopted regarding the inspection and licensing of abattoirs? Would it be left to the industry in the member states?
This dereliction of responsibility has implications in two main areas; one of educational and another of national concern. In education, the system of performance indicators which rules the survival and prosperity of universities and their colleges includes vital judgments concerning their international standing. Yet we are about to lose a procedure which could have provided data on which to base such comparisons and indeed to confirm that UK and Irish schools are currently above average by European or other standards. Instead, they continue to be compared with non-veterinary science courses—a comparison which is relevant but dangerously incomplete since, for example, the obligation to teach a registrable degree course removes the flexibility simply to omit components which are inconvenient or understaffed.
If, sadly, any of the veterinary schools in this country were to close, the chances are that, in order to satisfy future demands for veterinary graduates in Europe, they would be replaced by the number of schools of dubious effectiveness elsewhere in Europe and, if present disastrous trends continue, with minimal supervision. It cannot make sense for sub-standard schools to proliferate anywhere in Europe while elsewhere first-rank schools risk closure. Least of all can it make sense to lose the excellent inspection system which permits such comparison as well as encouraging forward planning. I say at once that many European schools produce graduates whose performance equals or

1215
excels the performance of our own. The problem is the proliferating number of schools unlikely to attain a comparable standard.
The public should be aware that animal welfare and public health now depend on the legal right of any EC veterinary graduate to practise here, however inept, inadequate and devoid of practical training their course may have been. We are forced to pretend that their qualification is worth the paper it is written on. In most European schools, that is not a problem, but in a growing number of schools it is. Above all, in principle it is a grave threat if we accept qualifications which are unaccredited. That is not simply a matter of freedom of movement of goods and services. It is a matter of hoodwinking consumers that their health, welfare and safety standards are being properly safeguarded when, in reality, the Commission is choosing to abandon all responsibility. In short, it will insist that anyone can cross its internal frontiers and inflict services on the unsuspecting public under the protection of an unvalidated qualification.
As the noble Lord said in his opening remarks, while it was recognised that the EC would stop funding of the visitation system for veterinary schools at the end of this decade, the short notice of intention to cease funding for inspection of schools has come as a major surprise to many and leaves little scope for an alternative system to be put in place in the near future. While that development may be considered to be irresponsible by many, what is more important is that an inspection system should continue and that, whatever system of inspection is finally agreed, the Commission should act on reports from visits to schools as it is the best body to do so.
It may be more than just coincidence that the Commission decided to cease funding future visitations after it received an unfavourable report from a visiting group to a particular veterinary school on mainland Europe. If the Commission is not going to act on such reports, then there has to be a rethink of the whole concept of free movement of animals within the Community. However, what interested parties would hope for, above all, is an improvement in standards of veterinary education in all European countries.
High standards of training are fundamental to all areas of veterinary activity, whether it is caring for companion animals or safeguarding human and food animal health. Any shortcomings will inevitably rebound on the latter. Those standards are fundamental too to the various control measures envisaged for the single market, not least in the field of veterinary public health where veterinary ante-mortem inspection plays a vital role in arrangements for ensuring meat hygiene. As the noble Lord said, the system relies on the veterinarian's ability to recognise diseases in food animals and this, in turn, requires that the veterinarians involved should have had sound practical training in the diagnosis of such diseases. How can the Commission be sure that all veterinarians are receiving the required level of training if it fails to monitor standards across the Community?
1216
The outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Italy last year and the problems with animals imported from eastern Europe into Britain have highlighted the reliance that Community policies for safeguarding animal health place on uniformly high standards of disease identification, reporting and control, and the fact that the health and welfare of herds and flocks in one member state may be crucially dependent on the standards of inspection and certification in another.
In terms of animal health and imports from countries outside the EC, frontiers can no longer be drawn on national lines, but have to be seen in terms of the Community as a whole. Here again, the necessary standards can be maintained only if levels of training are equally high, with the training embracing certification and professional ethics as well as animal health. Mutual reliance on another's certification means that everyone has to have confidence in the diagnostic ability and the clinical competence of their veterinary colleagues. In the absence of monitoring, where is that assurance to come from?
Mutual recognition of veterinary qualifications and measures allowing the free movement of veterinarians in Europe also assume that levels of training are uniformly high. Again, that requires that standards are monitored. If the Commission presses ahead with its proposal, we know for a fact that the profession itself will be invited to assume responsibility for visitations. However, without the weight of the Commission behind it, it is difficult to envisage a body with the necessary authority to gain access to schools on a Community-wide basis and achieve improvements where necessary.
Sadly, having rushed to introduce legislation for the single market, the European Commission seems to be taking a back seat in its operation, leaving it to member states and others to implement the rules and regulations as they see fit. Its proposal so suddenly to withdraw funding for the ACVT's system of visitations without consultation is especially unfortunate. As the practical effects of the legislation start to be felt, a system of monitoring is more necessary now than ever before. Standards of veterinary training underpin so many of the Community's activities. Having spent the past five years devising arrangements for the single market, the Commission should not now abrogate its responsibility for helping to ensure that they work.
We already know that in the first year of the single market we have had the importation of brucellosis and warble fly. It is a very serious matter. I can say that most livestock fanners are convinced that there is an animal disease time bomb ticking away as a direct result of the mad rush to a single market in the movement of animals without ensuring that the necessary standards of veterinary education and veterinary practice apply throughout the European Union. Those responsible in the Commission for that situation will bear a very heavy responsibility if our worst fears regarding imported animal disease are confirmed. An equal responsibility will lie on the Council of Ministers if it allows the Commission get away with it.
When he replies, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the British Government are doing their utmost to get such a dangerous decision reversed.

1217
This year is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It would, indeed, be ironic if, during this year, the European Union took such a backward step.
8.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby for initiating what has been a helpful discussion on such an important matter. The concerns expressed in my noble friend's Motion relate, as he explained, to a number of different professions. However, above all, it is the concerns relating to the veterinary profession on which, like my noble friend, I intend to concentrate.
My noble friend has considerable experience in this field as he is a veterinary surgeon who was formerly Dean of the Veterinary School at the University of Cambridge and a member of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We all agree that to ensure the health and safe movement of animals, and the quality of animal products, moving within and into the Union, it is essential that the veterinary surgeons who are certifying that movement are trained to a comparably high standard. Although the provisions for veterinary training in the UK and the EC have been outlined during the debate, I hope that it will be useful if I draw together briefly the background to the whole matter.
The regulatory body, and competent authority, for the veterinary profession in the UK is the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The Royal College Council, as constituted under Section 1 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, is comprised of elected members of the profession, members appointed by the six UK universities which provide veterinary training, and members appointed by the Privy Council; one such appointee is the Chief Veterinary Officer.
In 1978, two European Community Directives (78/1026/EEC and 78/1027/EEC) laid down procedures for prescribed training in veterinary surgery and the mutual recognition of qualifications in the EC. Those directives covered the requirements for training, mutual recognition of EC veterinary qualifications and freedom of movement and rights of establishment of veterinary surgeons. The number of professions with such "sectoral" directives is quite small —doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, veterinarians and architects; and, more recently, lawyers. The two veterinary directives require member states to allow veterinary surgeons, who have undergone the prescribed training and obtained the scheduled qualifications, to practise on any of their territories.
The veterinary sectoral directives were implemented in this country in 1980 via an amendment to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which inserted a new section listing the recognised qualifications across member states. They have been amended from time to time since then to reflect expanded membership of the Community. On 31st March 1994, there were 16,432 veterinary surgeons on the RCVS register, of whom 663 were nationals of a member state registered under the
1218
provisions of Section 5A of the Veterinary Sturgeons Act 1966. In 1993 the number of EC qualified veterinarians admitted to the register was 122.
The Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training (ACVT) was established in 1978 with the purpose of ensuring that standards set down in the veterinary directives were being met and maintained. The decision sets out the responsibility of the committee,
"to ensure a comparably high standard of veterinary training in the Community".
The ACVT is comprised of representatives nominated from various sectors of the veterinary profession, including the competent authority in the member states and is supported financially and secretarially by the Commission.
By discussion, consultation and an exchange of information designed to develop common approaches, the ACVT advises the Commission on the subject of veterinary training. As an advisory committee it makes recommendations to the Commission and has no legal powers. The Commission of the European Union holds the ultimate legal powers to ensure compliance with the veterinary training directives.
In its earlier years, as my noble friend mentioned, the ACVT met for two days, twice a year. Subsequently meetings were reduced to two days per year and the savings used to finance visitations to veterinary schools in member states. In 1991 the Commission agreed to assist substantially with the cost of the first cycle of evaluation visits, which was expected to last about eight years and cover all veterinary schools in the Community. The programme of visitations was therefore intended to ensure that all schools would be visited by 1999 but, to date, only about 10 per cent. have been visited.
As both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, have already said, these visitations, although few in number, are the only means whereby compliance with the directives can be assessed and pressure brought to bear to bring about improvements where deficiencies are identified. Without that pressure it is feared that many schools will fall below the required standard. From discussions that officials have had with officers of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, it is apparent that serious deficiencies have been identified following visits in some member states.
The Commission's report on subsidiarity to the European Council last December expressed the intention of reviewing a number of the sectoral directives based on the harmonisation of training, including the veterinary directives. The United Kingdom supports the application of subsidiarity and will, of course, examine the results of any such review. Nevertheless, the potential costs to the Community and the UK of inadequate standards of veterinary training are such that any proposed changes would have to be examined very carefully.
In March 1993, the Commission intimated its intention to withdraw its financial and managerial support for the system of visitation of veterinary schools by the ACVT by the end of 1993, which naturally caused the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and

1219
the British Veterinary Association serious concern. The Government shared that concern and the previous Minister, my right honourable friend John Gummer, instructed officials to enter into discussions with senior Commission officials in the hope that they would agree to support the ACVT.
I firmly believe that it is misleading to draw comparisons between the veterinary and other health professions in the context of the principle of subsidiarity; there is no direct comparison between the movement of humans within the European Union and the movement and trade in animals and animal products. If these are not controlled there is severe risk of hazards to public and animal health.
Last November, MAFF officials and representatives from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons met the Directorate General to discuss their concerns. They were encouraged by that meeting into believing that the Commission was sympathetic to their arguments, and could accept the logic that not all professions should necessarily be treated in the same way. In January, the RCVS was informed by the Commission that it acknowledged the value of the present system, and proposed that responsibility for visitations should pass to the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education or EAEVE (that is, the deans of veterinary schools).
My right honourable friend the Minister, together with senior veterinary officials, met the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and his colleagues in February of this year and following that meeting my right honourable friend wrote to Commissioner Steichen expressing her deep concern that the Commission was withdrawing support for the ACVT. She has received assurances from Commissioner Vanni d'Archirafi in DG 15 that the Commission will continue to monitor results of the visitations by the EAEVE and receive the opinions and recommendations of the ACVT on these visits. The financial arrangements for the EAEVE visits are still unclear and discussions are continuing with the Commission to resolve the question of funding.
As your Lordships will readily appreciate—and as my noble friend emphasised—to ensure confidence in the operation of the internal market in the veterinary sphere, it is essential that veterinary surgeons throughout the Community are trained to the same high level of competence in accordance with the two directives. Deficiencies in their training could lead to a failure to recognise serious animal diseases and put the whole Community at risk by spread of disease through animals or their products. We have to be sure that all veterinary surgeons in the European Union are trained to a comparably high standard in the interests of public health, animal health and disease control. The public also rightly expects that their livestock and companion animals will receive a consistently high level of veterinary attention irrespective of the origin of the veterinary surgeon.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised his anxiety about inept veterinary surgeons practising in Great Britain. Suitably qualified veterinarians from the European

1220
Union have the automatic right to be registered in the UK if their qualifications meet the terms of the relevant directives. However, they will not, of course, be guaranteed employment here and the vet will have to use his or her own endeavours to obtain a position. With regard to negligence, vets from other countries who become members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are subject to the same provisions that apply to other members of that college.
In the single European market, the obligation is clearly placed on the exporting member state to ensure that consignments meet all the conditions for intra-Community trade. The importance of correctly completed, valid veterinary certification in preventing the spread of disease, and protecting the welfare of animals in transport cannot be over-emphasised. No evidence suggests that official veterinary services in other member states are any less competent than those in the UK. There have been occasional errors in veterinary certification but these have been taken up immediately and vigorously with the member state concerned.
The UK is pressing for harmonised EC standards of veterinary certification based on the principles drawn up by the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe (FVE), in particular that veterinary surgeons should only certify where they have personal knowledge of the facts. There is a draft Council regulation on the certification of animals and animal products requiring certification based on the original FVE principles to be adopted throughout the European Union. The regulation includes penalties for false or misleading certification. In a wider context at a recent OIE meeting in Stockholm, there was unanimous acceptance of a resolution to adopt the FVE principles of veterinary certification.
Since the completion of the Single Market in January 1993 and the discontinuation of vaccination against foot and mouth disease in Europe, we have seen a large increase in imports of cattle into this country from other EU member states and an equally dramatic increase in our exports of sheep. The increased trade in animals will put increasing reliance on veterinary certification at the point of origin, which, as I have said, is now the principle of the single market. For this to be successful it is vital that satisfactory Community standards of veterinary education are maintained on an international basis and that a common understanding is developed, and put into practice, on the principles of certification itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to concerns about the effectiveness of the advisory committees, particularly with regard to the health professions. A meeting recently took place between representatives of the different health professions within the Department of Health. It was convened to discuss the problems experienced by the different advisory committees and ways in which the work of those committees could be progressed. At the meeting it was agreed that the group constituted a useful forum and should be reconvened on a regular basis.
It has been evident for some time that the effectiveness of the advisory committees is severely

1221
limited. I am aware that there is a widely held view that they are underfunded and understaffed by the Commission, and as a consequence they do not meet as often as necessary. The worry is that work on visitations to medical schools and dental schools, for example, has been impeded for lack of resources. Of particular concern at the present time is the failure of those member states who have still to nominate their delegates to the advisory committees, which has prevented the committees from resuming their meetings. Various efforts have been made by the UK to persuade the relevant member states to submit their nominations to the Commission, and the matter was raised again by the UK delegate to the committee of senior officials on public health at its meeting in Brussels on 30th June.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the advisory committees perform an essential function. That is particularly true of those serving the health professions, as continual develop-ments in technology, skills and knowledge need to be reflected in all aspects of training.
My noble friend's Motion refers to the withdrawal of support for the sectoral directives and advisory committees on training. It is important that I should make clear that that support has not been withdrawn. There are no proposals on the table arising from the review of the directives presented to the European Council last December. However, the Commission's handling of other matters has, in the Government's view, been less helpful than it might have been. It is a great pity that the withdrawal of the EC Commission's support for the ACVT visitation scheme was presented as a fait accompli. The Commission's decision to shunt it into a siding was never put to or discussed by the full ACVT. Proposed meetings of the committee were cancelled, and it was only on 1 st June this year—for one day—that the committee was able to meet. It is vital that the ACVT should be enabled by the Commission to monitor compliance with the directives and to ensure that deficiencies identified through visits are corrected.
My right honourable friend the Minister has put our concerns to the Commission and has received an encouraging response which she is now considering. She has been assured that the Commission will continue to monitor results of the visitations by the EAEVE and receive the opinions and recommendations of the ACVT on those visits. We have received assurances that the principle of visitation is one which the Commission firmly supports. We shall maintain pressure to see that the proposed voluntary scheme for visits to the veterinary schools in member states gets off the ground and has a proper programme of visits. We shall ensure that if deficiencies are identified the Commission is pressed to take action.
My noble friend's Motion tonight has highlighted an area of the utmost importance to public health, the well-being of our livestock industry and our trade. I can assure your Lordships that the Government continue to support the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in its efforts to ensure the maintenance of high standards of veterinary education throughout the Community.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.40 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Bail support Schemes
—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to provide, or to make arrangements with such persons as seem to them to be appropriate for the provision by those persons of, "bail support schemes", that is to say arrangements for the support and supervision of children and young persons granted bail in criminal proceedings.
(2) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such grants as he considers appropriate to local authorities in connection with their duties under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the new clause places a statutory duty on local authorities to provide bail support schemes for juveniles. I moved this amendment in Committee on 17th May and I am bringing it forward again because I am following up the response of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He made a commitment to consider whether local authorities might be encouraged by means of a circular to set up bail support schemes. We wait to hear the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
Bail support schemes which provide support and supervision for defendants on bail provide an important means of reducing the likelihood of offending during the crucial period awaiting trial. At present no such schemes work with juveniles, although the number working with young adults is now growing. Such schemes use a range of approaches which encourage young offenders to comply with the conditions of bail and help them to gain access to constructive opportunities and activities. The methods used include: regular officer reporting; placements with volunteers during the evening and weekends; monitored attendance at youth activities; monitoring of school attendance; programmes designed to reintroduce juveniles to school or the negotiation of specialist education provision; assistance with employment problems; involvement in youth training schemes; participation in supervised activity programmes; and work with families to help resolve conflicts, to ensure a continuing home base for the young person and to involve parents in taking more responsibility for their children's behaviour. Such methods achieve a large number of very useful objectives. The great advantage of bail support schemes is that constructive work with the young person begins during the bail period. It is not put off for weeks or months until the case has been heard.
While most areas have bail support schemes, some do not. A survey carried out last year by NACRO of 103 social services departments found that 30 of those authorities had no bail support arrangements for juveniles in their area and a further six had such arrangements in only part of the area. I remember that last time we debated the issue there was some discussion

1223
about the number of authorities which did or did not have such schemes, and which had some support from the Government. I hope that we may have that matter cleared up today.
At present local authorities are under a statutory duty to provide certain services for young offenders. They are under a statutory duty to provide "intermediate treatment" facilities. When Section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is implemented they will be under a statutory duty to provide secure accommodation. We say that the prevention of offending on bail is so important that there should be a similar statutory duty in relation to bail support schemes.
Subsection (2) of the new clause establishes a mechanism whereby central government can reimburse local authorities for some or all of the cost of holding a young person in secure local authority accommodation on remand. There should be a similar arrangement in relation to bail support schemes which are equally important and which, by working effectively with young people on bail, can avoid the need to place them in secure accommodation, thereby saving a vast amount of money.
When we debated the issue in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, resisted the idea of a statutory duty but agreed to consider whether local authorities might be encouraged to set up bail support schemes by means of a circular. He said:
"I quite understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton"—
unfortunately he is not present today—
"to have a circular, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Elton".
He also is not present.
"Obviously, there is a limit to the number of circulars that one can chase around to local authorities. I shall certainly consider the points that have been made. I cannot guarantee that a circular would be the right course to take, but it is a point worthy of consideration".—[Official Report, 17/5/94; col. 153.]
Putting the new clause down again at Report stage enables Peers to ask the Government for the results of that consideration. However, I hope that the Government might consider going further than a circular and that they might consider it an excellent statutory duty to impose. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not know whether it is a matter with which I or my noble friend Lord Ferrers dealt with in Committee. For some reason I am dealing with the matter that he dealt with previously. Earlier he dealt with the issue with which I had dealt previously. Your Lordships are having a variety of responses on these issues. Whether that is good or bad I leave to the judgment of the House.
The noble Baroness raised this matter on a previous occasion. As was made clear then, in March 1992 the Home Office issued guidance, with the Department of Health, to local authorities the purpose of which was to encourage those local authorities to establish schemes of the kind that the noble Baroness proposes. I am happy to say that since that time the number of bail support schemes has increased steadily.
1224
As noble Lords may be aware, the Government have made a three-year grant to NACRO for a national bail support development unit. That is a three year programme in connection with bail support schemes. Among other things, a survey has been carried out of the availability of such schemes throughout England and Wales. That survey was done on a confidential basis and therefore the exact details are not available. However, out of the 103 local authorities which were contacted, 78 have made bail support schemes available in their areas. That is an encouraging response and suggests that there is every reason to believe that local authorities are responding to the circular from the Home Office and the Department of Health and that they are indeed setting up schemes in their areas rather than seeking to avoid their responsibilities.
In addition, under the three-year plan for the probation service which was published in the autumn of last year the Government have encouraged the probation service to develop pre-trial services. Those include bail information schemes —those, of course, are different schemes—and grants to the voluntary sector to provide support for those on bail.
The Home Office has indeed gone further and is devolving to local probation services funds for grants to the voluntary sector for work with those on bail and with offenders. The funding involved in general is some £8.5 million. That figure includes an element of funding for bail support schemes. But the essence of the idea is that the arrangements are essentially local and that the decisions on spending are taken locally in the light of local needs and priorities. I stress that because in her amendment the noble Baroness seeks to impose a statutory duty on all local authorities. She will realise that the need for such a statutory duty on a local authority really depends on whether that is the way in which in that area a bail support scheme would be provided. In fact, around the country one finds that in different areas there are cases where the local bail support scheme is funded from a voluntary organisation. Therefore, in that area to provide a statutory duty on a local authority to provide exactly the same scheme as is already being provided would be inappropriate.
For that reason we believe that the scheme which has been devised by the Home Office which devolves the decision to local areas is the best way. It involves the local people who know the position on the ground in taking the decision as to what funding or what amount is appropriate in the area. Some areas will require more; some less. Thus, we think that a statutory duty such as that envisaged by the noble Baroness is inappropriate.
As she said, when the matter was discussed previously the question of a circular was raised. As I have already indicated to your Lordships, in March 1992 a circular was issued by the Home Office and the Department of Health. We have reason to believe that it is being followed with success.
I cannot say that at this precise moment the Government intend to issue a circular. As the noble Baroness will realise, there are a number of matters in the Bill and if and when it receives Royal Assent they will obviously have a bearing on subjects relating to

1225
bail. Quite a lot of clauses cover such matters. In the light of that legislation, it will be necessary at that stage to consider what circular would be appropriate.
The question of a circular has to be postponed until we see the legislation which evolves, and at the end of that stage there will need to be a circular on bail. Among the matters wrapped up in that circular, could be any further appropriate guidance in relation to the bail support schemes. So there is no immediate plan, for the reasons I gave, and it would be more appropriate if it were wrapped in the wider circular on bail which will result from the legislation. But we have every reason to believe that the steps which have been taken so far by the circular in March 1992 and in other ways are bearing fruit, and that these schemes—whose importance is well recognised by the Government—are progressing and thriving.
Baroness David: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full reply. At least he seems to recognise that bail support schemes are of great importance and value. I do not quite see the reason why, if voluntary organisations are putting them into practice, that should prevent them being a statutory duty. If the duty is being performed, usually that is all right. I understand that if there is to be a circular issued after the Bill has received Royal Assent, it will apply to other matters in the bail field and that this could be included in that. At this time of night, I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord said, then take advice and decide whether it is necessary to come back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Arrest of young persons in breach of conditions of remand Liability of young persons to arrest for breaking conditions of remand
.After section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Liability to arrest for breaking conditions of remand.
23A.—(1) A person who has been remanded or committed to local authority accommodation and in respect of whom conditions under subsection (7) or (10) of section 23 of this Act have been imposed may be arrested without warrant by a constable if the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person has broken any of those conditions.
(2) A person arrested under subsection (1) above—

(a) shall, except where he was arrested within 24 hours of the time appointed for him to appear before the court in pursuance of the remand or committal, be brought as soon as practicable and in any event within 24 hours after his arrest before a justice of the peace for the petty sessions area in which he was arrested; and

(b) in the said excepted case shall be brought before the court before which he was to have appeared.

In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.
(3) A justice of the peace before whom a person is brought under subsection (2) above—

(a) if of the opinion that that person has broken any condition imposed on him under subsection (7) or (10) of section 23 of this Act shall remand him; and that section shall apply as if he was then charged with or convicted of the offence for which he had been remanded or committed;

1226

(b) if not of that opinion shall remand him to the place to which he had been remanded or committed at the time of his arrest subject to the same conditions as those which had been imposed on him at that time.".").

The noble Earl said: This amendment would give the police the power to arrest a juvenile who breaches a condition of his remand and then return him to the court. The court would then be able to reconsider the remand decision in respect of the offence for which he was remanded.
In practice, I do not envisage that this power will be greatly used. In most cases a juvenile in breach of local authority remand conditions who comes to the attention of the police would do so in circumstances in which the police already have the power of arrest: for example, in the act of committing an offence. However, it is widely accepted that it would nevertheless be useful to give the police the power of arrest for breach of remand conditions. Indeed, the introduction of such a power was recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its recent report on juvenile offending. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Detention of arrested juveniles after charge]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 39, leave out from ("charge),") to end of line 41 and insert ("after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"or
(c) in the case of an arrested juvenile who is not less than 12 but under 15 years of age, that—

(i) he has been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences;

(ii) he is subject to a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or has on a previous occasion been found by a court to be in breach of such a supervision order;

(iii) no secure accommodation is available; and

(iv) keeping him in other local authority accommoda-tion would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 19, I should like also, with your Lordships' leave, to speak to Amendment No. 20. These are two alternative resolutions of the same problem. I hope that my noble friend will give them equal attention. Not long ago, when we were discussing at great length the Criminal Justice Act 1991, we spent a great deal of time on the question of the inappropriate detention of juveniles of the ages of 14 and 15 overnight in police cells. I cited a number of examples to your Lordships where that happened despite guidance that it was inappropriate and the fact that local social work departments were prepared and indeed volunteered and asked to be able to take the children into care overnight. The grounds varied, but usually they were that in the view of the police no suitable accommodation was available or that it was not convenient or easy to move them.
As a result of those debates, we moved an amendment to Section 38(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which I also helped to take through this House, so as to provide that juveniles could not be held overnight in police detention unless a custody officer certified two things. One is that it is impractical

1227
to transfer the juvenile to local authority accommoda-tion. The other alternative is that where the juvenile is aged 15 or over, no secure accommodation is available and keeping him in other local authority accommoda-tion would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him.
Clause 23 has the effect of lowering the threshold of 15 in that case to 12, which is disturbing. It is not desirable that children aged 12 to 14 should be held overnight in police cells when they could be transferred to the local authority and held overnight in local authority accommodation. Before the rules were changed, young people of that age were not infrequently held in police custody in circumstances where local authority accommodation was available. I have a number of cases to illustrate that; but at this late hour I think that your Lordships will take them on trust.
However, the key characteristic of each of those cases is that the juvenile appearing in court the next day was granted either conditional bail or placed in an open unit of a regional remand and assessment centre. In other words, the requirement of security alleged by the police did not exist, which is why we now need a formal undertaking of the custody officers.
In Committee my noble friend said:
"I must emphasise that that is an exceptional power… The vast majority of juveniles, who are aged 12 to 16 and who are refused bail, will continue to be looked after by the local authority in the short period following charge and before their first court appearance".—[Official Report, 17/5/94; col. 161.]
My two modest alternative amendments are designed to make sure that that is in fact what happens and not merely what is intended to happen. The first amendment will achieve that by restricting the use of police detention to those young people under 15 whom the Bill has already identified in Clause 1 as requiring secure detention after sentence. I understand that that is what my noble friend originally intended.
However, since I tabled the original amendment it has been drawn to my notice that there is another arrangement which may be preferable on which we can also reflect; namely, restricting the use of the detention power to those who would be eligible to be remanded by the court to secure accommodation under a security requirement. Both those groups of criteria are familiar. I hope that my noble friend will agree that one or other of them will serve to implement the intentions he so clearly stated in Committee. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 seeks to alter the circumstances in which the police can use their discretion to hold an arrested juvenile aged 12, 13 or 14 in police detention. If the amendment were to be accepted, the police would only be able to detain a juvenile where the young person had been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences; where he had been subject to a supervision order or where he had breached one on a previous occasion; and where there was no local authority secure accommodation free and the police considered that that kind of accommodation was necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm.
1228
Amendment No. 20, which goes with Amendment No. 19, would also alter the circumstances in which the police can use their discretion to hold an arrested juvenile in that same age group in police detention. If Amendment No. 20 were accepted, the police would only be able to detain an arrested juvenile where he or she was charged with, or had been convicted of, a violent or sexual offence or an offence which would be punishable, in the case of an adult, with imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more; or where the juvenile had a history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation. In both cases it would also need to be established that there was no secure accommodation available and that that kind of accommodation was necessary to protect the public from serious harm.
I appreciate my noble friend's desire for consistency in the proposals for that age group. However, the decision to detain a juvenile overnight, or at most over a weekend, before a first court appearance is a very different one from that which applies when sentencing or remanding a juvenile. When deciding whether to deny bail for a juvenile there is a wider range of options available and more information about the juvenile will usually be available. A sentencing decision is made on a different basis too. In that case consideration will be given to the rehabilitative aim of any sentence; the background of the offender; the long term implications of a custodial sentence; and, of course, the appropriateness of the sentence for the particular offence.
In reaching a decision on whether to detain a juvenile in police cells, where there is no secure accommodation available, the police must be concerned primarily with the immediate risk to the public. The police carry the responsibility for protecting the public and ensuring that arrested youngsters appear before the court. It is only right, if responsibility rests with the police, that they should have the necessary powers to detain an arrested juvenile where they think that there would be a serious harm to the public if the juvenile were not so contained. This power should be available whatever may be the nature of the offence or nature of past history of offending.
That does not mean that I do not share my noble friend's concern that as few juveniles as possible should be held in police cells overnight. It is entirely understandable. That is why Clause 23 ensures that the police have the power to detain arrested youngsters who are aged from 12 to 14 and will only use that power on those very rare occasions when no local authority secure accommodation is available and after consultation with the local authority. In the majority of cases where that will happen, the criteria for the proposed amendment are in fact very likely to be met. I believe that it is wrong to insist that they should nevertheless always be met. I hope that my noble friend will understand that point of view.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot say that I am at all gratified by what my noble friend has said. We have a situation in which, with great difficulty and after long debate only three years ago, we decided that the age of

1229
14 was the minimum age at which the custody of children in police cells should, under difficult circumstances, reluctantly be permitted. Three years later my noble friend comes back and says that that level should be reduced to 12 years old. Children whose voices are not within a year or more of breaking are to be included in the age group which is not protected by these strict requirements.
It seems to me that my noble friend's speech—which I shall read with great care between now and Third Reading—is dramatically inconsistent with what he said in Committee. I quoted his words a moment ago. Noble Lords will remember that the sense of what he told us in Committee was that such custody would be carried out very rarely indeed and that it would only happen to people who had had a very serious history of offending, a history so serious that they qualified under Clause 1. What he said a moment ago was that whatever the nature of the past history of offending, the police should have the power to lock up those children. I shall verify that from the Official Report between now and Third Reading.
It seems to me that the position of the Government has hardened against these people and we should be looking for the same undertakings which were given in the passage of the 1991 Act as to the sort of circumstances under which the police would justifiably have recourse to this form of custody. Those criteria are set out in a circular of guidance issued by the Home Office following our debates and in the light of what was said. The examples given were of a blizzard, a serious strike and a third illustration which I cannot at the moment remember. We were told that the only circumstances which would justify this sort of custody for a person of that age were of that order. We did not hear that tonight. I hope we shall hear it at Third Reading when I shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved. ]
Clause 24 [No bail for defendants charged with or convicted of homicide or rape after previous conviction of such offences]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 14, line 44, after ("who") insert ("in any proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 24. The amendments relate to Clause 24. Their purpose is to clarify the circumstances in which Clause 24 would apply.
The intention of Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 is to place beyond doubt that Clause 24 is to be triggered by the present proceedings in the circumstances of the clause. Amendment No. 24 puts beyond doubt that Clause 24 is not to apply retrospectively to persons who were charged prior to the commencement of the section. The amendment makes clear that Clause 24 operates on proceedings instituted on or after the commencement of the section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 14, line 46, at end insert ("in those proceedings").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 14, line 46, at end insert ("unless the court is of the opinion that release on bail can be justified by the exceptional circumstances of the case.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is always a. matter of speculation who will reply to the arguments. I hope that on this occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will respond because I propose to quote some of the comments that he made on the last occasion we discussed the issues involved in the amendment.
Amendment No. 23 allows bail to be granted in serious cases which are covered by Clause 24 when the circumstances of the case are truly exceptional. Clause 24 provides that when a defendant has a previous conviction for one of a small number of serious offences —actual or attempted murder, manslaughter or rape— and appears before the court again charged with one of those offences, he or she must be refused bail and remanded in custody.
In any event, it would be rare for a defendant to be granted bail in those circumstances. If by some remarkable chance bail was granted, the Bail (Amendment) Act of 1993 empowers the prosecution to appeal against the granting of bail and the defendant is kept in custody until the appeal is heard. But there are rare and exceptional cases when it may be reasonable for a court to consider granting bail. Let us consider the case of a boy of 15 or 16 who is convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to long-term detention under the terms of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. He may serve several years in custody and the period in custody and what follows it may lead to a significant improvement in his general attitude and conduct.
He is eventually released and over a period of time becomes a stable and law-abiding member of the community with a job, a home and a family. Then 30 years or so after the original offence he is charged with a so-called "mercy killing" in which it is alleged that he administered a fatal overdose at the request of a grievously sick relative who was in great pain. That is a most serious allegation—and I do not make light of it —but should not a court in those circumstances have the power to grant bail if it regards the case as truly exceptional? It is very difficult to believe that there is any serious argument against the court having an absolute discretion in a case of this kind to make a decision on the merits of the case. Why should Parliament be invited to say, "Under no circumstances whatever should such a person be given bail"?
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will remember when we discussed this matter on the last occasion because he was asked a most reasonable question by his noble friend Lord Mottistone, who I am glad to see is with us this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said:
"Before the Government start saying, 'Look, we can't trust the magistrates or the judges in regard to bail for serious offences',

1231
they must be able to tell us that there is a good example of when such a case occurred. Even one example would help".—[Official Report, 17/5/94; col. 181.]
That seemed at the time to be an entirely reasonable statement. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did the best he could, given the fact that his brief on this point seemed to be a blank piece of paper. He said:
"The Committee can rest assured that, if I had had examples which I could have given in the Committee, I would of course have done so. I did not seek to say to the Committee that I had such examples. I simply put the matter on the basis that, without being able to cite examples of the kind that my noble friend desired, my proposition to the Committee was that, even though I could not identify such cases, nonetheless Parliament was entitled to take the view that the risk was not one that should be run".—[Official Report, 17/5/94; col. 182.]
We all look at the noble and learned Lord with an immense degree of affection, but in the 20 or more years that I have been in this House I have not heard such an extraordinary statement made from the Government Front Bench. Here was a clear case where urgent action had to be taken by Parliament. Asked the simple question, "What evidence is there that there is a problem?", the Government spokesman says, "I have not a single example I can give that such a problem exists". I can understand rhetoric at party conferences but I find it most disturbing that we are being invited to pass legislation on that basis. I very much hope that we will not have a similar approach in the debate this evening. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to rhetoric at party conferences. I am sure he will agree—I am afraid he will be forced to agree—that we have spent night after night over the past two months dealing with the consequences of ill-advised rhetoric at party conferences. That is what a large part of this Bill is about. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure that we should be forced into this situation.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with this amendment we are also taking my Amendment No. 25 which seeks to remove Clause 24. It may be appropriate if I contribute at this stage in view of the fact that I have been so extensively quoted.
I have had, as other noble Lords have had, a letter from my noble and learned friend who has the task of tackling this matter yet again, and also a letter from my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Both letters spend a lot of time saying why they think it is a good idea to do this —in order to set everyone's mind at rest and so on. Before I get on to that I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 23, which is a fall-back position if one likes it. I do not like it because of its implications for the magistrates' courts. I am not here concerned with the higher courts. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, can help us with that. The magistrates' courts grant bail only where they think that bail is right. They think it is wrong that there should be a clause which implies that they should get that wrong. To accept the clause even with the noble Lord's amendment gives the pass away that it could happen because it asks to be
1232
able to grant bail in exceptional circumstances. I do not like that solution. I believe that we should get rid of this confounded clause anyway.
The important thing for your Lordships to know— perhaps it is just as well that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is not in the Chamber—is that in his letter to me he attempted to tell me of examples. I quote:
"There are a number of cases involving homicides which are committed on bail".
I expect that that is true, but the letter does not say that there are a number of cases of homicide which are committed while on bail after the persons concerned have been found guilty of offences which are the subject of the clause in question. Therefore, I believe that we can discount that sentence. The letter continues:
"The most notable in recent years being the Hagans case, where the defendant, who had a previous record which included indecent assault"—
indecent assault is not on the list, but let that pass—
"was granted bail with conditions on a charge of rape".
So that fits.
"He went on to rape and to murder a young married woman".
In the nature of things I suspect that it was not a magistrates' court which granted bail. It may have been. That is one case. The letter goes on:
"There is also at least one case in the last ten years where a defendant has gone on to commit manslaughter whilst already on bail for manslaughter".
That is one case in the last 10 years, but the letter does not say which case and how we can identify it. I do not know why not. The letter continues:
"We cannot provide an example of a person who, having been once convicted for an offence in this serious category, goes on to be charged with another, is given bail and commits a third. But there are, as I have outlined, sufficient cases to indicate that there are risks of a type from which the public ought to be protected".
That must have squeezed the barrel to the bottom to get that tiny bit of juice. The only name which comes out of the whole of that letter and which might be convincing, but which probably does not apply to magistrates' courts, is the Hagans case. It is one off. It is a very exceptional case if it is true.
So we are left with what we had before. There is not a good example of where magistrates' courts have allowed people bail when they have committed the kinds of offences which are the subject of Clause 24. It is quite disgraceful that we are being pressed to include this in the Bill, because it is not necessary. Not only is it not necessary, but it implies a lack of trust in the judiciary at all levels to be careful not to give bail to people who have committed the serious kinds of offences which are the subject of Clause 24.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers said at the beginning of his letter that this matter had been the subject of long discussion between him and his colleagues. I am delighted to hear that. If he had been here I would have liked to thank him for that consideration. But they have still insisted and they really cannot find an example. It would be very good indeed if my noble and learned friend, when he replies, says "We shall go on having these discussions and we shall withdraw this clause at Third Reading if it is not struck out now". That is my contribution to this debate.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, at the risk of repeating some of what has already been said it is worth

1233
remembering in a little more detail what happened at Committee stage on 17th May. Noble Lords from all sides of the Committee asked the Minister to return to the Home Secretary and to convey to him the overwhelming feeling that this clause was flawed. He kindly undertook to do so. But in the meantime, as has already been mentioned, he wrote to a number of us who took part in that debate and I am most grateful to him for the trouble which he took in doing so. In the letter which I received the Minister set out the Government's position in relation to some of the points which were raised but sadly there was nothing in that letter to suggest that the Home Secretary was prepared to reconsider any aspects of this clause.
The question which he was asked by a number of noble Lords was whether there was in fact any example which he could place before the House to support the need for this particular piece of legislation. As I recall, it was asked by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and Lord Mottistone, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Certainly, no example was given in the correspondence which the Minister was good enough to send me.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey put it in this way, asking whether there should be some,
"evidence of a mischief which is supposed to be remedied by what is virtually a full page of legislation".—[Official Report, 17/5/94; col. 181.]
I ask the noble and learned Lord whether this is a real problem—or whether what we have here, in virtually a full page of statute, is something that is devoted to an empty gesture. If Criminal Justice Bills are to be used by the Government to legislate against hypothetical events which, so far as the Home Office knows, have never actually occurred in significant numbers, if at all, but which may hypothetically occur at some unspecified future date and which may thereby theoretically cause embarrassment to some Home Secretary perhaps as yet unborn, it is little wonder that I, together I suspect with the country at large, despair of the Government making any real impact on crime and its causes.
This provision is insulting to magistrates and judges alike because it says in terms, "You cannot be trusted to exercise your judgment correctly. The question of bail in these cases is far too important to be left to you". I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can help me on this, but who has asked for this clause to be inserted in the Bill? Where does the pressure or the need for it come from? I suspect that I could supply an answer.
It is extremely rare for bail to be granted in cases such as those envisaged by the clause, but there are exceptional cases. The clause refers to culpable homicide. As I understand it, that includes the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter may result simply from using excessive force in self-defence when one is being attacked. Is it really to be the case that a man convicted in his youth (perhaps as a result of a driving accident, albeit a serious one) cannot many years later be granted bail when he is charged with manslaughter in circumstances such as I have just outlined?
1234
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, sought to remove the clause from the Bill altogether. Amendment No. 23, which is grouped with the noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 23, is surely modest and is, one would hope, the very least that a sensible government would feel able to accept.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I respectfully submit that where the Executive seeks to interfere with the established discretion of the judiciary, it has a very heavy burden to discharge—and the Government have not got within miles of so doing on this occasion.
With apologies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who is not in his place, perhaps I may borrow one of his well known phrases. This clause bears the imprint of the cloven hoof of popularisrn—and for that reason should be ignored.
Baroness David: My Lords, as my name is to Amendment No. 23, I naturally support it, but having listened to everything that has been said, I think I would much prefer that the clause is deleted altogether, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wants. I hope at the very least that the noble and learned Lord will accept Amendment No. 23. It would do the Government a great deal of good if they could occasionally accept the excellent arguments which are put before them and give way rather than obstinately hanging on to what is there in the Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I hope that we are not thought merely to cling obstinately to what is in the Bill. When this matter was before your Lordships previously, I undertook to convey to the Home Secretary the strongly held feelings of your Lordships which had been expressed in Committee. That was done, but although the matter has been reconsidered—as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, it has been carefully and anxiously reconsidered—by the Home Secretary and so on, none the less, the Government's view is that the clause should stand, and stand in its present form.
With the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I do not accept his characterisation, which he used in Committee, of this being interference in the courts by the Executive. With the greatest respect to him, there is all the difference in the world between a provision in an Act of Parliament and some interference—if one uses that word—by the Government, as opposed to Parliament, with what the court is doing. After all, Acts of Parliament are how judges learn part of the law that they have to apply. If the provision were enacted, it would become the law and would in no sense be the Executive interfering with the discretion of the judiciary.
The issue is a basic one. I said on a previous occasion —I did not shrink from saying it on that occasion and I do not shrink from saying it now—that I could not give your Lordships examples of such a situation having arisen. Had I been able to, as your Lordships may well imagine, I should have been delighted then, and more than delighted in the interim, had I have been able to discover examples, to have written to your Lordships.

1235
But examples there are not. I never pretended that there were. There is a fundamental disagreement, and not one that can be bridged easily, between the Government's position and the position of your Lordships who oppose the provision. I respect the position on this matter that your Lordships adopt.
On Report in another place the Opposition did not suggest that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, or anything like that. I accept that one can look at the list, and ask—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, did on a previous occasion—why certain offences were not included while others were. One could look at the list and say that one could add or subtract from it. None the less, the Government have looked at the matter, taken that into account, and said that in those circumstances —not others —bail should not be considered by the court. That is not in any sense an insult to the magistrates or judges. It is merely that the Government take the view that Parliament is entitled to say that in those circumstances there should be no question of any risk arising.
It was easy, if I may say so, for noble Lords to make a certain degree of fun about whether it might theoretically —I think that is what was said—cause some embarrassment to a Home Secretary not yet born. It is not a question of embarrassment to a Home Secretary, but of the pain caused to someone who suffered as a result of an offence committed by someone who had been granted bail, however careful may have been consideration of the circumstances.
The Government say that the balance of considera-tion is that in such circumstances bail should not be available. The circumstances are rare but the Government say that in those circumstances Parliament is entitled to take the view that bail should not be available even as a last resort, as suggested in the noble Lord's amendment. We accept that where the provision applies, the. circumstances will be exceptional. We do not believe that, exceptional as they are, bail should be available in any circumstance. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wish to ask him one question. He agrees that there are no examples of this particular event. He said that it is appropriate for the Executive to pass legislation which controls the courts. However, he does not give examples of that being a good idea, such as this case which has no precedent; it is new. Can my noble and learned friend think of legislation that has been introduced because it is a happy idea and on which the courts have been letting the side down, but not this particular case? I do not believe that there is one otherwise he would have come up with it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not know whether I can give an example of the kind my noble friend is looking for. It depends exactly how one characterises it. But there are examples of situations in which Parliament has provided a rule and has left no discretion to the courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, posed a clear example of that in the case
1236
of life imprisonment for murder where no discretion is left to the courts. Therefore, Parliament can and has done that and I make the point strongly that it is Parliament as opposed to the Executive that is doing so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate attempts again to sit down, perhaps I may make a point. He said that on Report in another place the Opposition did not oppose this provision. He will know better than I that on Report in the House of Commons it is not possible procedurally to deal with all the issues that arise from the Bill. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that in Committee the Opposition tabled an amendment which was close to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I certainly accept that there were discussions and amendments in Committee. However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be equally aware that there was a Government amendment to this matter on Report, which appears in the Bill before your Lordships, and that was not opposed at that stage by the Opposition.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he agree that his analogy with regard to the mandatory life sentence is wholly untenable? It is not a case of reining in existing discretions as exist here. He knows as well as all of us that it was a compromise solution in order to affect the abolition of the capital offence situation.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, of course I accept the characterisation of the situation in which that particular provision is brought forward. My concern was to say that it is an example of Parliament indicating to the judges that they will do something, and it leaves them no discretion in the matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, no doubt the noble and learned Lord during his career at the Bar has had some unattractive cases to argue. I doubt whether he has had such a miserable case as that which he has had to defend tonight. We began by looking desperately for examples. The case of Andrew Hagans was cited. He was indeed granted bail by a magistrates' court and then he raped and murdered Anna McGurk. However, he would not have been covered by Clause 24 because his previous conviction was for indecent assault and not rape or homicide.
When governments ask for parliamentary powers of the kind for which they are asking here, one would assume that there would be a scintilla of a case, and something, (however vague and transitory it may be) which could be used to justify the powers that are being sought which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, cover a page of the statute. There is nothing. The noble and learned Lord was quite explicit. I believe that he said that there are no examples.
When this matter was put to the Minister on the last occasion and he admitted total ignorance of any such examples, I have not the slightest doubt what followed. There would have been letters from Home Office

1237
officials to the Crown Prosecution Service asking it to identify any such cases. After that huge trawl, the answer would have been that there was none.
Why do they want those powers? They want them so that speeches can be made at party conferences. There is no other serious argument behind it at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, rightly said, Clause 24 asks us to make an implied criticism of the magistracy; and yet there is no single example of magistrates using their powers or authority irresponsibly.
I am afraid that it is just another piece of political nonsense and theatre. When the noble and learned Lord desperately thought of something that he could say to justify the contents of the clause, as far as I was able to understand the point that he was making, it was that on the assumption that such a case might arise in the next 10,20 or 30 years, somebody might be gratified that the magistrates' discretion had been limited in that fashion. No other serious argument was deployed by him at all.
On the substance of the matter that we are discussing, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I prefer to get rid of the clause altogether. It is foolish, irresponsible and is yet another indication of Ministers prepared to play games with the statute book in order to derive temporary personal political advantage. There is nothing else to be said with regard to the amendment.
I intend to withdraw the amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is quite right with regard to the substance of the argument.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 15, line 34, at end insert:
("(6) This section does not apply in relation to proceedings instituted before its commencement.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 25:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
9.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 68.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lockwood, B.

Addington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monkswell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Monson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Annaly, L.

Burnham, L.

Balfour, E.

Butterworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnock, L.

Blyth, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

1238

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lyell, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cranborne, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Norrie, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Downshire, M.

Peel, E.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Gray, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strange, B.

Hacking, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

[Teller.]

Hesketh, L.

Teynham, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
( "Effect of custody on mental health of offender
.In paragraph 9 of the Part I of Schedule I to the Bail Act 1976, after sub-paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(e) the state of the mental health of the defendant and the likely effect upon this of a remand in custody".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause requires the court, before remanding a defendant in custody, to consider the likely impact on his or her mental health. There is, I think, a widespread concern about the current arrangements whereby mentally disturbed people are often remanded in custody for medical reports. In the year ending March 1992 there were 4,732 such reports. I think it is recognised that prison is the worst place for someone who has a mental disorder. Often they live in gloomy and insanitary conditions inside large Victorian prisons, with mentally disordered offenders being locked up for substantial periods of time—in many cases for over 20 hours a day. That, of course, exacerbates the mental condition of people who are in some cases suffering from mental illness.
These conditions can increase both the risk of suicide and self-mutilation. According to a Written Answer at col. WA74 of Hansard given by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers,—whom I am glad to see here this evening—on 26th July last year, 218 prisoners took their own lives between 1988 and 1992. Just about half of those people were remand prisoners and of that group nearly one in three was mentally disordered.
A study of mentally disordered remand prisoners was recently carried out for the Home Office by Adrian Grounds, Susanne Dell and Katie James of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology and by Graham

1239
Robertson of the Institute of Psychiatry. I am glad this report was actually published, unlike, I understand, some other Home Office research reports which are now being suppressed by Ministers. However, this one was published and I welcome the fact that that was done. It was in the high traditions of the Home Office that it published the report—a tradition which has been followed by governments, until now, of both major political parties. However, the research in this particular case was summarised in an article contained in Home Office Research Bulletin No. 32 in 1992. The study recorded details of all the men and women remanded in custody in Holloway, Brixton and Risley over a five to six-month period in 1989. The people remanded in custody totalled 952 in all.
The authors' conclusion is worthy of our attention. They concluded:
"Although there was variation in the medical organisation and practice of the three establishments … all were totally unsuitable places in terms of regime and physical conditions in which to house mentally disordered people. Why then should all these people, so few of whom were thought to require imprisonment when sentenced, have been sent to prison on remand? It seemed clear from the study that this was not because of the seriousness of their offences, but because of their apparent need for help: the courts were using remand prisons as social and psychiatric assessment and referral centres.
"The research however showed remands in custody to be not only an inhumane, but an ineffective way of securing help and care for disturbed people. For those who obtained hospital places it meant weeks or months of imprisonment, at the end of which they were admitted to beds for which they had been qualified at the outset. And for the mentally ill people who were not offered beds, the process was equally unsatisfactory. In most cases they were petty offenders without social roots, for whom magistrates had evidently ordered custodial remands in the hope that some kind of solution to their problems would be found. After weeks in prison they were generally discharged back to the situations they had come from without the courts being able to arrange for accommodation, treatment or support".
That is the view of the authors of the report. It shows that Home Office Ministers and the last Home Secretary —and also his predecessor—all indicated their serious concern about the number of mentally disordered people who were finding their way to prison.
A few moments ago the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminded us of the need to save public money in relation to pre-sentencing reports. He said that we must avoid unnecessary expenditure of public money. I cannot think of anything which involves greater waste of public money than sending these sad, bewildered people to remand prisons, particularly when they are sent there for reasons of social inadequacy.
It seems to me that once again this is an amendment which the Government could accept without a great deal of difficulty. However, I have not the slightest doubt that they will resist it. I hope to be proved wrong by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but the Government do not appear to be even remotely interested in the arguments which are advanced against any aspect of the Bill. That is an unfortunate outcome to our discussions. Nevertheless, I look forward to being proved wrong by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has spoken about the effect of custody on mentally ill offenders.
I have visited several prisons. Time and time again the warders who are in charge of the men, and who care for them, say that they are not qualified to look after mentally ill offenders. It is of great concern to them that they do not know what to do. They do not believe that they should have that task. It does not come within their terms of reference. It is harmful both to the men and to the warders looking after them.
10 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, at Committee stage I had occasion to observe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had remarkable powers of prediction in these matters. On this occasion he has predicted that I would resist the amendment and I have to say that his prediction is correct. However, it is not the case that that arises simply from an unwillingness to consider the matter. On the contrary, the matter has been considered and the whole issue relating to the mental health of prisoners is obviously one of considerable concern. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has done a great service in drawing attention to the matter both in Committee and on Report.
I observe in passing that, considered strictly and technically, the amendment of the noble Lord is not appropriate. It seeks to add into the list of considerations in paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1976 the sub-paragraph in the amendment. The effect would be to suggest that the court would have to take that into account in reaching a decision on the first of the two matters on which the court has to take a decision under paragraph 2 of the schedule. Those matters involve, for example, whether or not the person would fail to surrender to custody, or would commit an offence while on bail or interfere with a witness. Those matters have to be looked at when considering whether the person should lose the right to bail. The provision on the Marshalled List would be relevant to the second of the decisions under paragraph 2. I do not believe that that consideration would be relevant to the first of those issues. Therefore, considered in a strictly technical way, I believe that the noble Lord's amendment is not proper.
However, the matter that the noble Lord raises goes wider and is a more serious issue. As I said on the previous occasion when we discussed the matter, it is not the case that the Government have shown no interest. It is not the case that nothing is being done. The simple fact is that over the past few years there has been a development of mental health assessment schemes at both police station level and in the magistrates' courts. The effect of those schemes is that the mental condition of people to be brought before the courts is considered even before they come before the courts and their disposal considered.
For example, let us consider the Horseferry Road Magistrates' Courts. A team comprising two psychiatr-ists—one psychiatrist always being of consultant status —an approved social worker and a senior forensic psychiatric nurse attends the court two days a week. Where the magistrates ask for that to be done, the people

1241
who appear before the court are sent to the team and a report prepared about them. That report is available to the magistrates when they take the decision about bail or remand.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows perhaps better than most of us, under the Bail Act at that stage it is open to the magistrates to have regard to any other factors which appear to be relevant. Among the factors to which they will be entitled to have regard would be information which came from the team as to the effect of a remand on the mental health of the person concerned. In that way, the matter can be focused before the magistrates when they take that kind of decision.
In addition, the detail does not need to be gone into, but noble Lords will know that there are also powers available under the Mental Health Act 1983 both to the magistrates and under slightly different conditions to the Crown Courts to make orders for someone to be remitted to hospital, even at an early stage. Even if it does not go as far as that, it is always possible, as a result of the kind of examination which I have described, that in an appropriate case, if there were a decision not to proceed with the case, the psychiatrist could make an order under Section 2 or Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, as appropriate, for a civil order for a person to be sent to a mental hospital for investigation and treatment. All those are available at that stage.
I accept that nevertheless a large number of people who find themselves on remand are suffering from some kind of mental condition. The result is that they have to be dealt with. As your Lordships may know, over the past few years there has been an increase in the number of transfers from prisons to hospitals. In 1989 the figure was 217. It had risen to 325 in 1990. By last year it was 749, and 480 of those transferred were remand prisoners. So there has been an increase.
I recognise that there is a need for appropriate accommodation for those people. Obviously, the figures cannot go. on rising unless there is appropriate accommodation. Here again, there has been put in place a programme for an increase in the number of secure places, particularly in connection with the National Health Service medium secure places. Again, I can give your Lordships the figures. In 1993 there were 654 medium secure places. In 1995 it is projected that the number of such places will be 1,014; and by 1996, 1,274.
In 1993 there were 416 private sector medium secure places. I do not pretend for one minute that all those places are available for people being transferred. Other people are accommodated as well. But noble Lords can see from the figures that there is a recognition of the need for such places and that there is an increase in the numbers.
Our position is therefore that work is being done and that a statutory duty of this kind is not the way forward. What has already been done is having an effect. It will continue to have an effect. We should go on in that way with the kind of scheme we have in place at the moment. To give examples of what is being done, even in terms of the prison service, in 1993 over 16,000 consultations with consultant psychiatrists took place within the prison service. The number of officers in nursing grades
1242
working in prison doubled between 1992 and now from 257 to 539. Also—I believe that it is important—the percentage of those working in prisons with profession-al qualifications in relation to healthcare staff has been increased from 35 per cent. to 51 per cent.
A lot has been done and this particular proposal is not appropriate and not necessary. There are various ways of tackling this problem in the courts and ultimately in the prisons. That is being done. That is indeed the way forward. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps he can reassure us on one point. He told us that a great deal has improved, and that is very welcome news indeed. However, I well recall some years ago, when I was doing a study in Holloway, the case of someone who plainly was totally mentally disturbed. The governor agreed. I said to him —it is now a different governor, I may add—that surely this was not a case for prison but a case lor a hospital He replied, "Of course it is, but hospitals cannot be made to take someone. The courts say to me, 'Here is a case. You have to take him. You are a prison and you cannot refuse'. The hospitals can refuse."
So long as that is the case surely there will be such misplacing of people who quite clearly should not be in prison. The hospitals have a right to refuse and therefore such people get dumped in prison because there is nowhere else to put them. Can the noble and learned Lord reassure us that that position is changing and that the hospitals are not able to refuse to take those which are plainly hospital cases and not prison cases?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised a point on which I am not sure of the exact details. However, my understanding is that the Home Secretary has indeed a power to make an order transferring to a hospital. If I am wrong in that, I shall write to the noble Baroness. But my understanding is that, as a result of reports from responsible medical officers in prisons, in such a situation an order can be made by the Home Secretary. I believe that that deals with the point made by the noble Baroness. If I am wrong in my understanding, I shall write to her.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord said, I rightly predicted his reply. It does not surprise me in the least because that has been the invariable response of the Government to the overwhelming proportion of amendments to the Bill which we put forward. His response did not deal with many of the serious issues which I tried to cover in my speech, particularly the Home Office research study. As I said, it was welcome, given the fact that it was published in the period before the shutters came down on Home Office research, which we now know has; been decided by Ministers for the first time.
What the noble and learned Lord said—no doubt he will intervene if he wishes to respond to the point and I shall gladly give way to him—was that it would not be appropriate to pass this amendment, laying the burden on the court in the case of remand in custody. It would be wrong to require the court to consider the impact on

1243
a person's mental health before the remand. If that is not appropriate, perhaps he can explain why Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires the court to take that into account before passing a sentence of imprisonment on just such a mentally disordered person.
I know that the Government have retreated very rapidly indeed from many of the provisions of the 1991 Act, but the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying that it seems rather strange to lay that requirement on a court so far as a sentence of imprisonment is concerned but to resist so firmly the suggestion that it should also be considered by the court in the case of a bail decision, given the fact, as we all know, that the local prisons where such persons are kept are overflowing. Many of them suffer from hideously difficult personal problems and are not in any sense people with sophisticated criminal pasts. They are simply before the court for reasons of social and mental inadequacy.
The problem is made even worse by the so-called "care in the community" programme where the Government cheerfully throw people out of mental hospitals—many of them on to the streets—as a result of which many of them are sucked into the criminal justice system. The police have consistently told Ministers what has been happening not only in London but in other cities and in many smaller communities in this country. It is a wholly irresponsible policy for the Government to pursue.
The noble and learned Lord says that we must think of the duty psychiatrist schemes. I agree. I visited such a project in Clerkenwell which is first class and run by two first rate psychiatrists. But that in no way undermines the case for an amendment of this kind. They both flow in exactly the same direction; namely, that there could be some requirement for the court to consider the mental condition of someone they may remand in custody and at the same time have an effective duty psychiatrist system in operation. The noble and learned Lord will know from those who are briefing him that pitiably few duty psychiatrist schemes exist in this country, though the number has increased over the immediate past.
As I indicated, I shall gladly give way to the noble and learned Lord if he will answer the question I put to him a moment ago; namely, that under Section 4 of the 1991 Act the court is required to consider the mental condition of someone before deciding whether or not to send a person to prison yet it is apparently wrong for the same court to consider exactly the same issues before deciding whether or not to remand a person in custody. What is the answer?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the basic point is that in the other case we are dealing with a final disposal and here we are dealing with a remand where other issues are involved. As I said, it is open to the magistrates, when the matter is drawn to their attention and when appropriate, to take account of the mental condition—indeed they must take account of it—if it appears to them to be relevant. That is what paragraph
1244
9 of the schedule says. Therefore, in so far as they think the matter is relevant and it is drawn to their attention, they must already take it into account. To go further than that and place upon them a duty which would appear to apply in all cases, is going too far.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will read those words tomorrow because, with great respect to him, they appear almost to be devoid of meaning. He tries to reconcile the two approaches yet uses terms like, "It is more appropriate in one case than the other". That is not a serious argument. However, the hour is late and we may well come back to this at Third Reading. As I indicated, I am not surprised by the response which is entirely consistent with the responses we have heard on many other occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
( "Offences committed by young persons
.In section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 there shall be inserted the following—
"✶(1) Where a child or young person is alleged to have committed an offence whilst under the age of 14 years, the prosecutor shall satisfy the court that the child or young person knew that the behaviour which is alleged to have constituted the offence was seriously wrong.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the word "satisfy" in subsection (1) above shall mean satisfied beyond reasonable doubt".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on 24th March this year a High Court judgment in the case of C (a minor) v The Director of Public Prosecutions, undid the common law rule which required the prosecution to satisfy a court that a child under the age of 14 understood that what he or she had done was seriously wrong. The purpose of this clause is to return the law to what it was prior to 29th March.
This common law principle, known as doli incapax, was an effective way of ensuring that the law was able to reflect and respond to the varying rates of maturity for different individual children; and they do vary very much indeed. The age of criminal responsibility in this country stands at 10 years. That is one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Western Europe. While children of such a young age are subject to the rigours of the criminal law, it is important that some degree of flexibility is included in the legal framework for dealing with them. The aim of this clause is to require the prosecution to demonstrate to courts that children aged between 10 and 13 knew that what they were doing was seriously wrong.
Sometimes this will be very straightforward and easily demonstrated, particularly for those at the older end of the age range. In other cases, particularly for the younger age group, there may be serious doubt as to whether the child really understood the wrongdoing involved in his or her action. It cannot be right to burden a child as young as 10 with the stigma of a criminal conviction when the individual concerned does not understand that what he has done is wrong. For such a

1245
child it may be much more appropriate to take action, if necessary, through welfare legislation and the family proceedings court.
This clause is not a new or radical departure from our traditional approach to children in trouble. Rather, it aims to reassert a legal principle which has evolved over the past 150 years. There has been a series of court judgments which have clarified and supported the principle of this clause. The most recent was in 1991. The judgment in March overturning the common law principle surprised many in the child care and legal professions. This clause will enable us to return to a situation which enables criminal courts to respond sensibly and sensitively to young children.
Many children appearing before the court will have experienced significant difficulties while growing up. It is only right that courts have the opportunity to decide, on an individual basis, if such a child, aged 13 years or under, really is able to understand the wrongdoing involved in his or her action. This clause seeks to allow criminal courts the level of flexibility required when dealing with very young children. I would ask for your Lordships' support. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the effect of this new clause would be to place on the statute book the presumption —which is known as doli incapax—that a child aged between 10 and 14 does not know the difference between right and wrong and is therefore incapable of forming the mental intention necessary for him to be convicted of a criminal offence. Some of your Lordships might find that sometimes hard to swallow, but there it is.
Your Lordships may be aware that this long-standing common law principle was earlier this year overturned in a Divisional Court ruling. I understand that the case concerned is now the subject of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of this House. It would, I think, therefore be premature at this stage to seek to legislate on the matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it would be better to wait until the outcome of the appeal is known. The Government will then give full considera-tion to its implications.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I did not know that this was the subject of an appeal, which does, of course, make a difference. Can the noble Earl tell me when the appeal is likely to be heard?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness any information about that.
Baroness David: My Lords, I hope I have made my point because it is an important one. Our understanding of children should be rather greater. It is, again, a case of the courts being trusted and having responsibility. However, in the circumstances I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 28:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
( "Imputations on character
.In section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 there shall be inserted at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (f) the words "the deceased victim of the alleged crime; or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will recall from the debates on the right of silence, it was in 1898, under the Criminal Evidence Act, that an accused person was first allowed to give evidence in his own defence. That Act provided, because it gave that right, protection for that person being asked questions with regard to his character, his past convictions if any. Section l(f) provided that:
"A person charged and called as a witness in pursuance of this Act shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged, or is of bad character unless"—
It is paragraph (ii) which is the relevant exception and the subject matter of the amendment. The exception reads:
"unless the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for that prosecution".
The way it works in practice is simply this: if the accused, having given instructions for the character of the prosecution or its witnesses to be attacked, then elects to give evidence, there can be put to him his convictions so that the jury are not given a false or unbalanced picture when asked to decide whom they believe, the evidence of the prosecution or that of the defence. But your Lordships will have observed that this relates only to where the witnesses for the prosecution are attacked.
In the case of a fatality—murder or manslaughter, or an offence of grievous bodily injury which results in death—there is ex hypothesi no victim who can be called by the prosecution. That enables the accused to attack the character of the deceased and then to give evidence as if he were whiter than snow because no one is entitled to put to him his character. I instance the well-known defence on the western circuit known as the Portsmouth defence where the accused says, "I was subject to an outrageous homosexual attack and all I was doing was defending myself and then produces evidence of homosexual convictions in relation to the deceased, he, ex hypothesi, the defendant or accused, having a long record of violence. But that is not drawn to the attention of the jury.
I put forward the amendment in Committee. I submitted that I was doing no more than advancing the philosophy of the Government, with which I agreed, that the balance had tilted too far in favour of the accused and also that where there were technical rules which no longer seemed justified and which in fact seemed repugnant to common sense. They should be done away with.
In reply the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, expressed considerable sympathy with the criticisms I had made of the law but said that the Government had asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of the law governing evidence of previous misconduct. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out in fairly firm terms that anything which was sent to the Law Commission for its consideration inevitably involved, first, delay

1247
before its report it came out, but, greater still, the length of time it took for government to find time to introduce legislation. I pointed out that coincidentally it was only a week or two before our debate that the head of the Law Commission had protested in very strong terms at the amount of dust which reports which it had made were gathering awaiting, unsuccessfully, an opportunity to be the subject matter of legislation.
With his usual willingness to give further thought to the matter, the noble Earl said that he would certainly consider the point that there might be a very long delay before what is a very modest alteration to the law could be given parliamentary time. It is in that sense of optimism that I raise yet again this amendment in the hope that he can provide us with some comfort on the subject. I beg to move
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment, as I did in Committee. Where an attack is made on a live witness for the Crown, the defendant's own bad character may, if the judge gives leave, be placed before the jury so that it has the full picture in deciding where the truth lies. It seems ironic that where an attack is made on the character of the deceased who cannot give his or her own account of events, the jury is denied the right to know the details of the character of the defendant who makes the attack. Whether defending or prosecuting in a murder case as a member of the Bar, it always seemed to me that the interests of justice require that no such distinction should be made.
It will not do to suggest, as the noble Earl sought to do on the last occasion, that this is a matter for the Law Commission to consider because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has already said, when the Law Commission does consider such matters and produces draft Bills, too often those Bills simply pile up because the Home Office does not press for them to take any priority in a future government programme.
This is a relatively minor but important proposal to alter the law in a respect which I should have thought would appeal to the noble Earl and his Government. I hope that he will feel able to accept the amendment on this occasion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment unreservedly in the light of my experience of conducting murder cases.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I feel as a matter of common sense that those who have spoken to this amendment are quite right: this is an amendment that should be supported. However, I should be grateful if one of those who has spoken could help me on one matter. It is possible, I think, to construct an argument to say that an attack on the character of a witness is carried out for the purpose of disputing the credit of that witness before the court in his evidence, whereas an attack on the character of the deceased is done for a quite different reason. It is not done to discredit his evidence; it is done to show some propensity on the part of the deceased to a certain type of behaviour. I hope
1248
that that matter can be dealt with in simple terms—I am sure that it can be—because that would remove my one lingering doubt about the merits of this obviously worthwhile amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I rise briefly, as I did on the last occasion that we debated this, to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Baroness. It seems only right and proper that an amendment to the law along these lines should be accepted.
All that I would add is that I very much hope that the noble Earl will not rely on the Law Commission defence because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, it impresses remarkably few people. As we all know, if a matter is referred to the Law Commission it will be a substantial period of time before it is able to adjudicate on it, and we know about the length of the queue of Law Commission Bills which are awaiting Parliament's attention.
As the noble Earl may recall, I raised this matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In my view and in, I think, the opinion of others, I did not get a wholly satisfactory response. As far as Parliament is concerned, there are intolerable delays in considering Law Commission Bills. I hope that we shall not be told this evening that we have to await a decision of the Law Commission on this important matter. It requires more urgent attention than that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot tell your Lordships the pleasure that it gave me when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said during the course of his introductory remarks that he agreed with the Government. From his record of voting today, that was not immediately obvious. The noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that I did not know that his view always was that he agreed with the Government, but he did say so this evening, and that came as nectar to my soul.
I said in Committee that I would reflect carefully on the noble and learned Lord's powerful case for his amendment. I took note in particular of your Lordships' more general impatience to deal with this matter before the Law Commission's review of the law on evidence of previous misconduct. As I said in Committee, the amendment departs from the rationale of the tit-for-tat rule, because it is not concerned with an attack upon the character of a person who is giving evidence. The victim is dead. For rather obvious reasons, he will be unable to give evidence.
The amendment will though increase, albeit marginally, the number of occasions upon which the defence has to decide whether it is worth risking putting forward what may be a truthful and justified attack upon the character of a deceased victim in a case that results in his criminal history being exposed.
The amendment has the obvious attraction of deterring unjustified attacks on the character of a deceased which would thereby spare the victim's family further suffering. Certainly the noble and learned Lord's views seem to have won the sympathy of the Committee. Like most matters, there are arguments for and against, but the Government would not wish to

1249
stand in the way of a general consensus that this limited extension of the tit-for-tat rule should be undertaken in advance of the Law Commission's fundamental review.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, on an amendment of his to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate had the unbridled pleasure of replying a little earlier, that Her Majesty's Government are not remotely interested in any improvement to the Bill that anyone might suggest. So the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would understand were I to tell him that the Government did not wish to accept the amendment, but the noble Lord will not be surprised if I tell him, as is so often the case, that his rather trenchant diktats sometime misfire and are not always correct. The fact is that the Government are in favour of amendments where they improve the Bill, but they are not in favour of amendments where they make it less effective. In this case of course we consider that the amendment would improve the Bill. I am happy to accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his kindness, and for his willingness to reconsider, as he clearly has done, the situation which was outlined on the previous occasion.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl to this extent. As Hansard will show, I expressed my support for the Government in the observations I made in a distinct and limited field. I have shown that support consistently on the important matter of the right of silence, as so called. It was to that that I referred. It was not a general pat on the back for all their activities in this extensive Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Abolition of corroboration rules]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 20, leave out line 23 and insert:
("shall comply with such practice directions as to a revised form of warning as may be given by the Lord Chief Justice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 30 abolishes the current requirement that judges should warn juries of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant (male or female) in sexual offences, or of an accomplice, leaving it to the discretion of the judge as to whether to warn or not to warn.
According to current practice, when the judge has ruled that there is no evidence capable of corroboration, he first explains to the jury the meaning of corroboration in relation to the evidence given. He then directs them that it is dangerous to convict but that they may do so if they are sure. One must be objective about this. No one can truly pretend that this is entirely satisfactory. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in his Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture:
"In practice, the corroboration rules have become more and more technical and arcane; less and less in accord with common sense. Explaining them intelligibly to juries has become difficult. I therefore agree with the Royal Commission's recommendation and am glad the Bill reflects it".
Perhaps we may pause for a moment. Clause 30. retains the corroboration rules. It retains them and, instead of making a warning mandatory, all that it does is to leave to the discretion of the judge the decision whether or not to warn. Secondly, Clause 30 retains the
1250
current form of warning if it is given—that it is dangerous to convict—without affording any opportun-ity for the judiciary to devise any other formula.
The natural interpretation of the Bill is that the current form of warning in these two types of cases and in all other cases will be given where the particular circumstances must warrant a caution and that in due course further guidance will be given by the Court of Appeal or by practice directions, as proposed by the amendment. But in these two types of cases what is to happen pending such further guidance? Although it may well be said that the concept of Clause 30 was fathered by the Royal Commission, it is apparent from its report that the problems of implementation, to which I have referred, were not considered.
In those circumstances, as regards these two types of cases, it is not acceptable to leave to the judge the decision whether or not to warn. First, where no warning in current form is given, the prospect of an appeal against an unsafe conviction is simply put to the hazard, and that matter was not considered by the Royal Commission. Furthermore, the obligation to give a warning in whatever form avoids all hint of criticism of the judge who fails to warn and puts paid to the suggestion made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State either in his Blackpool speech or in the 27-point programme that:
"It is not appropriate for a female judge to have to give such a warning in a rape case with a female complainant".
That is a matter to which I referred on Second Reading as constituting a wholly unacceptable basis on which to support an amendment to the law as proposed by Clause 30.
Perhaps it is apparent that the current practice is not entirely satisfactory; that the corroboration rules should be abrogated; that Clause 30(1), which leaves those rules as they stand, is not acceptable; that leaving it to the discretion of the judge as to whether or not to warn does not begin to grapple with the essence of the problem. Therefore, perhaps a new approach, such as that proposed by Amendment No. 31, is worthy of consideration.
Clause 32(2) amends Section 34(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 so as to abolish the need for the corroboration warning to be given before convicting only on the evidence of a child complainant in a sex case or where the child is an accomplice or for some other reason. That is not well conceived. It will tend to engender unsafe convictions in serious cases where the interests of justice and the dictates of common sense require that such warnings should be given. Furthermore, again, it would inhibit the Court of Appeal from quashing unsafe convictions.
The amendment to which I speak maintains current practice pending modification of it by the judiciary. It removes statutory intervention in what should continue to remain within the province of the judiciary. It avoids the problems arising in the wake of Clause 30, if enacted —the vacuum period pending guidance. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on the last occasion, I listened, as always, to the admirable submissions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who always prepares her work with the skill of a well-practised Queen's Counsel and then delivers it in a way in which it is a pleasure to listen. But I did not intervene because I had only a hazy recollection at the back of mind of two decisions for which I was responsible—Regina v. Beck when I was presiding in the Court of Appeal, and Regina v. Spencer, where I gave the leading judgment in your Lordships' House.
That reminded me to look at the Law Commission's report which was produced in September 1991, in order to discover what exactly had been the conclusion of the commission. It concluded:
"We are impressed by the almost unanimous view on consultation that the present obligation to give a corroboration warning should be abolished".
It pointed out that of the 38 submissions which commented on the proposed abolition of the corroboration rules, 35 agreed with that proposal. Abolition elicited strong judicial support, in particular from the judges of the Queen's Bench Division, who responded collectively, and the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges. It was viewed as highly technical, complex and potentially confusing for a judge; and it really gave the jury no assistance.
One has only to consider that at the outset of a judge's summing up he has to tell the jury that they must be satisfied so that they feel certain. In other words, they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Then, if the corroboration rules stand, the judge continues to say, "It is dangerous for you, members of the jury, to convict without corroboration. I have to direct you in this case that there is no corroboration". He then says, "But, of course, if you are so convinced with the evidence of the uncorroborated witness, you are entitled to convict". Obviously, that is an unsatisfactory situation.
I have one or two further general observations to make. I shall deal first with the direction to a jury. I quote from a decision of the Court of Appeal in Chance 1988. The court said:
"The aim of any direction to a jury must be to provide realistic, comprehensible and common sense guidance to enable them to avoid pitfalls and to come to a fair and just conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. This involves the necessity of the judge tailoring his direction to the facts of the particular case. If he is required to apply rigid rules, there will inevitably be occasions when the directions will be inappropriate to the facts. Juries are quick to spot such anomalies, and will understandably view the anomaly, and often, as a result, the rest of the directions, with suspicion, thus undermining the judge's purpose. Directions on corroboration are particularly subject to this danger".
I have one further quotation which comes from that most experienced, and still alive, of former Lord Justices, Lord Justice Lawton. When dealing with the object of a summing-up he observed in the case of Sparrow:
"The object of a summing up is to help the jury and in our experience a jury is not helped by a colourless reading out of the evidence as recorded by the judge in his notebook. The judge is more than a mere referee who takes no part in the trial save to intervene when a rule of procedure or evidence is broken. He and
1252
the jury try the case together and it is his duty to give them the benefit of his knowledge of the law and to advise them in the light of his experience as to the significance of the evidence".
Lord Justice Lawton then went on to refer to the judge's duty, "always to be fair" and added:
"What is said must depend upon the facts of each case and in some cases the interests of justice call for a stronger comment. The trial judge, who has the feel of the case, is the person who must exercise his discretion in this matter to ensure that a trial is fair. A discretion is not to be fettered by laying down rules and regulations for its exercise".
There may be cases where the evidence calls for the judge to give a particular strong and emphatic warning as to the dangers of relying upon a certain witness's evidence. How he does so will depend on the nature of the case. That is what was said in the Court of Appeal in Beck and in the House of Lords' case in Spencer, to which I have already made reference.
The Law Commission raised and dealt with the question of whether something should be put in place as regards the abrogation of the corroboration directions in sexual cases and in the accomplice case. The commission suggested that consideration should be given to a practice direction—in its view, the matter was not suitable for legislation—on the extent to which a judge should, before summing up in such a case, invite submissions from counsel as to how that particular case should be handled in order to ensure that the defence was put fairly, adequately and fully. That, no doubt, is something which may well be considered by the Judicial Studies Board and by the Chief Justice following the legislation here. I am bound to say—I expect it was only to stimulate discussion—that to find suggested in legislation the proposition that judges should comply with practice directions issued by the Lord Chief Justice seemed to me a remarkable piece of surplusage. If we were going to put that in this Act, why not in every Act? Of course without legislation judges will comply with practice directions. If not, the Court of Appeal will have something very firm to say about it.
With regard to the further part, that is, subsections (2) and (3), the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, perhaps overlooks that what is in the Bill is taken straight out of the draft Bill proposed by the Law Commission. In regard to those two subsections, it pointed out in the notes to its draft that the,
"subsection is consequential on the change effected by subsection (1). Section 34(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 abolished the requirement to give the corroboration warning in respect of the evidence of a child where the warning was required only by reason that the evidence was the evidence of a child. The provision thus left untouched the requirement to give the corroboration warning where the child is an alleged accomplice or, where the alleged offence is a sexual offence, the person in respect of whom it is alleged to have been committed".
That explains how those subsections were brought in. In my respectful submission—it is a particular pleasure once more to excite joy in the breast of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—I happen to agree with the Government's approach to this subject.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I have put my name to these two amendments, perhaps for slightly different reasons to those of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In Committee I moved an amendment to retain the requirement that a judge should be obliged to warn the jury of the dangers of a conviction based on the

1253
evidence of a single witness who was either an accomplice of the accused or was the complainant in a sexual case where there was no evidence capable of amounting to corroboration; in other words, where there was a single witness who fell into either category.
There was some support from all sides of the Chamber for the amendment. Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour and also may be the complexity of the subject and no doubt my inability to explain it with clarity that led the noble Earl to undertake to go away and consider the matter carefully. In the interval between then and tonight he has been good enough to make time to see myself and a number of other noble Lords who expressed concern about the proposals in this Bill in the interim. I am grateful to him. We in turn had an opportunity to reflect upon the Government's position. I accept now, as I did at the earlier stage, that the present corroboration rules and warning do not work satisfactorily. They create difficulties for the judge who has to identify the specific parts of the evidence which amount to corroboration; they also create difficulties in explaining the nature of the evidence to a jury, in particular the distinction between corroboration and supportive evidence which is perhaps lost on most if not all laymen.
I remain deeply concerned about the way these changes have been proposed in the Bill because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, the proposals contained in Clauses 30 and 31 come straight from the Law Commission report. Here, I take back the criticism I made in relation to the earlier amendment. This is an example of the Home Office finding time as a matter of priority for a Law Commission Bill.
However, the additional proposal which the Law Commission made at the time it proposed this draft, and which was part and parcel of the proposed statutory changes, has not formed any part of the Government's proposals. As I hope to show the House—and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for doing so at this late hour—it was never contemplated by the Law Commission that the warning as to the dangers of convicting on the sole evidence of an accomplice or a sexual complainant should go altogether. Yet that is the unfortunate and erroneous interpretation which has resulted from the way in which the Government have set about these changes. I am most anxious to correct the misapprehension which has developed in some quarters.
I remind the House of what the Law Commission, and indeed the Royal Commission, have said about this aspect. In Part V of the Law Commission report there are five recommendations in total. They run together.
The first recommendation relates to repeal of the provision of the Sexual Offences Act which imposes a statutory corroboration requirement relating to certain procuration offences. That is now incorporated in Clause 31 of the Bill.
The second recommendation is to abolish the present common law rule whereby the judge must automatically warn the jury that it would be dangerous to convict the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of a prosecution witness who is an accomplice or complainant in a trial for a sexual offence. That is taken lock, stock and barrel and put into Clause 30 of the Bill.
1254
The third of the five provisions is the abolition of the corresponding rule applicable to summary trials. That is to be found, again wholesale, in Clause 30.
The fourth provision is the express extension of Section 34(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 relating to children's evidence to summary trials. That, again, is translated wholesale to Clause 30.
What is missing, and I do not criticise the Government for not putting it in the Bill but it should have played an important part in the way in which this particular change in legislation is introduced, is Recommendation (5). I stress that it is part and parcel of a package. It is the introduction by practice direction of a scheme whereby, in a case involving issues that might need special treatment by the judge when summing up before closing speeches, the judge and counsel should discuss those issues in the absence of the jury.
One of the remaining conclusions of the Law Commission was that the judge should not be prohibited from giving the jury a warning in any particular terms about the evidence of any particular type or category of witness.
In relation to the practice direction I fully accept, as did the Law Commission, that it may not be appropriate to incorporate a practice direction in a statue. But it is important to recognise, because the Law Commission took some trouble to go into the detail of the submissions it received, what the Law Commission considered should be covered by that practice direction. I hope that the House will bear with me if I refer to a small number of the passages which deal with it.
At paragraph 4.22 the Law Commission report states:
"On consultation, the Criminal Bar Association and some of the Judges of the Central Criminal Court favoured the introduction of a procedural rule under which the judge would discuss at the end of the evidence (and in the absence of the jury) the nature of the summing up and the problems to be dealt with in it. The Criminal Bar Association thought that the judge should be under a duty to consider submissions on the matter, thus helping to identify the relevant issues and ensure 'that the approach of counsel in their speeches coincides with the way in which the judge intends to sum up'. The Judges of the Queens Bench Division, though they did not think that there should be an obligation in this respect, suggested that
'there would be an ample opportunity for the judge to discuss [the question whether a warning should be given] in open court in the absence of a jury at the end of the evidence (or at any other stage) and in many cases the appropriate direction may well be agreed'."
The Law Commission considered that that would be an advantage not merely in the present corroboration cases but in all cases that present points of any difficulty or controversy. The report states that the practice direction,
"is not in our view a suitable subject for legislation, and thus it does not feature in the draft Bill".
Paragraph 4.27 states that,
"it should be used not simply in cases that fall into the present corroboration categories, but in any case in which there are difficulties about particular witnesses".
Paragraph 4.29 states:
"In our view, therefore, it would be beneficial if it were provided that, in any case that involved issues of fact or the credibility of evidence that needed or might need special treatment in the summing-up, the judge should before final speeches discuss those issues with counsel in the absence of the jury".
The Law Commission continues at paragraph 4.30:
"We think that it would be appropriate for such a scheme to be introduced by Practice Direction, and we so recommend".

1255
In a sense the Royal Commission took the same point: that a warning would still have to be given in many of these cases. The report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, in the passage dealing with corroboration at page 127, states:
"It may still be necessary for the judge in these cases"—
that is, accomplices, and sexual cases—
"to warn the jury of the dangers of accepting evidence from particular witnesses. We agree, however, with the Law Commission that the approach should be not that the same warning should be applied inflexibly to every case but that, if a warning is required, the judge should tailor it to the particular circumstances of the case".
What troubles me is that by introducing four parts of a five part package, the Government are in danger of creating a lacuna. Without that practice direction an integral part of the proposals of the Law Commission is excluded. The rules of evidence in relation to corroboration and warnings did not develop by pure chance. They developed because it became clear to those who practised over many years in the criminal courts, and to those who sit as judges in those courts, that there are dangers inherent in the testimony of certain witnesses.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the overwhelming majority of those making submis-sions to the Law Commission who are in favour of the abolition of the corroboration rules and the warning. But it is right to say that those who practise in this field, men and women, represented by the Criminal Bar Association, strongly urge the retention of a warning in some form. It is only necessary to state that an accomplice is someone who was or may have been involved in the case to see that such a witness may well have a purpose of his own to serve in giving his evidence which may not be readily apparent to a jury. In today's climate of political correctness it may be less obvious, but in relation to sexual offences—offences which it is easy to allege but often hard to disprove, in particular when only the two persons concerned are present and where there is no additional evidence such as violence or injury—there is a terrible danger of a miscarriage of justice occurring one way or the other. While most other cases in which a wrongful conviction occurs—perhaps one may take the example of a murder case—have a possibility of evidence arising at a later stage which leads to the miscarriage of justice being corrected, in cases where only the complainant and the defendant are present and the complainant is lying it is only if the complainant at some later stage admits that he or she has lied that there is any prospect of that miscarriage coming to light and being corrected. A warning is an important protection against wrongful conviction. It makes no sense to try to help the genuine victims of sexual attack by removing a warning which is likely to lead to the conviction of more people on the receiving end of false allegations.
Noble Lords should be in no doubt that false allegations are being made. I have practised in this field for of the order of 24 years. As a woman Silk, a large part of my practice involves offences of sexual allegations, both prosecuting and defending. Lest it be said that what I am saying is in some way sexist, in my
1256
experience it is not just women and girls but men and boys too who lie about sexual matters. Our courts are sadly filled with cases of this nature. Many of them are genuine, but some—and a substantial proportion—are demonstrably false, not simply cases where there is insufficient evidence but cases where—and this is something I have seen myself on a number of occasions —during the course of a trial it becomes clear and the complainant actually admits that he or she has not told the truth. I have seen it with girls and boys making allegations against teachers. I have seen it with women following the breakdown of relationships; I have seen it with children in relation to parents, or even more commonly step-parents, and I have seen it with boys and girls in relation to baby-sitters. I have also seen it in relation to adult men many years later making allegations about events which occurred during their childhood.
Sometimes the reasons for those false allegations have become apparent during the trial; but sometimes they are never clear. There is an explosion of sexual cases which are genuine but there is a significant number which are false. It is left to a jury in cases which depend essentially on the words of the one witness to try to sort that out. In those circumstances, a warning is an important reminder to a jury in a case which rests on the word of one person against another, particularly in the highly charged atmosphere of a sexual complaint, that they have to be sure. It is not in any way insulting to women; it applies to both sexes and I speak not only as a woman but also as at one stage a recorder who has had on occasion to give that warning. I have never felt it to be an insult; nor have I come across any other woman practitioner practising in this field extensively who finds it so.
A warning will still be necessary. It may well be, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, and as the Law Commission took the view, that it would be inappropriate to include provision for a practice direction in a statute, as these amendments propose. But my reason for supporting the amendments is to prompt the Government to do what I hoped they would have done when introducing this part of the Bill; that is, to consult the Lord Chief Justice and to give the House an assurance before the Bill passes that a practice direction will form part and parcel of this package—otherwise, a vital piece will be missing from the jigsaw.
Perhaps I may mention that there is an additional concern. If it is left solely to the discretion of a judge without any form of guidance, either statutory or by way of practice direction, as to when and in what circumstances he should give a warning about a witness, one can readily envisage a judge trying a case involving a sexual allegation which has the focus of media attention upon it. It will be incredibly difficult for such a judge to give a warning to the jury which is likely to be interpreted by the press as criticism by the judge personally of the credibility of that witness. It would be very much easier for him, in the absence of any guidance, to avoid giving that direction. It troubles me that some judges may feel constrained from giving a direction which would otherwise be appropriate.

1257
The corroboration rules, according to the Law Commission, should not be replaced by a statutory scheme. May I give, I hope, some incentive to the noble Earl that there is one further amendment tonight before the House rises, in the names of myself and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Wigoder, which deals with a proposal for just such a statutory scheme.
If the noble Earl felt able to give an undertaking that between now and Third Reading he would consider the question of a practice direction and would consult the Lord Chief Justice in that respect, if he could assure the House that such a practice direction, along the lines of that which the Law Commission clearly intended should be part and parcel of these statutory changes, will be introduced, then I should not press a following amendment, Amendment No. 31, tonight.
However, I am anxious that tonight the noble Earl should deal with the practice direction and also make clear, if he will, that it is not contemplated by the Government that no warning should be given in these cases. Clearly it will be necessary in many of them for a warning to be retained. I hope that the noble Earl will find what I have said helpful and that he will feel able to adopt that part of the Law Commission's Bill, as he has the rest.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, even at this late hour I should like to explain why I have the good fortune to agree entirely with the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and with the Government's welcome acceptance of the Law Commission's report, which was in turn adopted by the Royal Commission; and why I have the misfortune to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and, I suspect, other of my friends and colleagues at the English Bar.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, so completely described the present law that it would be impertinent of me to add to what he said. The present law regarding corroboration in relation to accomplices and any kind of sexual offence constitutes a qualification of the general principle that in an English criminal trial the jury are entitled to convict on the unsupported evidence of one witness. As I read the Bill in its present form, it will in no way prevent the judge from giving a full corroboration direction if, in his discretion, he considered it appropriate to do so, but the judge will not be obliged automatically to give such a direction. In other words, nothing in the Bill forbids the judge from giving the jury a warning in particular terms which the Law Commission recommended.
Amendment No. 31 proposed by the noble Baroness would abrogate the obligation of the judge to give a warning where there is evidence capable of amounting to corroboration; but where there is no such evidence, the judge would continue to be obliged to give a warning. But even from the noble Baroness's point of view, which I understand and respect, the amendment is flawed. At present the question of whether in fact a particular item of evidence is corroborative must be left to the jury. Under Amendment No. 31, by contrast, the judge might rule that the evidence, though weak, was
1258
technically capable of providing corroboration but then decide in his discretion not to give a corroboration warning. The jury would then have no chance to consider whether the testimony of the witness in question was in fact corroborated.
In a way that is a technical point. Perhaps I may deal briefly with other more substantive points. I should like to refer briefly to the important subject of the protection of defendants. The Law Commission was much exercised about the question of whether the abolition of the corroboration rules might result in injustice to defendants. It concluded that there was no such danger for the following reasons.
There is a general overriding rule that the judge must always put the defence fairly and adequately. The abolition of the corroboration rules would mean that witnesses now within the corroboration rules would be treated, as other witnesses already are, on their individual merits.
In addition, the Law Commission pointed out that there are two related but distinct safeguards that will not be affected by the complete abolition of the corroboration rules. The first safeguard relates to cases of any kind in which the identification of the defendant is in issue. The Turnbull rules require the judge to explain to the jury the need for special caution in accepting evidence of identification and must direct the jury in some detail and in a fairly specific way about the quality of the evidence of identification. Secondly, there is the important Beck rule to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, under which, where a witness is or may have,
"an interest or purpose of his own to serve",
in giving evidence adverse to the defendant, the judge is obliged to warn the jury about the evidence of that witness. But unlike cases within the corroboration rules, the form and content of the warning are a matter for the judge. For example, he may choose simply to warn the jury of the need to examine the evidence of the suspect witness with care, explaining that the witness has or may have an interest of his own to serve; or in his discretion he may go further and advise the jury to look for corroboration of the evidence. I respectfully suggest that the Law Commission is quite right in indicating that those rules give adequate protection to defendants if the corroboration rules are abolished.
I turn again briefly to the overwhelming objections to the existing corroboration rules. No noble Lord who has so far spoken indicated that the rules, as they stand, are unobjectionable. The first objection to the present law is its inflexibility. Whatever may be the judge's assessment of the reliability of the evidence or the assistance that the jury needs to be given in assessing the evidence, at the moment the judge is obliged to warn in standardised terms that it is dangerous to convict. So if, for example, a defendant is charged that he broke into the victim's house with intent to steal and then raped the householder, the judge must give a corroboration warning in respect of the rape but not in respect of the burglary. Again, bearing in mind that the corroboration rules apply to summary trials as well as to trials on indictment, many noble Lords may agree with the suggestion of the late Professor Rupert Cross that it is,

1259
"somewhat odd to require a magistrate to reason as follows on a charge of indecent assault brought by a respectable middle-aged female: 'I believe her evidence, but I must think twice before acting upon it because sex is a mysterious thing', whereas, on a charge for assault brought by a man with numerous convictions for violence, the magistrate can simply say to himself 'I believe his evidence and I need not think twice about acting upon it because there is no particular danger that charges of violence will be made on account of neurosis, jealousy, fantasy or spite'".
The second objection is to the complexity of the corroboration rule, which is notorious. Judges of great authority have commented on these problems in the strongest terms. To take one example, Lord Diplock observed that the
"complicated formulae about the concept of corroboration and the respective functions of judge and jury are … unintelligible to the ordinary layman".
The rules as to what evidence is and is not capable of being corroborative are difficult and complex and the cause of many actual or alleged errors and many appeals. Moreover, the direction is quite irrational. The judge is obliged to start by saying that it is dangerous to convict on the basis of certain evidence, but then to go on to tell the jury that it is possible for them to do exactly that.
According to the circumstances of the case, the formulae can lead either to placing an unfair handicap on the prosecution or to confusion that may be detrimental to the defendant. Lord Diplock suggested that the rules, far from protecting the defendant, may, by requiring the jury to be given a complicated and technical discourse about the evidence to be corroborated,
"have the contrary effect [on the jury] to a sensible warning couched in ordinary language directed to the facts of the particular case".
The third objection is that the present rules produce notorious anomalies. For example, they apply only to evidence given by prosecution witnesses and not to evidence given by a co-defendant. The fourth objection is that the rules require the judge to take special action over and above the discharge of his general obligation to put the case fairly to the jury, irrespective of whether in his view the testimony of the witness in fact requires a special warning or other special comment.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the views of the judiciary and of practitioners and reminded us that the Law Commission received overwhelming evidence. Abolition elicited strong support from the judges of the Queen's Bench Division, who responded collectively, the Council of her Majesty's Circuit Judges, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society. One experienced circuit judge pointed out that the corroboration direction must seem,
"nonsensical at worst and contradictory at best to most juries. How are they to evaluate a direction that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant or an accomplice against the further direction that, if they bear the warning in mind, they may convict nevertheless if they are convinced that the complainant or accomplice is telling the truth?"
The Law Society commented that the rules can be,
"meaningless in practice in any trial on mixed indictments involving offences to which the rules relate and others not covered by the rules".
Many consultees pointed out that the complexity of the rules led to many mistaken rulings at trials and hence to
1260
the unmeritorious quashing of convictions on appeal. The commission received particularly critical comment on the operation of the rule in sexual offences. For example, the judges of the Queen's Bench Division— and I respectfully agree—described the current model direction as "patronising".
For all those reasons—the safeguards, the objections and the anomalies—I respectfully agree with the Bill as it stands. So far as concerns any practice direction, that is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues. We can surely be confident that they will fill any gap of the type referred to by the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: My Lords, far be it from me at this very late hour to get into a detailed argument with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to whom I have listened with very great interest and some surprise. I wish to point out that subsection (1) will in its present form lead to uncertainty. I shall explain why.
The subsection begins with the words "Any requirement". A requirement in the context of subsection (1) could be a requirement under statute law, under case law, under a rule of court or under a practice direction. The subsection states:
"Any requirement whereby at a trial on indictment it is obligatory"—
that is the operative word—
"for the court to give the jury a warning"—
it then goes on about uncorroborated evidence—
"is hereby abrogated".
That means, by implication presumably, that if there were a subsequent requirement given either under a practice direction or under a rule stated by the judges —perhaps in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) —arising out of a particular case, a requirement saying that the jury might be given a warning, that would appear to be in order.
However, because of the way this subsection is phrased, ending in the words "is hereby abrogated", one wonders whether the courts, the judges making judges rules or any court giving a decision would feel free to say that there may be voluntarily a warning. That is a real difficulty of drafting which deserves the attention of my noble friend Lord Ferrers between now and Third Reading. I say that quite independently of all that has been said so admirably and in great depth by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and, in a different sense, by the noble and learned Lord Ackner and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We must avoid uncertainty in our statute law, especially in a matter like this.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, all of us who are still in the House at this late hour are obviously zealous in the pursuit of truth and I know will not begrudge just a few extra minutes as we consider this extremely important matter. It is not a party political issue.
I differ very much from my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is fortunate that it is he that I differ from and not my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich because that, I fear, might have caused in the noble Earl an excitement which might have had fatal consequen-ces, and that is not something that I would want to see.

1261
Members of your Lordships' House have spoken of their experience in dealing with this matter. I myself have nothing like the distinguished or broad-based legal experience of the noble and learned Lord Lord Ackner. Almost the whole of my career at the Bar was spent in the criminal courts prosecuting, defending, or trying cases. It was a very much longer career than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and that is quite obvious if any noble Lords were to look at the two of us.
My experience leads me to the view that no one in their senses would implicitly believe the word of any man or woman describing their own sexual experiences. It is as simple as that. I believe that it is self-evident. If one looks at the autobiographies of distinguished people over the past few years there is always a chapter called "My first sexual experience". It is always followed a few chapters later by descriptions of various sexual deviations. Everyone knows that they are put into the book to boost the sales. Nobody believes a word of them implicitly unless there is support from some outside source.
I believe that the same is true of people acting as complainants in criminal cases, whether men or women. Of course, some of them are speaking the truth. The difficulty is knowing which ones are doing so. Some of them are fantasising completely, totally inventing a whole sexual episode. Some of them are describing a sexual episode which has taken place but altering one or two crucial factors in it. Usually in a sexual case they say that there was no consent whereas in fact there might have been consent in an episode otherwise truthfully described. Other people truthfully describe a complete sexual episode from start to finish, and those are perhaps the most evil and difficult cases of all to spot. They then attribute the wrongdoing, for reasons of malice, jealousy or spite, to some man or woman whom they know to be innocent.
There are all those types of cases, some of which are perfectly genuine and truthful cases. The problem is how does one decide which is the truth. It is not by looking at the witness and judging by his or her demeanour. That is no test and we all know the dangers of that. It is for those reasons that, over the years, the common law has come to the view that where there is no corroboration it is dangerous to convict. That seems to me to be perfectly self-evident and in accordance with common sense.
To deal with that situation now —that being the existing common law rule —there are three proposals before us. The first is that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who says, in effect, that there will need to be a warning of the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence, but it can be dealt with by a practice direction.
The second alternative is that suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in the subsequent amend-ment, Amendment No. 31, which has nothing to do with the complexity of the rules about which my noble friend spoke. It is a very simple statement that, where there is no corroboration, the court shall warn the jury in terms appropriate to the facts of the case of the dangers of
1262
accepting evidence from such a witness. Nothing could be less technical or less complex than a warning of that nature.
The third alternative is the view that the Government have taken—I know that it is supported to some extent by the Law Commission—that, where there is no corroboration, the matter can properly be left to the discretion of the judge.
In an ideal world, I doubt very much whether it would make much difference whether we decided on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, or that of the noble Baroness, or whether it was left to the discretion of the judge. In an ideal world, I have no doubt that practically every judge in practically every single sexual case where there was no corroboration would, as a matter of course, give a warning to the jury. That would be the commonsense course and I believe that for practical purposes every judge should take it.
The danger that arises is that we do not live in an ideal world and there are problems facing judges who are asked to rely on their own discretion in the matter. Those problems were outlined clearly by the noble Baroness. They are the problems, in the first place, of the hysterical reporting in the media of cases with any sexual content. I am afraid that I cannot limit that by saying "the tabloid press" because there is hysteria throughout our press in its reporting of sexual cases.
A further consideration which has arisen largely since the Law Commission reported may have affected the commission in some way if it had realised its extent. I refer to the huge organised lobby which appears to be of the view, expressed vehemently and reported in the press extremely strongly, that every complainant in a sex case is speaking the truth and that it is absolutely monstrous and outrageous to suggest anything to the contrary. Woe betide the poor judge who, for example, on one occasion said that it was possible that when a complainant said no in a particular sexual encounter, she might possibly have meant yes. One remembers the hysteria with which that comment was greeted.
I am not seeking to be anti-feminist in any way, but it is a fact that most complainants in sex cases are women. It is therefore a fact that the lobby that supports complainants in sex cases must inevitably be a feminist lobby. I have no doubt that if most complainants were men, there would be an equivalent male lobby carrying out precisely the same activities.
There is a problem facing a judge in a sex case in which there is no corroboration. If there is some indication either by practice direction or by statute that he must give a warning as to the dangers of convicting, he will do so and nobody will be able to criticise him. If there is no practice direction and no statutory direction and it is left to the discretion of the judge, there may be a very real pressure on sensitive judges not to deliver that warning because they are fearful of the pummelling which they are liable to get in the press. I know that our judges should be above any such considerations and I have no doubt that 99 per cent. of them are. However, I believe that there is the odd case where, for the reasons I have indicated, if it is left simply

1263
to the discretion of the judge, although a warning should obviously be given, it will not be given because of the possible consequences for that judge.
In such circumstance, it is possible that if warnings are not given, miscarriages of justice may occur. Although it is not mentioned anywhere in the Long Title of the Bill, I should have thought that the primary object of any criminal justice Bill must be to prevent miscarriages of justice. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to consider whether it would not be right to go along the lines advocated by either the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, or the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that this is not a party matter, and of course in that he is absolutely correct. The cookie crumbles, as they say, across party lines and without party involvement. Here we are considering more legal niceties in search of the truth and of a method of legal application which will enable the truth to be extracted. I know how concerned are my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about these matters of corroborative evidence.
I had the pleasure of discussing this matter with my noble friend, the noble Baroness, and some other noble Lords after the Committee stage and before the present stage. I am grateful to them for giving me their views and for giving me the opportunity to see if, how and where we can meet their concerns. I have laboured long and hard to try to find a way of accommodating their concerns. In our discussions we discovered that our expectations of what Clause 30 should achieve are similar. The difference between us is that in order to be sure, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, my noble friend Lord Campbell and others, want judges still to be told what to do in certain types of case. The Government, on the other hand, stick more by the Law Commission's conclusion. We should prefer to give the judges a free hand.
The noble Baroness asked me whether I would give an undertaking to speak to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. She will not be surprised to learn that we have taken his view on the amendment. Indeed, we raised the whole matter of a practice direction—after all, it is the Lord Chief Justice who has to give the direction—when the decision was taken in the first place to adopt the Law Commission's proposal for legislation. So the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has given the matter very careful thought. His conclusion is that a practice direction is not necessary. He is content with Clauses 30 and 31 as they stand. If further guidance proves to be necessary after the Bill is enacted, then it will fall to the Court of Appeal to provide it. That is the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
Loath as I am to resist the combined urgings of my noble friend Lord Campbell, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Renton, I approach with even more caution the prospect of writing into the statutes of the land matters relating to practice directions which are, by their very nature, non-statutory and entirely
1264
within the discretion of the Lord Chief Justice. That would be particularly so when the substance of the addition to the Bill would mean ignoring the views on this matter of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
I do not often complain, but this is really like finding oneself between what one might describe as a rock and a hard place. Perhaps I can provide some reassurance to my noble friend and the noble Baroness. First, the response to the Law Commission's paper has not questioned that the judge has a continuing duty to put the defence case squarely before the jury. That is unequivocally the view of the Law Commission. The Royal Commission and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice took that view as well.
There is no question therefore of the Bill telling judges that they cannot deliver warnings where the particular circumstances of the particular case demand it. Secondly, what the Law Commission sought was a sensible and practical approach to the judge's decision on how to sum up. The commission rejected any idea that a practice direction should categorise different types of offences and different types of witnesses. What it wanted was a pre-summing up discussion between the judge and counsel in all hard cases, whatever the nature of the case. There is nothing to prevent that sensible practice from happening now or, indeed, under the Bill. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that whether it needs to be reinforced by practice direction is not a matter for Parliament but a matter for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. He is not persuaded that it is necessary, which I take as a measure of his confidence in the good sense of the judiciary.
I am also reassured by the reaction of judges to what the Bill is doing. In their response to the Law Commission, the judges have welcomed the abolition of rules which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has called:
"more and more technical and arcane; less and less in accord with common sense".
My noble friend Lord Campbell suspects that judges would recoil from adverse publicity if they were to choose still to deliver warnings after the Bill becomes law. With the greatest of respect to my noble friend, I believe that he is wrong about that. I do so in part because judges need and generally have pretty thick skins when it comes to that kind of reporting and in part because they know that the press will find reason to criticise them whatever they do.
I have spoken at some length about this issue—but not as long as some noble Lords—because the amendment stems from what I realise is a deep anxiety on the part of some noble Lords. As it stands, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would not relieve that anxiety because it assumes that there will be a practice direction which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice does not consider to be necessary.
I hope that in any event your Lordships will be reassured, as I have been, by the considered but wholly positive judicial response over the months and years that

1265
these proposals have been in the making. I hope that they will further be comforted that very considerable thought has been given to the anxieties that they have produced. My desire not to accept their amendments has not sprung from a position of dull obduracy on the part of the Government but simply because, on wider reflection and discussion, which has been going on for a long period of time, we consider that the Bill in its present form commands the respect of the judiciary and does not impose the risk to defendants which they fear.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, at this late hour all it would be right for me to do is to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate both for and against the amendment. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her outstanding contribution—
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
11.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, time does not allow me to deal with the tremendous contributions that have been made and I hope that it will not be thought that they were not appreciated. I wish also to thank in particular my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who has entertained long discussions with us and has taken enormous personal trouble to understand the anxieties that we felt. There is no question of any hint of dull obduracy in this affair.
This is not the time to argue, so perhaps I may reserve my position to read what has been said, to consider the matter further, perhaps to return on Third Reading and to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
( "Requirement for warning in case depending solely on evidence of accomplice etc
. Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision where at a trial on indictment the court determines that the case for the crown relies on the evidence of a witness who is—

(a) an alleged accomplice of the accused, or

(b) where the offence charged is a sexual offence, the person in respect of whom it is alleged to have been committed,

and further determines that without the evidence of the same witness there would be no case for the defence to answer, the court shall warn the jury in terms appropriate to the facts of the case of the dangers of accepting evidence from such a witness.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall keep the House but a short time. It would clearly be wrong for me to move the amendment at any length. I move it in a few sentences in the hope that the noble Earl will give it some consideration.
In the light of our discussions, I was anxious to see whether I could find a way to meet the Government's wish to move right away from corroboration and yet retain some form of warning which would be a safeguard for a defendant. The proposed new clause moves right away from a judge having to consider corroboration or having to direct the jury in relation to it. Quite simply, it provides that in a case which rests solely on a single witness who is either an accomplice or the complainant in a sexual offence and where but for
1266
the evidence of that witness, there would be no case to answer, the court should give a warning to the jury in terms which the judge thinks appropriate to the facts of that particular case about the dangers of accepting such evidence.
I hope that the noble Earl will consider the matter because I appreciate fully the objections and difficulties in relation to corroboration which were outlined at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and with which I do not disagree. But in the light of the somewhat disappointing information which the noble Earl had to give the House to the effect that part five of a five-part package will not be available at once and that we shall have to wait for the Court of Appeal to deal with the matter at some point in the future, I am concerned that a safeguard should be in place to meet the difficulty which now arises.
Clause 31, which follows on Clause 30, is an illustration of how far those changes go. Clause 31 deals with sexual offences which, if I can put it this way, come into the category of, "He made me do it." The Bill will abolish the requirement which currently exists for corroboration before there can be any conviction in those cases. Corroboration goes but, under the provisions of Clause 30, so does any warning. We have moved from one extreme to the other at a stroke.
The Criminal Bar Association—men and women who practise in that field—felt that an essential safeguard for the defendant was a warning in some form. I hope that the noble Earl will undertake to look at that proposal which I believe is a fresh one. I hope that it meets the objections of the Minister and others with regard to the dangers and difficulties of a corroboration direction. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment to which I have put my name. It affords a substitute for current practice. It deals with the problems in the corroboration rules as to warnings in all types of cases.
The proposed resolution is novel. It is the brainchild of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. It is worthy of the most serious consideration. I am not satisfied that as yet it has received the consideration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice or other members of the judiciary.
The hope is that the noble Baroness will return with the amendment on Third Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out, the amendment deals in a simple, straightforward way with the essence of the problem; namely, how to find the truth.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I explained in relation to the previous amendment why the Government remain of the view that the Bill should be left as it stands. This amendment would preserve the special categorisation of witnesses who happen to be complainants in sexual offence cases or who are accomplices. It is precisely that special categorisation which we, the Law Commission and, indeed, the great majority of those who commented on the Law Commission's consultation paper, agree is no longer necessary or justifiable.
I cannot pretend to begin to match the experience, the competence or the understanding of the noble Baroness,

1267
Lady Mallalieu, or, indeed, that of other noble Lords on such matters. I have no doubt that many noble Lords know of cases where the mandatory warning has in their view prevented a miscarriage of justice. However, I guess that your Lordships may wonder whether the warning that was delivered had to be a mandatory one and whether it had to be about a category of witness. A discretionary warning by the judge who has heard the particular circumstances of the case would surely have been just as effective, and possibly even more so.
It is the cases about which we do not know that worry me more; for example, cases where the prosecution has decided not to go to trial because it was thought that the mandatory warning meant that there was no hope of success, or cases where the victim of a sex offence has had to be told that, even though he or she is totally innocent, he or she will be tarred with the same brush as are false and lying witnesses. Such people simply think, "Well, I've had enough of this. I can't go through with it". In those cases, the defendant does not even go to trial.
We are told that this piece of the law has worked for decades and that we should leave it alone. However, the Government, the Royal Commission and, indeed, the Lord Chief Justice of England all took the view that we differ from that position. That is why we have constructed the Bill as it now stands and why we believe that it ought to be left in its present form.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the example just given by the noble Earl and the words that he used in replying to the amendment have filled me with further alarm. I am greatly alarmed at the prospect of cases which have no prospect of success because the Crown Prosecution Service judged them not to be capable of proof, coming before the courts as a result of the abolition of the warning as a mandatory part of the
1268
judge's duty. I hope that, in many of those cases which fall into the categories of a single witness with no corroboration, judges will continue to give the warning and that the CPS will save those who come with complaints from appearing before the court in cases where there is no prospect of a conviction.
However, in proposing such statutory changes, the Law Commission saw the need for a safeguard by way of a practice direction. If we are not to have a practice direction, there must be some other safeguard. Clearly tonight is the wrong time to press the amendment or further consideration of it. I shall read with care what the noble Earl said both in relation to this and the earlier matter to see how far the worries that I have are met. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

University of London Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
London Underground (Green Park) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Value Added Tax Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before Midnight.

  PRE-TRIAL ISSUES STEERING GROUP: REPORT
  PRE-TRIAL ISSUES STEERING GROUP: REPORT
  DR. Xu Li-QUIN
  DR. Xu Li-QUIN
  WORK PERMITS: POLICY
  WORK PERMITS: POLICY
  PAROLE REVIEWS: ASSESSMENTS
  PAROLE REVIEWS: ASSESSMENTS
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976, S.69(2) CERTIFICATES
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976, S.69(2) CERTIFICATES
  CONVICTED UNSENTENCED PRISONERS
  CONVICTED UNSENTENCED PRISONERS
  US MISSILE DEFENCE PLAN
  US MISSILE DEFENCE PLAN
  ARMY UNITS' FUTURE ACCOMMODATION
  ARMY UNITS' FUTURE ACCOMMODATION
  GENETICALLY MODIFIED VIRUSES: CONTROL AND LIABILITY
  GENETICALLY MODIFIED VIRUSES: CONTROL AND LIABILITY
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY AND CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY AND CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE
  ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES: SAFETY REGULATIONS
  ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES: SAFETY REGULATIONS
  RED MERCURY: ALLEGED LETTER
  RED MERCURY: ALLEGED LETTER
  RED MERCURY: ALLEGED SEIZURE
  RED MERCURY: ALLEGED SEIZURE
  MEDICAL CONSULTANTS: DISTINCTION AWARDS
  MEDICAL CONSULTANTS: DISTINCTION AWARDS