Sitting of 7 July 1994

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL
[Lords] (By Order)
Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended.
To be considered on Thursday 14 July at Seven o'clock.
FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL
AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 July.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Langpresented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lerwick harbour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Wednesday 13 July and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Illegal Drug Trading
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the enforcement of the law with regard to illegal trading in class A drugs.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Tackling the trade in hard drugs is a key priority for the police and customs. We do all that we can to support their efforts. The Government have a comprehensive strategy to reduce both the supply of and the demand for drugs.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate those constituents of mine—and some of his—who work in the customs and in the police in our area to ensure that this country has much less drug trafficking than it might otherwise have? They are very successful and have had a number of catches recently. Will he also give every support to those involved in that work? Will he confirm that the Government want nothing to do with the trendy, lefty, liberal establishment which wants to legalise hard and soft drugs?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted both to give him the confirmation which he sought and to congratulate his constituents and mine.
    434
    Recently, there have been some notable major seizures by the customs—500 kg of cannabis on 16 January, 30 kg of cocaine on 2 March, 20 kg of cocaine on 10 April and 20 kg of heroin by the police last month. The whole House should join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police and customs on those successes.
    Mr. Blair: While congratulating the police and customs, may I ask the Home Secretary to agree that it is also important to take measures to cut the demand for drugs, especially among young people? Does he agree that it is appalling that some of our young people are gaining access to drugs even within their school gates? Would not it be a better idea if, instead of spending millions fiddling about with police authorities, we were to spend that money on a decent drugs education programme for our young people?
    Mr. Howard: We spend something like £500 million a year dealing with drugs on trying to reduce both the supply of, and the demand for, drugs. If the hon. Gentleman, who I know is pretty busy at the moment, were to find the time to talk to some of the Home Office drugs prevention initiative teams up and down the country which are doing tremendous work with parents, children and schools and on the streets reducing the demand for drugs, as I have, he would see that the Government are taking the problem extremely seriously and are taking effective action to counter it.

    Maastricht Treaty
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss areas of the Maastricht treaty which fall within his Department's remit.
    Mr. Howard: The next meeting of Interior and Justice Ministers is expected to be an informal Council in Berlin on 7 and 8 September 1994.
    Ms Quin: While I welcome the Franco-German initiative at Corfu to combat race discrimination, would not this be an excellent opportunity—given the fact that a new European Commission is to be appointed—to make sure that the need to combat racial discrimination in the enlarged market is included in the remit of one of the new Commissioners? That is something which Labour has urged.
    What steps is the Home Secretary taking to make sure that Commonwealth passport holders who have permanent residence rights in the United Kingdom are given equal treatment in the European Union under freedom of movement and other European rules?
    Mr. Howard: The Government welcomed the recent Franco-German initiative, and it is widely recognised that the way in which we deal with race relations in this country is something from which our partners in Europe could learn. We discuss these matters with them at every opportunity—in European Councils and other places. One of the things that we stress to them in those discussions is the need to give free access to their countries to Commonwealth citizens from this country.
    Mr. Dykes: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his extremely interesting letter in The Times

    435
    today. Can he confirm, subsequent to that long-standing tradition in the Labour party, that he is getting wonderful support for the integrated formation of Europol policy?
    Mr. Howard: The Labour party has been rather silent on Europol policy, but no doubt Opposition Members will rise to welcome it at an early opportunity. I look forward to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) getting to his feet now and answering the point that I made in my letter to The Times.

    Drink Driving
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the law on drink driving.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): None, Madam Speaker. Existing legislation provides for strong penalties against those who drink and drive. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 increased to 10 years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for those who cause death by drink driving.
    Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that, as the law stands, the police have no power to require the taking of a sample in a hospital from a suspected drink driver? Can he imagine the distress and disbelief felt by the family of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, who were killed by a suspected drink driver? That person was taken to hospital and the police were unable to take a sample from him. Because no proper charges were brought, the man was able to walk away from court with his licence intact and with a fine of only £400. Is not that an outrageous anomaly? Why did the Government refuse my request to correct it during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill? Will the Minister undertake to do so now?
    Mr. Wardle: As was explained during the passage of the Bill, such samples cannot be taken without the patient's consent and the doctors would not allow that. I have every sympathy for the difficulties experienced by his constituents, but that was explained to him during the passage of the Bill.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the success in reducing drink driving, does my hon. Friend agree that the danger of introducing random testing is that it would alienate the law-abiding majority from the police?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we have had great success with our campaign against drink driving. That is evidenced by the most recent figures, which show that the number of fatalities has dropped by 60 per cent. since the campaign started in the early 1980s. My hon. Friend will appreciate that police officers have the right to conduct random checks of motor vehicles, but that they are not entitled to carry out random breath tests.
    Mr. Miller: The Minister must be concerned about the number of incidents in which people have avoided prosecution, except on minor offences. For example, a brother of one of my constituents was killed in an accident, but the driver was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. Will the Minister look carefully at the different ethical approaches adopted by other countries to see
    436
    whether a solution can be found to the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright)?
    Mr. Wardle: The House has already heard that additional sentencing powers were provided in the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The hon. Member will be aware that, last year, 600,000 breath tests were conducted and 15 per cent. of those were positive, so the campaign is proving effective.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Attorney-General to discuss the policy of appeals against lenient sentences.
    Mr. Howard: I meet my right hon. and learned Friend frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest. We share the same view of the importance of the power contained in section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
    Mr. Burns: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Attorney-General, will he raise with him the concern that is felt about the baffling sentences that are all too often imposed on people convicted of killing other people, young children and the elderly in road accidents caused by reckless or drink driving and other reasons? It causes great anguish to families. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the sentences available on conviction of such crimes and consider extending the powers to refer lenient punishments to the Court of Appeal, as the law applies to other serious crimes?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will have heard the Under-Secretary of State tell the House a moment or two ago that the maximum sentence for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was increased in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 from five to 10 years. I confirm that the Attorney-General's power to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal applies to both those offences.

    Burglaries
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of burglaries (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Howard: In 1979, 544,037 burglaries were recorded by the police. In 1993, 1,369,998 burglaries were recorded.
    Mr. Grocott: Does not that reflect an astronomical rise in serious crime under this Government? I remind the Secretary of State that in 1979 we had a Labour Government and by 1993 we had had 14 years of Tory rule. Will he answer two simple questions? First, why has crime rocketed under the Tories? Secondly, if he continues his present law and order policies, what is his latest estimate of the year in which crime under a Tory Government will be reduced to the level that it was under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Howard: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be more interested in the fact that in the last quarter of 1993, recorded burglaries in

    437
    West Mercia, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency, decreased by 7 per cent. If he wants to know why, he should take note of the comments of the chief constable of West Mercia, who said:
    "The increasing tactic of police to target offenders coupled with the increased use of remands in custody over the past year, may well have combined to remove from circulation some 'bail bandits', people who commit offences repeatedly."
    So I look forward to support from the hon. Gentleman for the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which deals even more effectively with the problem of bail bandits.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a significant number of those burglaries are carried out by relatively few persistent young offenders? Does he accept that long-suffering residents in my constituency and others would be happy to see such anti-social young people detained in secure units? Will he ensure that we have an opportunity to reverse their lordships' amendment at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely understand the concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's question and I hope that those Opposition Members who complain about crime will join me in regretting and deploring the fact that their colleagues in the other place voted to delay the time at which we shall be able to bring those secure training centres into effect. They bear the responsibility for that delay. We will, in due course, construct the secure training centres, which are so badly needed.
    Ms Eagle: Instead of coming into the House and just reading the brief that he has been given, will the Home Secretary answer the questions and reassure my constituents who know that if they are burgled, it is rare that anyone will be caught and punished for the crime? What will he do to ensure that when people steal other people's belongings, they have a reasonable chance of being caught?
    Mr. Howard: That is precisely what the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is designed to achieve. If the hon. Lady and her party had not consistently tried to wreck and undermine it, it would probably be on the statute book by now.

    Prison Building
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to build more prisons.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Six new prisons are to be built under the private sector design, control and finance initiative announced on 2 September 1993. Sites for the first two have been identified at Fazakerley in Merseyside and at Bridgend in south Wales.
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent news on the prison building programme. Will he confirm the measures that he is planning to provide effective drug abuse treatment in prisons in the future, both in the maintained mainstream sector and the private sector?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. That is an extremely important problem. Drugs do get into prisons, both public and private. They should not. We are seeking powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, as I
    438
    think that my hon. Friend knows, so that prisoners can be required to be tested. That is the essential feature of the new strategy that we are developing, and of course it will include the private sector.
    Mr. Hoyle: How can the Minister contemplate building any more private prisons when Derek Lewis, head of the Prison Service, has admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that the Wolds is costing £1 million more to run than it would cost if it were in the public sector, that it is costing £1.5 million more to pay Group 4 to manage the Wolds than was estimated, and that Group 4 has lost—a familiar word—control of certain sections of the Wolds prison? Will not even this Minister now admit that the time has come for the Prison Service to be administered by common sense rather than political prejudice?
    Mr. Lloyd: The prejudice is all on the hon. Gentleman's part. All the points that he made and all the figures that he quoted were wrong. The Wolds is being run for £3 million less over five years than the benchmark of the Prison Service. The contract was awarded on that basis, and it will continue on that basis. There is no loss of control in the Wolds. The Wolds is pioneering new types of effective management. If the hon. Gentleman had read the chief inspector's report, he would have seen that the inspector found that the staff who run the Wolds were busy, hardworking and professional, and that their instinctive reaction was to solve problems rather than pass them on. That is the example that we want for the whole of the Prison Service.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when it comes to building new prisons for persistent juvenile offenders, he will insist that the will of this House should prevail, rather than that of the interfering busybodies down the Corridor— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do not even have to ask the hon. Gentleman. I can see by his face what he is about to do.
    Mr. Martin: Rather than that of those who sit from time to time in the other place, who are remote from the real worries of my constituents, and who, when they are there, represent no one but themselves.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said will be heard at the other end of this building, in another place. He can be quite sure that the question will return to the Chamber, so that the House may express its views on it again.
    Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister confirm that, at the new Blakenhurst private prison, United Kingdom Detention Services refused to recognise trade unions, that assaults on staff are at least four times the norm, that there have been seven acts of concerted indiscipline, including one riot, and that eight warnings have been issued to the company, resulting in two default notices for failure to comply and a financial penalty of more than £40,000? Does the Minister really believe that that is a model for the prisons of the future?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady must know, if she looks across the Prison Service, that all prisons have their problems, especially when they are starting up. First, the impressive thing about Blakenhurst is how quickly its problems were brought under control. Secondly—I think

    439
    that the hon. Lady found it a fault, but my hon. Friends and the public at large would find it something quite different—when Blakenhurst failed in a certain degree in its contract, it lost money as a result. The Home Secretary has the leverage to obtain the type of Prison Service that he wants from the private sector which is, alas, absent in the public sector, occasionally to the detriment of the performance of the public sector.
    Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend note that there is still considerable concern about the number of mentally ill people in our mainstream prisons and about the frequent lack of specialist medical attention in prison hospital wings? Will he ensure that he looks carefully at providing secure accommodation for those people, but with adequate medical provision?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to perceive that as an important problem, but the place for mentally disordered offenders is not prison, but the national health service outside. Over the past few years, each year a much larger number of such prisoners has been moved out into the health service. The only bar to the speedy movement in every part of the country is places within the health service. The Prison Service medical staff are alive to the problem and are constantly in touch with the health service about it.
    Mr. Trimble: Can the Minister comment on the prison transfers currently taking place from England to Northern Ireland? Is not part of the problem the differences that exist in the prison regimes of England and Northern Ireland, in relation to both the conditions of custody and the release procedures? Would not those difficulties be minimised if there were roughly similar prison regimes in both jurisdictions?
    Mr. Lloyd: If there were roughly similar regimes, there would not be a problem. I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman has successfully asked his question under the heading of private prisons. The delay has not been in making arrangements, but in satisfying ourselves on the legal position of prisoners under the different regimes. We have come to a satisfactory conclusion on that, which is why appropriate transfers are taking place.

    European Parliament
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to change the electoral system for the election of UK Members to the European Parliament.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We have no current plans to do so.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister realise that if the United Kingdom had already adopted a more proportional system of electoral representation, the number of seats gained by the Conservatives in the recent UK elections would have risen from an utterly abysmal 18 to a merely awful 23? How many devastating election results will the Conservatives have to suffer before the Minister changes his mind?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady can probably see merit in the prison system— [Interruption.] I am still on the last question. The hon. Lady can probably see some merit in the present system as it looks as though it may have temporarily benefited her party. In the longer run, we should look at the basic merits of the system. Our single
    440
    Member constituency, with its direct relationship with the electorate, is one on which we set great value. Our representation in the European Parliament consists of those candidates who received the highest number of votes in their constituencies. I do not complain about that, but I am certain that next time many more Conservative candidates will get a higher vote.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only change that we need in the European parliamentary election system is to require Opposition parties to talk about European issues at European elections?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, or talk about the real issues at any election.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister appreciate that, with the ever-closer union in Europe and the extra powers that have been given to the European Parliament—democratically elected though its Members are—more and more people will begin to question the disparity in numbers between Members from various countries in that Parliament. Luxembourg, whose population is less than half that of Birmingham, has six representatives. In addition, the different electoral systems throughout Europe, as well as within the United Kingdom, distort the European Parliament.
    Mr. Lloyd: All countries have universal suffrage and all countries have slightly different ways of electing their European Members. Common rules need to be justified by common benefits. It is not obvious that any country would benefit from harmonising the electoral systems.

    Crime Prevention (New Technology)
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has taken to maximise the use of new technology in crime prevention.
    Mr. Howard: I attach particular importance to the use of new technology in the fight against crime. Recent initiatives include the successful promotion of closed circuit television as a crime control measure and close co-operation with the vehicle manufacturers to promote the use of effective car immobiliser systems. We are also pushing forward with a number of major new crime and technology initiatives to assist the police in combating crime.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that closed circuit television surveillance schemes, many of which have been funded by the urban fund and by the safer cities campaign, have significantly helped to reduce crime in the precincts and car parks of our inner cities and towns? Does he agree that people want more cameras and less crime—not the other way round, as suggested by some civil liberties groups?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend the Minister of State launched a new CCTV scheme in the centre of Liverpool just a couple of days ago. I think that CCTV can make a significant contribution to the fight against crime. We certainly want to encourage its spread.
    Mr. Bennett: Although video cameras in shopping areas and housing estates can be a useful way to deter crime and catching criminals, will the Minister accept that

    441
    there is now a need for a code of practice governing who should have access to the cameras and the purposes to which they can put the information gained from them?
    Mr. Howard: That matter is currently under consideration by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I want to await the results of its deliberations before deciding whether any action needs to be taken. I am in no doubt at all of the contribution that CCTV can make to the fight against crime.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to scotch the rumour in a recent issue of Police Review about plans to disband the national criminal intelligence service? Does he agree that the use by NCIS of information technology is probably the best weapon the police now have to fight international organised crime?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly do. NCIS is seen across Europe as a model for how policing against major crime can most effectively be carried out. There is no question of disbanding it; I take this opportunity of paying tribute to its work.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary confer with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on the prevention of car crime through rendering illegal the re-chipping of mobile phones, which is increasingly an objective of the criminal?
    Mr. Howard: We are looking at that matter. The National Board for Crime Prevention is conducting an investigation into it. It is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we are certainly examining it.

    Pursuit Of Offenders
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is permitted for individual police forces to exercise discretion not to post warrants for suspects and bail absconders on the national police computer unless the offences are particularly serious; what consideration he is giving to offenders being pursued by the police in areas other than those in which an alleged offence has been committed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: It is for chief officers to decide how to respond to individual cases, but there can be no question of offenders escaping justice simply by moving to a different area.
    Mr. Shersby: I begin by wishing my right hon. and learned Friend a happy birthday. Is he aware of reports that some forces are finding it too expensive to pursue suspects who flee from their home area to another part of the country? Will he consider the possibility of the force in the area to which the suspect has gone dealing with the arrest warrant and the case being heard by a local magistrate in the area concerned?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes. There certainly may be ways in which our present arrangements can be improved, but there can be no excuse for not pursuing offenders who seek to escape justice by moving to different areas. It is the job of the police to make sure that they do not escape justice and that justice is done.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are being taken to reduce the number of rules and regulations affecting the workings of his Department; and how many officials he employs currently working on deregulation initiatives.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: We have reviewed 32 of the 71 regulations affecting business for which the Home Office is responsible, and reviews of the other regulations are in progress or due to start shortly. The Department's deregulation unit involves three officials directly and many others are involved in taking forward deregulation initiatives.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that officials in his and other Departments are blocking an attempt by Conservative Members to institute some sort of local appeal mechanism, so that over-zealous interpretations of rules and regulations can be dealt with uniformly and so that local businesses are not continually crippled by such over-zealous interpretation and the additional unit costs that regulations put on them? Why do not we behave like the French and do nothing at all?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend knows that I am aware of his concerns because he has written to me about them. He is also aware that discretion for the matters that concern him lies with the local licensing justices, who have made it clear to my hon. Friend and his constituents that what is proposed might come up against the Sunday Observance Act 1780. He will be aware that in the deregulation Bill we have taken the initiative on children's certificates. We have also made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend is reviewing other aspects of the licensing system; no doubt my hon. Friend's concerns will then be given due consideration.
    Mr. Chisholm: Is one of the rules and regulations that no findings of the Home Office research department should be published if they contradict the views of the Home Secretary? What does the Minister have against evidence and facts?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman no doubt saw a letter in The Guardian from the head of the research department at the Home Office making it clear that that report was utterly without foundation. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was about to stand up and applaud the Government for their various deregulation initiatives: first, with the Sunday Trading Bill, secondly, with the deregulation Bill and thirdly, with the further progress being made within the Home Department on a number of deregulation fronts.

    Criminals (Profits From Publicity)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the profits criminals make as a result of the publicity surrounding their case.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government deplore any exploitation of criminal activities for financial gain. We have previously considered legal restraints on chequebook journalism, but there are insurmountable practical problems.
    Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend should know that his answer will not go down very well with my law-abiding and tax-paying constituents in Billericay, who pay taxes to help victims through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Does he agree that it is offensive when criminals pocket profits by telling tall tales to tabloids, thus gaining from their ill-gotten actions and badly written memoirs?
    Mr. Maclean: We all deplore such instances. They are offensive, but we have considered carefully whether a law would be appropriate in this case. There would be tremendous difficulty in framing a law that would effectively deal with it. The utter condemnation of other newspapers when such isolated incidents happen is a good and effective policing mechanism.

    May Report
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish Sir John May's report into the Guildford and Woolwich case; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: The report was published on 30 June.
    Mr. Mullin: Did the Home Secretary notice that Sir John May asked that the independent review tribunal to deal with miscarriages of justice be introduced as a matter of urgency, and that the Lord Chief Justice made the same point in a speech last night? Can the Home Secretary give us a clear timetable for the introduction of such a tribunal? Will he also give an assurance that, when it is introduced, it will not be dependent solely on police officers to carry out investigations—a very important point?
    Mr. Maclean: The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are committed to the establishment of a criminal cases review body and we are currently considering responses to our discussion paper. Of course, I cannot presume the contents of the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note the full co-operation of the Surrey police in the various inquiries and the way in which they have certainly gained local support and admiration? Will he also note that the people who perpetrated the outrage in Guildford have yet to be apprehended? Would not it be better if some Labour Members worried as much about that as about other aspects of the case?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which will no doubt be heard by those Opposition Members. For my own part, I congratulate Sir John May; his report is rigorous and searching and all those who care about the quality of our criminal justice system have cause to welcome it.
    Mr. Michael: But why has not the Home Secretary taken the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to support the view of the Labour party, the Royal Commission on criminal justice, Sir John May and now the Lord Chief Justice that the establishment of a body to investigate miscarriages of justice is now urgent and overdue? During its remaining time in another place, will the Home Secretary accept an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill aimed at establishing such a body? If not, will the Minister today give a categorical
    444
    promise of legislation in the next parliamentary Session—no later—to establish a body to investigate miscarriages of justice?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have been listening to what I said. If he thinks that a simple amendment could deal with something as complex and important as the establishment of a criminal cases review authority, he clearly did not listen to the demolition of his arguments in Committee when he proposed a similar unworkable and simplistic system. As I have said, the Government are committed to the establishment of a criminal cases review authority and we are considering the responses that we had to the excellent discussion paper that we launched.
    Mr. Brazier: In considering Sir John May's report and the findings of the royal commission, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that with approximately only one crime in 30 resulting in a conviction, for millions of British people the principal source of miscarriages of justice is the courts' inability on many occasions to convict the guilty?
    Mr. Maclean: Sir John makes it clear in his report that the definition of a miscarriage of justice is wider than some of the popular notions of it. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Miscarriages of justice occur if an innocent person is found guilty, but it is equally important that we should have a system that ensures that those who are guilty are convicted.

    Firearms Licensing
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in connection with proposals to alter fees for the issue of firearms and shotgun licences; and when he expects to be able to make a decision.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: We have received more than 550 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, and more than 370 from members of the public. We hope to be able to make an announcement on fees soon.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister realise that the continuing uncertainty is causing deep-seated feelings among legitimate gun licence holders, particularly in rural constituencies such as my own, where farmers of necessity have to hold such licences? Therefore, will he give a clear date for the announcement?
    Mr. Wardle: I understand what the hon. Lady says. She will be able to tell her constituents that the aim of the review has been to ensure that the fees reflect the true cost to the police of operating the system. However, as I have already said, the hon. Lady can expect a report shortly.
    Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend recall that, some time ago, I introduced a private Member's Bill, which became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1992, which gave the Home Secretary the power to increase the period covered by firearm and shotgun certificates? Many of us hope that those fees will not be raised, but if they have to be, will he ensure that the period covered by the certificates is also extended?
    Mr. Wardle: I remember my hon. Friend's Bill. I seem to remember that it passed through the House shortly before the general election. My hon. Friend's contribution

    445
    on that occasion will have been noted. He is right to refer to an extension to the life of the certificate because that is one factor that has been considered. I have no doubt that he will look forward to the announcement of the results of that review shortly.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Minister assuage the natural worries of legitimate firearms owners that they may be paying for inefficiencies in the police administration of the system by publishing the Ernst and Young report before he gives his report on the increase of the fees?
    Mr. Wardle: The Ernst and Young report will be published at the same time as the fees are announced. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the point that is of concern to him was also of concern to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which said that in some forces the system was being operated inefficiently. We issued a best practice guidance in order to remedy those errors.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities of the Home Office in relation to the Lockerbie crime involving the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will make a statement on the co-ordination between the specialist services of the Metropolitan police and Scottish police forces on the investigation and prosecution of those responsible.
    Mr. Maclean: My Department has an interest in view of our overall responsibility for counter-terrorist policy in Great Britain. The Metropolitan police, the forensic explosives laboratory of the Defence Research Agency and many other police forces and agencies have provided assistance to the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary during the course of the investigation.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the state of the present police investigation into the case of Youssef Chaabane, who claimed in a Beirut court that he had been responsible for placing the bomb on Pan Am 103?
    Mr. Maclean: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in this matter, checks again on what happened in the Beirut court. Our understanding is that Chaabane mentioned the Lockerbie bombing only in an outburst. He claimed that, in the face of the interrogation to which he had been subjected in respect of other charges, he would have been willing to confess to anything—even the Lockerbie bombing. In his rigorous researches, the hon. Gentleman must not obscure the central issue, which is that the Libyan Government should fully comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions without further prevarication, so that those who have been charged can stand trial.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Coastguard Service
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the reduction in resources available to the coastguard service will prejudice safety at sea.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The chief executive of the Coastguard Agency has confirmed that the resources available this year will enable the agency to fulfil its objectives on search and rescue and on oil and chemical spills. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given the House an assurance that he will not allow the efficiency gain that he is seeking to prejudice safety at sea.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister accept that the most efficient way to run the coastguard service would be to provide the existing complement of professional and auxiliary personnel—who know their own coastlines, seas and weather conditions—all the equipment, training and back-up that money can buy? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he personally will refuse to sanction further efficiency savings in the coastguard service if there is any suggestion that they would prejudice safety at sea in future? After all, the Prime Minister himself may need the political equivalent of a breeches buoy before too long.
    The Prime Minister: Of course we would not do anything to prejudice safety at sea, which is self-evidently of vital importance. It is right to seek efficiency gains where it is thought that they will be available. The agency's chief executive has joined other Department of Transport executive agencies in submitting proposals on how further efficiency gains may be made. I am sure that that is right. The greater the efficiency gain that can be made across the public service, the greater will be the saving to the taxpayer or the improvement in services elsewhere in the public service.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer and assurances, but would not it be quite wrong and unthinkable to apply to coastguard front-line services the 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts that are being considered for other aspects of the Department of Transport? That must be wrong and out of the question. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that does not happen under any circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is running two things together. There is no presumption that the coastguard service must achieve a 20 per cent. reduction. What is sought is a 20 per cent. efficiency gain. I believe that that is achievable, and the chief executive is investigating how it may be achieved. As I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), that will not be at the expense of the security and safety of people at sea.

    Engagements
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Prime Minister aware that Railtrack board members have introduced a new working practice whereby they are paid £500 additional bonus—three times the basic wage of signal staff—simply to attend Railtrack meetings? Will the Prime Minister join me in

    447
    agreeing that those additional payments are obscene? Will he take this opportunity to condemn Railtrack's board for making those additional payments?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly make inquiries about what the hon. Gentleman has alleged, and check whether it is true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also take the interests of the travelling public into account and condemn a strike for an 11 per cent. pay award, which far exceeds what is being paid to anyone else in the public sector. There is no justification for an award of that size at this time. I hope that negotiations will continue and that the strike will be swiftly settled.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a new offence of racial harassment—as recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs—together with new measures to tackle the publication of racist material, will be major steps forward in the fight against racial attacks?
    The Prime Minister: We abhor any crime in which any element of racial motivation is present. That is precisely why we have added to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a new offence to tackle that particular mischief. I believe that that is desirable, and will achieve widespread support among all shades of opinion.
    Mrs. Beckett: On Tuesday, the Leader of the House rejected doctors' criticisms of the Government's health service changes; today, the health service ombudsman has published strong criticism from patients. Are they wrong, too?
    The Prime Minister: Like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the whole of the ombudsman's report. The ombudsman examines a minority of the cases referred to him, and does not comment on the generality of health service treatment. I understand that some of the reports that have been evident earlier today have been repudiated by the commissioner, but, as I said, like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the full report.
    Mrs. Beckett: But the Prime Minister must know, as I do, that it reveals a record number of complaints. Does he not recognise that the ombudsman, doctors, nurses, patients and Opposition Members are all saying the same thing—that the Government's health service changes are making matters worse? When will the Prime Minister drop them?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House will have noted that the right hon. Lady did not say that she had read the report about which she claims to be speaking so authoritatively. Of course we will take the Health Service Commissioner's report seriously: we are anxious to ensure that the health service continues to improve, and, according to the test set out by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), it is. He said that the test of the reforms was whether more patients were treated. They are—1 million more every year.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Prime Minister denying that the report shows a record number of complaints this year? Is he denying that? I doubt it very much. Only under the present Government would a record number of complaints be regarded as evidence of success. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the health service changes are
    448
    hurting but certainly not working, and that, while he may sack the present Secretary of State for Health, he also needs to scrap the policies and start putting patients first?
    The Prime Minister: The reforms are precisely about putting patients first. That is why the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, the quality of care has improved immeasurably and the number of patients waiting, and almost all waiting times, have fallen. That is an improvement in care.
    As for complaints, it was precisely with the aim of addressing the issues highlighted by the Health Service Commissioner that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established a committee, under Professor Wilson, to carry out a thorough review of complaints procedure. That report was published for consultation in May. We anticipated concern about the matter, and have already put in hand measures to deal with it.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that bed space is no longer the determinant of a nation's health care policy, and that when a nation has many beds that is likely to be because epidemiology is not the advanced science that it is in the United Kingdom today?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The proper judgment of how well the health service is performing is based, first, on the number of people who are treated and, secondly, on how satisfactorily they are treated. On both those measures, the health service continues to improve.

    UN Security Council
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed the membership, structure and functions of the Security Council of the United Nations when he last met the leaders of the other member states of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I did not discuss those matters when I last met European leaders in Corfu.
    Dr. Godman: President Nelson Mandela said recently that Rwanda is a stern and severe rebuke to us all. That surely holds for the disgracefully inept and irresponsible Security Council. Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need for the Council to solve the problems of financing and manning peacekeeping operations so that United Nations resolutions can more effectively and efficiently be implemented? Given the mess that the Security Council is in, financially and structurally, most UN resolutions are utterly unenforceable.
    The Prime Minister: I share the horror and revulsion felt by many people, including the hon. Gentleman, about the terrible suffering in Rwanda. That is undoubtedly the case. I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the Security Council. It is not practicable for the Security Council—it simply does not have the resources in terms of cash or money, nor is it likely to have in the short term—
    Mr. Skinner: Cash or money?
    The Prime Minister: It is not Britain that is behind in its payments to the UN. The hon. Gentleman, as usual, wishes to criticise this country, with a complete absence of the facts when he does so.
    The Security Council has become increasingly effective over recent years, and many of the measures set down by it, many of the motions passed by it and many of the actions taken by it are far more effective than in previous years. It simply is not practicable for it to become the policeman of every part of the world.

    Engagements
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sweeping reforms that we carried out in the national health service in 1991 have inevitably led to controversy and criticism, both malevolent and constructive and positive? Is he aware that, unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who leads for the Opposition, I took the trouble to read the report of the health service ombudsman? I noted in particular paragraph 1, where he summarises the rest of the report, which I have also read, and refers to the number of complaints as being "remarkably small". Does my right hon. Friend agree that our reforms have been extremely successful, with more than 8 million people being treated in hospital this year? Will he join me in congratulating Portsmouth and South East Hampshire trust, which for the first time achieved the position whereby no one had to wait for more than a year for any operation?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear about that improvement in waiting lists and about the remarkably small number of complaints. I am interested to see that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not even get as far as the first paragraph in her studies. I share my hon. Friend's view that we have every reason to be proud of what the national health service has achieved. The Labour party takes and deserves the credit for having established the national health service—no one would deny it that—but in the 45 years since the health service
    450
    was established, the Conservative party has been predominantly in government, and that party has put in the resources to build up the health service from its early beginnings to its present excellence.
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Khabra: Does the Prime Minister think it odd that a senior adviser to the Home Office on prison policy is also in the pay of Group 4, which is bidding to win contracts for building private prisons? Furthermore, does he agree that it is odd that an interest is definitely involved?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the chief inspector of prisons has satisfied himself that there is no impropriety in that appointment and I am happy to accept that advice.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the public are concerned about people who commit crimes while out on bail? Will he strongly urge prosecutors to take up what we have given them—the right to appeal against bail being imposed on them?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the vast majority of the public will entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There is an opportunity there to be taken. I very much hope that it will be taken.
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Prime Minister simply confirm or deny the fact that a Cabinet Committee, which he chaired this morning, decided to recommend the closure of Rosyth naval base?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will have to wait, as far as any aspect of the defence costs study is concerned, for the Cabinet to consider the matter itself and for a statement subsequently to be made. Until that time, I have nothing to say either in confirmation or denial.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 11 JULY—Second Reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
Motion relating to Scottish Standing Orders.
TUESDAY 12 JULY—Opposition Day (18th allotted day) There will be a debate on "The Case for a Public Post Office" on an Opposition motion.
Debate on Procedure Committee reports and Catering Committee reports.
WEDNESDAY 13 JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
Debate on resolutions on Members' allowances and Members' interests.
THURSDAY 14 JULY—Motion on the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 15 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 18 JULY—Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
Motion on the Railways Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) order.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the estimates and supplementary estimates for 1994–95. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Tuesday 12 July—document No. 11141/93 relating to consumer disputes. Wednesday 13 July—document No. 7390/92 relating to the development of the single market for postal services, and document No. 7133/93 relating to postal services.
[Tuesday 12 July:
European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 11141/93, Consumer Disputes. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 48-vi (1993–94), HC 48-xiv (1992–93 ), HC 48-xv (1993–94), HC 48-xxi (1993–94), HC 48-xxii (1993–94) and HC 48-xxiv (1993–94).
Debate on Procedure Committee Reports and Catering Committee Reports. Relevant Documents: The Procedure Committee Reports entitled "Printing of Private Members' Bills; Presentation of Private Members' Bills; and Timing of Divisions" (HC 880). The Catering Committee Reports entitled "Refreshment Provision for Line of Route Visitors" (HC 307) and "Refreshment Services for the House of Commons" (HC 75).
Wednesday 13 July:
European Standing Committee B—European Community documents: a) 7390/92 Postal Services, b) 7133/93 Postal Services. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: a) HC 79-vi (1992–93), HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93) b) HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).
452
Debate on Resolutions on Members' Allowances and Members' Interests. Relevant Documents: The Report of Select Committee on Members' Interests entitled "Registration of Lloyd's Syndicates" (HC 353).
Monday 18 July:
Debate on the Economy. Relevant Document: "Summer Economic Forecast 1994".]
I was going to conclude by thanking the many hon. Members who have taken the trouble to keep me abreast of their family diaries for the forthcoming weeks and ask them to accept, by way of collective response, the announcement that it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 21 July until Monday 17 October.
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, for the Opposition days, for finally telling us the date of the summer recess and, indeed, for granting us the summer economic debate, which I understand is intended to become a permanent part of the parliamentary calendar. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. May I have the attention of the House? I ask hon. Members to leave quickly and quietly.
Mr. Brown: I am sorry that deep divisions on the Conservative side over Europe have necessitated the last-minute rearrangement of business and important House of Commons matters having to be debated after Ten o'clock. I had hoped that in the new and more enlightened era which we hope the House is travelling towards, it would not be necessary to take business of that sort after Ten o'clock. Can the Leader of the House respond to that point?
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the House to have an opportunity to discuss the Consumers Association report on the post-privatisation profiteering of the water industry? In such a debate, we could discuss the massive salary gains that chief executives have made in the water industry and their share option schemes.
Lastly, will the Leader of the House arrange before the recess for a debate in Government time on the national health service, in particular on the role of medical advice in deciding whether frail, elderly patients are to be discharged from hospital? If it is the Government's view that those decisions should not be taken on a medical basis, but that other opinions should prevail, perhaps he could arrange for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, rather than the Secretary of State for Health, to reply to the debate.
Mr. Newton: Apart from the initial thanks, which I accept with gratitude, that was a pretty mischievous set of questions, to which largely I need make no substantial response. Manifestly, I am not in a position to promise a great range of further debates, as I have just announced the date of the summer recess to, I gather, some enthusiasm on both sides of the House.
I can confirm that the summer economic debate that I have announced for Monday week is intended to be a precursor of a regular debate at about this time in future years, following the move to the unified Budget. While House of Commons matters such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred have usually been debated late at

453
night, we should all like to move to a different position. That, of course, is the purpose of the discussions that he and I are having. We have made a great deal of progress towards the Jopling objectives in practice in recent months, but we shall not be able to achieve perfection until the hon. Gentleman and I can reach agreement.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from Conservative Members who were worried that we might have been bounced into one day on the accession treaty for enlargement?
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Cash: I certainly will speak for myself, and for many others. We believe that it is an important step forward that we can have a proper discussion on this important matter. After all, originally the European Parliament was merely to be in association with the proposals for enlargement. Now it is to be in participation.
Mr. Newton: Unaccustomed as I am to congratulations from that quarter, I accept them with gratitude. It was certainly never the intention to bounce anyone into anything. I hope that we have shown that, just as we always respond to representations through the usual channels, we are also capable of responding to representations through unusual channels.
Sir David Steel: The Leader of the House knows, of course, that the Foreign Secretary has been in Geneva attempting to assist with others the securing of a peace plan for Bosnia. He also knows that the carnage continues and the refugee problems are growing in Rwanda. Will he assure the House that there will be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to report to the House on those matters before we rise for the summer recess so that we can press him on what has happened to the proposal for a rapid deployment force made to the Security Council by the Secretary-General of the United Nations some time ago? Such a force could have greatly helped, at any rate in the case of Rwanda.
Mr. Newton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have several times assured the House that if there were clearly a case for a statement to be made on developments in such matters, I would seek to arrange it. While I can give no undertakings at this moment, partly because I am not sure that at this moment there is a case for such a statement, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be here to answer questions next Wednesday.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay a warm and generous tribute to the outstanding work of the Select Committee on National Heritage, particularly for its report on the BBC? Will he give an assurance to the House that the White Paper on the BBC will be the subject of a full debate in the future?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that I would want to consider the request for a debate on the White Paper in due course at some appropriate time. I cannot give any undertaking at this moment and I certainly cannot do so before the recess. However, I note my hon. Friend's other remarks and I have
454
also noted the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the Select Committee in his remarks yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his statement? Now that there will be 88 days in which Parliament will not be in session, as a result of his announcement on the recess, will he take into account the fact that it is inconceivable, and would not be understood by people outside, especially the disabled, that there will not be the time to debate the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and allow it to reach its final stages? There are 6.5 million disabled people out there—people who believe that they have every right to the same justice and opportunities as other individuals in society. Surely it is possible to find one extra day. Cut that recess from 88 days to 87 and let us give those people a chance like everyone else.
Mr. Newton: There are two points really. First, as I have said on a number of occasions, the time available for private Members' Bills is determined by the House, under an order passed at the beginning of the Session. There is a further day for private Members' Bills, which I announced—Friday 15 July.
More important, I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend—indeed, many of my right hon. Friends, including myself—are working vigorously towards a substantial statement of the proposals that the Government think workable and practicable to advance the interests of disabled people in a number of areas.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend expect the House to complete consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill before, or after, the recess?
Mr. Newton: I would not wish to encourage expectation that we shall be able to complete consideration of that Bill, which is still in another place, before the recess.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House will know that in recent years, following reshuffles, some Ministers have taken senior positions on the boards of companies that were set up following the implementation of privatisation plans by their Departments. Can he give an assurance at the Dispatch Box next week that, when the next reshuffle takes place, no Minister who is in the Government will be allowed—for the rest of the life of this Parliament—to sit on the board of a company that he or she has been responsible for privatising during this Parliament?
Mr. Newton: I am obviously not going to get involved in any of the speculation underlying the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As to his question, I can safely assure him that all my colleagues—Ministers or otherwise—will always act in accordance with the guidance to Ministers and, indeed, considerations of general propriety.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate before we rise for the recess on the Christian values underpinning British society? Does he agree that such a debate would provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the Bishop of Birmingham the fact that increasing the resources and efficiency of the health service, and the number of patients treated by it, is a

455
profoundly Christian approach to that service, and contrasts sadly with the financial affairs of—and the numbers using—the Church of England?
Mr. Newton: Being ex officio a Church Commissioner, I had better be cautious about venturing into the latter part of the question. On the first part, yes, I certainly see our achievements in the health service, including those demonstrated by the figures that my right hon. Friend used at Prime Minister's Question Time, as illustrating a very caring approach, which is improving the amount of care that we offer through that service.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Should not there be a statement next week on the cross-ownership of the media? Do the Government think it right that Mr. Murdoch's pots of gold—acquired from television and in other ways—should be used to subsidise The Times and pose a threat to The Independent and The Daily Telegraph? Are the Government at least concerned that the quality press in this country may be in a very different position in 90 days or so? Ought there not to be an urgent statement on the Government's attitude to allowing a situation to develop in which Mr. Murdoch might have to choose between having television or broadsheet quality newspapers, which is the position in the United States?
Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman raises an important and controversial subject, on which he would not expect me to make a statement now. The matter is fairly and squarely in the territory of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. As it happens, my right hon. Friend was here yesterday on matters not totally distant from those raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he will be here to answer questions on Monday.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the outdated and ridiculous rule that Select Committees cannot travel during prorogation? Does he accept that, while the rule still exists, it is extremely difficult for Select Committees to plan any proposed travel? While I know that he will not want to tell us the date of prorogation, may we at least be told when the Queen's Speech and the opening of Parliament will be announced, as that must be decided many months in advance?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position either to give the date of prorogation or the date of the Queen's Speech at the moment. My right hon. Friend's is the second representation which I have received about the position of Select Committees during the period between the two, and I am looking into the matter to see whether there is anything that I can do to help.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House consider that, a year or so after the "Taking Stock" announcement and with the Conservative party getting anything between 2 and 12 per cent. in Scottish elections, the minor procedural measures that are to be debated on Monday have been overtaken by events? Does he really consider that, with the Rosyth naval base set for closure, tinkering with the Scottish Grand Committee will save Tory skins in Scotland?
Mr. Newton: I do not in any way think that the proposals for changes in the Scottish Standing Orders,
456
which will be debated on Monday, have been overtaken by developments of any kind. They are a sensible improvement of the procedures of the House in relation to Scottish business, and I hope that the House will endorse them accordingly.
Sir Roger Moate: Can my right hon. Friend find a way during business next week for the House to consider early-day motion 1411?
[That this House recognises the importance of the fullest co-operation with the United States of America in matters of extradition; is concerned however that in the case of Sally Croft and Susan Hagan, the offence for which they have been charged is supposed to have taken place in Oregon in 1985, five years before the US Justice Department commenced proceedings in 1990; is further concerned that the supposed evidence was obtained entirely through plea-bargaining and is unreliable in a number of other respects; recognises that there are other exceptional features of this case; and therefore calls upon the present Home Secretary, in the interests of justice, to re-examine the case with a view to exercising his discretion to prevent the extradition of these two British subjects.]
The motion stands in my name and the names of 71 other hon. Members from both sides of the House. It concerns the imminent extradition of two British subjects to face rather bizarre charges in the United States.
If time cannot be found to debate the matter, will my right hon. Friend find some way of drawing it to the attention of the Home Secretary? After all, it is a matter of political judgment and discretion, and the concerns are shared on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. Friend to try to get the Home Secretary to re-examine the case, so that the two ladies are not extradited before the House has had time to consider the full implications?
Mr. Newton: I can safely assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the points that he and others have made. I understand that the cases are the subject of further judicial review proceedings which are due to be heard on 26 July. My hon. Friend will understand that I certainly cannot comment further.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Now that another reshuffle of Ministers seems to be on the way, may we have a statement next week about the latest reshuffle of ex-Ministers? Michael Fallon and Francis Maude have been appointed to the deregulation task force along with an administrator of the trust of the Sainsbury family, one of whose members is a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. Is not it absolutely deplorable that Ministers should use or abuse their patronage powers to set up a job creation scheme for their pals and former ministerial colleagues who were kicked out by the electorate at the general election?
Mr. Newton: I see nothing improper or in any way wrong in using the experience of people who, as it happens in this case, have been colleagues in the House and to make use of their experience to advance a sensible policy.
Mr. James Pawsey: My right hon. Friend will have noticed the considerable interest displayed during Prime Minister's Question Time on the report submitted by the health service ombudsman. Given that great interest, will my right hon. Friend therefore

457
consider having an early debate to discuss the reports of the Health Service Commissioner and the Parliamentary Commissioner?
Mr. Newton: I am conscious of my hon. Friend's role as Chairman of the Select Committee, and of his concern that there should be a debate. In the light of the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time, I perhaps have some further encouragement in that direction, but. I am afraid that I cannot at this stage give an undertaking.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman please assure the House that if the rail dispute is not settled before the House rises, we will have an opportunity to discuss the principles involved? On Tuesday, the chairman of Railtrack told the Employment Select Committee not only that the Government are 100 per cent. shareholders in Railtrack, but that the Secretary of State for Transport sets the parameters within which he must negotiate. In those circumstances, should the Secretary of State for Transport come not merely to the Employment Select Committee, as he will do next week, but to the House and answer to the entire country for the way in which the Government have caused the mishandling of this issue?
Mr. Newton: First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is frequently in the House. Secondly, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider how far it is right to use his position as Chairman of the Select Committee in relation to this kind of controversy when negotiations are going on.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1442, which is in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and others, including myself?
[That this House notes with sadness the failure of the Church of England in Birmingham to attract more than two per cent. of the city's population to its churches on a Sunday and that the management of the Birmingham Diocese has failed to reverse the decline of the church in Birmingham inner city; regrets that the church has been marginalised at a time when its influence in spiritual and moral matters is sorely needed; and concludes that the Bishop of Birmingham's authority to speak out on public issues would be greatly enhanced if, instead of supervising decline, he was able to demonstrate that by saving more souls and filling more churches he had restored the Anglican Church in Birmingham to its rightful place as a leading influence in the day-to-day lives of the citizens of Birmingham.]
Would it be possible to have an urgent debate on this matter in the House soon, so that we can advise the Bishop of Birmingham on how best to be a bishop and to leave politics to people like us, who are elected to talk on the subject?
Mr. Newton: One of my hon. Friends has already referred to the bishop's remarks and I made some comment on that. Beyond that, as I have said on a number of earlier occasions, I would not wish to get involved too much in ecclesiastical affairs.
Mr. David Winnick: If we are to break up in the week mentioned by the Leader of the House, why are we not breaking up on 22 July, so that at least on 21 July we could have Question Time and Prime
458
Minister's Question Time? Is not it a fact that the Government are in such a sorry position that they simply do not want the newly elected Leader of the Opposition to be in a position to put questions? [Interruption.] No matter how much Tory Members heckle now, the public know how fearful the Government are of a newly elected Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Newton: In view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's complete dominance at Question Time, I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.
Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a debate next week on the workings of the legal aid system so that I can highlight the fact that a number of my constituents are having to pay a great deal of money back to the Legal Aid Board, while someone who is not even a British citizen is collecting more than £4 million to assist his case?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I was asked a question about that, as my hon. Friend may recall, when I was answering for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday. I undertook to bring those concerns to the attention, once again, of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and that is being done.
Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on lack of accountability in the water industry? Does he agree that the need for such a debate was emphasised this week by the revelation that a prominent Conservative party supporter and former chair of Severn Trent Water has just received a pay-off of £500,000? Does he agree that that is a matter of legitimate public concern, particularly when pensioners and low-income families find it so difficult to pay their water bills? Does he agree that we urgently need a debate on the lack of accountability in our water industry?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pay and other forms of remuneration in the private sector, whether in the water industry or elsewhere, are matters for those companies and their shareholders. It is certainly our view, however, that the shareholders of the water companies should follow the lead that the Government have set for the public sector and exercise restraint in agreeing remuneration in any form for their directors and senior managers.
Mr. James Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for an annual summer debate on the economy? This year, can my right hon. Friend think of an appropriate title for that debate, which might tempt the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the House to explain his plans for improving the supply side of the economy? He could also explain how he reconciles those plans with the imposition of a minimum wage, imposition of the social chapter and the imposition of higher taxes on businesses as well as a massive hike in state spending. I can suggest a title that might fit the hon. Gentleman's plans; how about, " The white heat of technology—mark 2"?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend obviously has a good memory. He also has an irrepressible optimism because I

459
suspect that even if the hon. Member for Sedgefield took part in such a debate, we would get no clearer explanation inside the House than we have had outside it.
Mr. John Spellar: Will the Leader of the House accept that, given the considerable number of problems still to be discussed, the three months' recess will not be received with universal acclamation in the House or outside? May I draw his attention to the fact that the wheel clamping consultation was supposed to finish in May last year? Now it will not have an opportunity to be discussed further until October. Will he get on to the Home Office and try to get some urgency into that Department in order to resolve that disgraceful situation, as it is causing considerable misery around the country?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter again.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to discuss the single market and the impact that it is having on cheap beer imports into the country, which are running at 1 million pints a day? Last week, I went to Calais with other hon. Members and saw the amount of beer being imported, not just in Transits and ordinary cars but on HGV lorries. It is having a massive impact on the hundreds of thousands of jobs in pubs, clubs and the brewing industry in this country.
Mr. Newton: I believe that it will be within my hon. Friend's knowledge—I remember seeing details of a substantial court case during the week—that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are vigorously pursuing cases where importation is clearly outside the rules.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the new guidelines issued by the Charity Commission, which prevent charities from lobbying hon. Members in the traditional way by stopping them writing pro forma letters to us? While other organisations lobby for less worthy causes and offer hon. Members sumptuous invitations to junkets, Calais and other exotic spots, worthy organisations that support good causes are being restricted in that unfair way.
Mr. Newton: Well, of course I will bring those observations to my right hon. Friend's attention, but it must be recognised that, alongside the advantages of charitable status, there must be rules about what is and is not proper under charitable status.
Dr. Liam Fox: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on trade union and labour law reform? Given the transformation of our industrial relations landscape, with the timely reminder of the rail dispute, both sides of the House, particularly Opposition Front-Bench Members, would have a chance to say which part of the horrendous 1970 labour laws they would like to see revisited on the public.
Mr. Newton: I will certainly look for an opportunity to tease those matters out, but it is another area in which, however many questions are asked, we get few answers.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to make a
460
statement explaining what remedies local communities have when community health trusts issue consultation documents prior to the establishment of secure units for mental hospital patients, which are deliberately designed to mislead and deceive those local communities about the nature of offenders who will be held in those secure units?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman clearly has a particular case in mind and is effectively making an allegation of a public body "misleading" the public, his appropriate course would be to bring forward the evidence and ask my right hon. Friend to look at it.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what the format of business will be on Wednesday 20 July? He will know that the tall ships race is to leave Weymouth harbour on that day, and many hon. Members with maritime and heritage interests or who just love seeing tall ships would love to be there between 11 am and 3 pm to see that wonderful sight, which is great for tourism, for Britain and, of course, for Dorset, and get back in good time to participate in the business of the House.
Mr. Newton: If, as my hon. Friend said, the race takes place between 11 am and 3 pm, he should at least be able to see the start of it and get back in time.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at the timetable for the House and consider having a debate on the space industry? There has not been a debate in the House on the UK space industry since February 1988; nor has there been a debate since the European Space Agency ministerial meeting last year, which made important decisions on space. As the European Space Agency will be present at Farnborough this year—the first time for 15 years—the matter needs to be discussed in the House because our UK industries believe that our levels of funding are falling below those necessary to make our industries successful and competitive.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take this opportunity once again to recognise the excellent interest that my hon. Friend takes in those matters, which are perhaps not always as widely discussed as we should like. That said, I cannot promise a debate, but I could perhaps encourage her to seek to be fortunate, for example, Madam Speaker, as regards your choices about the Adjournment debates that will preface the recess.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on local government finance, so that the House might consider the position of the new Ealing Labour council, which is promising to increase council tax by about 10 per cent. next year, although it has inherited balances of £8 million from the outgoing Conservative administration, to which was bequeathed a deficit of £200 million by the previous Ealing Labour council?
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot, I am afraid, promise a debate, but there are quite a lot of opportunities, what with the Adjournment motion itself and the Adjournment debates that normally come just before the recess, for such matters to be mentioned, and I might encourage my hon. Friend to try to elaborate those points on one of those occasions.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a

461
debate to debate the outcome of the preparatory arrangements for the international conference on population and development in Cairo later this year? If he cannot find time for such a debate now, may I urge him to find an early slot, so that we can debate the outcome of that conference?
Mr. Newton: As I suspect my hon. Friend knows, he is the second of my hon. Friends to mention that matter in two or three weeks. I did undertake, although very much without commitment, to consider that point, and I repeat that comment to my hon. Friend.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on waste and inefficiency in the public sector? It would be a suitable opportunity for me to bring to the attention of the House matters of concern to my constituents, who are worried about some items of waste that still exist in the public sector, and they want me to make that argument so that the message can be communicated that the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal provides good value, is welcome in the constituency and they want it to be kept, and that they want many other wasteful items in the public sector to be abolished.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's concern for the Royal Marines School of Music at Deal is well known. I do not think that I need actually tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about it, but nevertheless I will.
Mr. Michael Bates: Has my right hon. Friend received any requests from the Labour party to have an early debate on early-day motion 527?
[That this House deplores the actions of certain honourable Members in claiming that there has been impropriety of various kinds by elected members of Monklands District Council; is particularly concerned that these allegations, including that of financial irregularity and political corruption, have now been made by the honourable Member for Eastwood who is the Minister of the Crown responsible for local government in Scotland; requires all honourable Members making such allegations
462
to furnish the facts to Strathclyde Police or other appropriate authority; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to cause a local enquiry to be undertaken in pursuance of the powers available to him under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and would regard failure to do so as indicating that there is no valid complaint against Monklands District Council and that the allegations amount to no more than a smear tactic which serves only to demean honourable Members and Ministers who stoop to such devices.]
The motion concludes that there was no case for Monklands district council to answer against claims of corruption. Given that there has been a Damascus road conversion of, not least, the convenor of the Scottish parliamentary Labour party, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who now recognises that there is a case to answer, does not my right hon. Friend think that that matter should be mentioned at an early opportunity ?
Mr. Newton: I was rather anticipating that it might be mentioned at an early opportunity by the newly elected hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell).
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on deregulation, with special emphasis on the right of small business men to appeal against unnecessary and unwarranted impositions of regulations on them? During the passage through this House of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, we were assured by the Minister and by the President of the Board of Trade that we would get something put into the Bill before it arrived back here, and as yet nothing has happened. Can we find time for such a debate, to spur them on?
Mr. Newton: I might be in some difficulty if I found time for such a debate while the Bill is still under consideration in another place, but I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those who are concerned with that consideration.

Development Board for Rural Wales
4.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning the Development Board for Rural Wales and related issues concerning the Welsh Development Agency, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Land Authority for Wales and the Wales tourist board.
Some non-departmental public bodies in Wales have been criticised in recent years by the Public Accounts Committee and by Parliament for the way in which they have conducted public business. Those bodies have revealed a number of irregularities that should not have occurred. I, for my part, have sought to be open about the problems, to report to the House and to take sensible action for a better future.
I announced to the House on 14 March a review of the future of the DBRW. I have since consulted widely and considered carefully the representations received. I have now reached my conclusions and wish to tell them to the House before anyone else. I have certainly not made any indication of my intentions to journalists before making today's statement.
The DBRW was established in 1977. Over the past decade, there has been significant improvement in the economy of mid Wales. Unemployment has fallen and is significantly lower than that for Wales as a whole. The number of jobs has increased by 19 per cent. over the 10 years to 1991, compared with only 1 per cent. for Great Britain. The number of employees in manufacturing has increased by 16 per cent. compared with a fall of nearly a quarter for Great Britain as a whole. More people now move into the region than move out of it. Nevertheless, there are still the special problems that affect some rural districts. Some young people do not think that there is enough opportunity, and leave. Jobs continue to be lost from farms. There is worry about the future vitality of some smaller towns, villages and hamlets.
In my review, I have been anxious to promote four broad principles. I believe that local authorities should be important in deciding local issues and meeting many of the public needs of their communities, that agencies should concentrate their activities in areas where they can make an effective and distinctive contribution to regeneration and where the market needs help. I believe that agencies should see themselves as servants, not as masters, working on behalf of central and local government, and that our policies should be fair to the different communities of the whole of rural Wales. I intend to apply those principles to the different functions of the DBRW.
The House knows that the housing stock of the board will transfer in 1996, when we have completed the arrangements. Tenants are being consulted on whether they would prefer to become tenants of a local authority or a housing association. I think that those new landlords could offer a better solution for all involved.
The board makes a number of social and economic grants to local authorities and others, which are highly valued in the localities. I wish local authorities to have direct control over how that money is spent. I therefore intend from next year to transfer that responsibility to the
464
local authorities involved. My current plan is to transfer £2.4 million—the present level of expenditure—but I wish to consult on that and on the best mechanism.
The DBRW and the Welsh Development Agency offer a range of grants to assist investment in the region by existing and new businesses. I believe that those functions, which deal mainly with very small businesses, could be better delivered by local authorities. The schemes that I have in mind would include the mid Wales development grant, rural buildings conversion grants, DRIVE grants and community enterprise projects. A total of £3 million is involved. I have also instructed my officials to discuss with the local authority associations the details of how to route money to the local authorities for those activities.
The board contributes to tourism marketing and development in mid Wales. The Wales tourist board has an all-Wales responsibility in that sector and, from 1995–96, it will take over the DBRW's tourism activities and expand its own marketing and other operations in the area by an amount equivalent to the DBRW's spend of £500,000.
Housing apart, the main amounts of money and the central tasks of the DBRW are in the spheres of property development and business services. Both are designed to help small and medium-sized businesses grow and to work with inward investors once they have decided on Wales for their commitment. There is a case for those activities to be done by the WDA everywhere. During consultation, I discovered that opinion was divided, but there is, naturally, considerable support in the DBRW district for the continuation of its special work. A total of £14 million is involved.
I have, therefore, decided that those main tasks will remain with the DBRW. Within this framework, the board's property development activities—making available serviced sites and premises for existing and new businesses in the area—will continue to form an important part of its role. Financial support for these operations will be fully maintained. I expect the board to liaise closely with the Welsh Development Agency, particularly to ensure a well co-ordinated approach to opportunities and developments along their respective boundaries.
In order to do this, I propose changes to the DBRW board which I hope the House will welcome. In order to ensure more co-ordination of effort between the WDA and DBRW, which many think desirable, I am appointing today Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe as the new chairman of the DBRW.
Because I wish to strengthen working between the DBRW and local authorities, I propose to appoint two extra councillors to the board, making a total of five. This will take the board to its permitted maximum of 13. I wish to see each of the five constituent historic shires represented at the earliest opportunity.
I do not think it helps Wales to be represented abroad by more than one agency with more than one story, or by a multitude of local authorities each vying with the other. There is a danger of losing the main message that "it is better made in Wales". While I normally favour competition, this is one case where concentration of effort and one song from one song sheet is better. The WDA will take a strong lead in this work.
The board will also continue its research and marketing activities in the United Kingdom, promoting its own services and the facilities available in the area. As now, the

465
DBRW will continue its support of the WDA in responding to the needs of potential inward investors in the area.
The board has long had an influential role in arranging provision of a wide range of services and advice to local businesses, especially small firms, through a strong network of business centres. These are run in conjunction with local authorities, training and enterprise councils and local enterprise agencies. I have recently issued a prospectus inviting proposals by the autumn for the co-ordination of business services in Wales. I expect the board, together with its partners, to be fully involved in responding to this invitation. I want a good-quality service to continue for the business community in mid Wales.
I have been impressed by the way Mr. Rowe-Beddoe and his new team have gone about honestly unearthing irregularities from the past at the WDA. We are all sad that there were any. We should now unite in wishing to see the good work of the WDA and DBRW continue.
Doubts have been raised about past land deals by the WDA in the Cynon valley. At my request, the new team at the agency has launched an inquiry. Doubts have been raised about the propriety of ministerial actions in approving certain loan and grant schemes. I can assure the House from the evidence I have seen that there is no question of Ministers setting out to break the law. I do not wish there to be any doubts about any scheme; I wish to ensure that there are no doubts about the way we proceed. My arrangements ensure that these schemes will in future be run by local authorities, which I hope the House will welcome, as I do, for the wider benefits that that will bring.
It will be for the new chairman and the board to assess the effects of my statement today and its impact on the board's running costs. I would hope that changes in employment will be achieved through natural wastage or voluntary redundancy, but I would obviously expect the overhead to reduce.
I believe that there is a role for non-departmental public bodies; but I want to see that role very clearly defined. I do not expect them to ignore the wishes of local authorities and local communities. I do expect them to work wherever possible in harmony and co-operation. I do not want them to become large property landlords. I have asked the development agencies and the Land Authority for Wales to dispose of fully let properties where the money can be reused for new projects, and of land holdings which can be used for economic development and housing.
The Cardiff Bay development corporation has now begun work on its major project: the construction of the barrage. This should be completed by 1998. All development corporations have finite lives. I expect that it will be possible to wind up the Cardiff Bay development corporation by the end of 1999, at which time responsibility for the further development of the area will pass back to the local authorities.
There is no reduction in my commitment to the well-being and regeneration of mid Wales or the rest of the country. Opposition Members should welcome the very positive message that I am sending today to local government in Wales—to play its part in promoting and assisting enterprise in Wales. I believe that with these arrangements, which will ensure the same level of funding for rural Wales, we will attract more business from abroad, reclaim more derelict land and help many more indigenous businesses to set up and expand. I commend these proposals to the House.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: May I first apologise to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for my presence, which is due to the pressing domestic personal difficulties of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, which I have explained to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State opened his remarks this afternoon by referring to the irregularities among quangos in Wales, but there was a certain amount of confusion in his statement as to whether he is shrinking the mid Wales development board back to its core functions because it is an economic success or because of its compliance and accountancy failures.
The confusion continues in respect of the transfer of grant-making powers to local authorities. If the Secretary of State is interested in clearing up the legal difficulties that were raised with him in early May by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who did not receive a substantive reply for more than six weeks, it is a matter of some concern that he is now attempting to transfer that grant-making power to local authorities with the legal difficulties still unresolved. Can he, therefore, tell the House whether he plans primary legislation to clear up the unresolved difficulties that have occurred—probably over the past 12 years—particularly in respect of the legalities of making the mid Wales development grant? Before he transfers the grant-making power to the local authorities, will he confirm that he will ensure that there are no legal doubts about the powers to pay that grant?
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned contempt of the House by way of briefing the press on the matter two days ago. I accept his statement today, but is it not a contempt of the House that the Welsh Office suspended payment of those grants by a letter to the Development Board for Rural Wales three weeks ago? Officials had been instructed to cease payments of the mid Wales development grant, the DRIVE grant and the conversion grants before the House had had any chance to discuss the scheme. That raises a question of contempt of the House which I hope the Secretary of State will answer.
There is some confusion in the Secretary of State's mind about whether he is penalising the Development Board for Rural Wales by truncating it because of its financing irregularities, thereby causing it to be taken over in part by the WDA by merging it at chairman level. Will Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe—fine figure though he is—be earning two salaries as chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales and of the Welsh Development Agency?
As the Secretary of State referred to job losses, albeit achieved by voluntary methods possibly, what job losses does he anticipate will occur? Most important of all, is it really his intention in truncating the Development Board for Rural Wales that it should then wither on the vine, or does he intend it to have a stable function? Is it is not true that, in splitting the grant-making power from the business services, property development and factory letting power of the Development Board for Rural Wales—handing one to the local authorities and causing the core Development Board for Rural Wales to keep the others—business people thinking of moving into mid Wales will become extremely confused? Is that really his intention? If he means to penalise the Development Board for Rural Wales for being a bit naughty, is that not the equivalent of finding that Beethoven was drunk on the night he wrote the Emperor

467
concerto and, instead of telling him to stop drinking, telling him that he should never write a note of music again? The Secretary of State should be able to tell the House whether his real intention is that there should be a stable future for the Development Board for Rural Wales.
Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's wider remarks about quangos in Wales, we want to know in what direction he is seeking to move them. Is he democratising them and, if so, what about the education quangos and the housing quangos which have taken over from local authorities? Is he to return those education, housing and urban regeneration powers to the local authorities from which they have been progressively taken over the past 15 years?
Finally, the Secretary of State will be about as popular in mid Wales as a rugby league scout in a valleys rugby club, and, what is more, one who left his cheque book back in Wigan.
Mr. Redwood: I think that those remarks were prepared before the hon. Gentleman saw my statement. The proposals will be welcome in mid Wales. The councillors will be delighted and local people will be delighted that their elected representatives will be involved in some of the decisions and that the important work of the board will continue.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's main question is easy. My prime reason for making the changes was that I wanted to review the body well before any legal doubts arose because I wished to develop the policies in a new direction. I have set out those principles clearly today and those are the principles which I had in my mind at the beginning of the review and which I have now made plain to the House.
I have no plans for primary legislation to deal with what the hon. Gentleman thinks are legal difficulties. Of course I will ensure that, in working out the scheme with local authorities, they have clear powers under legislation so that they can grant the moneys. That is essential. I do not wish them to get into any difficulties over legal doubts. We wish to ensure that all schemes are soundly based, and of course I shall take proper legal advice in establishing the schemes so that they are soundly based.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Rowe-Beddoe will receive two salaries. He will be paid for the time that he works for the WDA and for the DBRW. He will receive a salary for each body which reflects the time that he works. When I have finalised the arrangements with him, I will ensure that I tell the hon. Gentleman the details in so far as it is proper for me to do so.
The hon. Gentleman should know that I expect Mr. Rowe-Beddoe to put in a reasonable number of hours for both bodies and it would be unreasonable not to remunerate him for doing that. He will be remunerated at the usual scale and there is no question of his working more than a normal week. With his great skill, he can do the job for both with an executive team supporting him who will, of course, carry out most of the day-to-day work.
The hon. Gentleman seemed at one point in his speech to be objecting to local authorities having such involvement. I had better disabuse the hon. Gentleman of that notion. They are already deeply involved because, for example, they happen to be the bodies that grant planning permission for many important projects. It does not add
468
another complexity to have the local authorities involved, but I think that they will welcome having more involvement in the process, particularly with small businesses, which they know and should be able to assist in their areas in the proper way.
As to the general question of what directions I wish to set for the bodies in general, my statement today is primarily about the DBRW. I have ranged over several other bodies involved in economic development. I have made clear my principles and the way in which I wish those bodies to go. It is a way that Opposition Members should welcome, and the absence of any really good questions from them shows that they do in practice welcome it and that they are rather surprised by the direction in which the DBRW is going.
Mr. Rod Richards: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today announcing the rationalisation of some of the functions of the DBRW, the WDA, the tourist board and local authorities which, as he has said, will lead to lower administrative costs. I also congratulate him on leaving the well-known windbag, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), with nothing to say. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposed headquarters of the WDA in St. Asaph business park in my constituency in north Wales will go ahead as planned?
Mr. Redwood: I have no announcement to make today on any changes, but I shall talk to the new chairman of the DBRW about his requirements both for the WDA and the DBRW and I will make sure that my hon. Friend's strong interest in the matter is known. Mr. Rowe-Beddoe will obviously see the exchanges.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State dispel the ever-increasing impression that mid Wales is a distant country of which he knows little by telling the House, first, how many of the 126 employees of the DBRW in my constituency he expects to remain employed in the public sector and in the DBRW and, secondly, why he believes that the handing over of the mid Wales development grant and the social grants to local authorities will improve the already high quality of delivery of those grants?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how on earth he can ensure that the Cardiff-based chairman of the WDA can exercise an independent role as chairman of an independent DBRW when inevitably there will be conflicting competitive interests?
Fourthly, will the Secretary of State answer the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the DBRW to wither on the vine, or is telling the House with his usual confidence that the board can be foreseen to have a long-term and important future in the economic generation of rural mid Wales?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. and learned Gentleman's first remarks did not do him credit. I know mid Wales extremely well. I visit it and talk to people there frequently, and a great deal of information comes into my office by virtue of the post that I hold. The employees' future is a matter for the chairman and the board to settle with the employees. I made it clear in my statement that I do not favour compulsory redundancies and do not believe that there should be any need for them.
Mr. Carlile: How many?
Mr. Redwood: I cannot say how many employees will be there in one or two years. I am asking the new chairman and the board to review that aspect in the light of the policy that I announced. I have not gone around Wales telling people about the policy before informing the House. Now is the time to work out the details by asking the people concerned—the chairman and the board—to say how many staff they need to perform certain functions, and how other functions that are best transferred to local authorities can be performed.
I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do down local authorities in his area. When he returns there, he will find that local authorities welcome my announcement. I am sure that they will work closely with the board and the Welsh Office to ensure a smooth transfer of functions and duties for next year, when the system will be fully up and running.
I believe that Mr. Rowe-Beddoe, in chairing the two bodies, will be entirely fair in his dealings with rural and urban Wales. As chairman of the WDA, he already makes decisions about areas of Wales most eligible for projects that he is winning in his role as one of the Principality's principal salesmen abroad, in attracting inward investment. Many hon. Members who represent areas of Wales not covered by the DBRW will be reassured to know that there will be fair judgments between different parts of Wales and parts of rural Wales—some already covered by the WDA and some by the DBRW, where there are sometimes boundary issues between the two.
I have announced my DBRW policy. The question about withering on the vine was foolish, because I made a clear statement on the board's purposes and functions. That is where the matter rests.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the churlish remarks of the Opposition, his statement will receive a warm welcome in many parts of mid Wales—not least in my own constituency? Representations that I made to my right hon. Friend were geared to the idea that social development and other grants ought to be transferred to local authorities. Does not my right hon. Friend think it remarkable that there is so much objection from Opposition Members to local authorities and democratically elected councillors having more say?
As to my right hon. Friend's proposals for the development board's property assets, he will know that when that issue arose recently, I requested that if assets were to be disposed of, it should be done at market value to sitting tenants. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that will remain the board's policy?
Mr. Redwood: Yes, of course I favour sitting tenants having a fair opportunity to buy their properties at a sensible price. I wish to encourage that policy. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He has read the mood of mid Wales correctly, in a way that Opposition Members have not. Like him, I am astounded at Labour's performance. We are always hearing from Labour that we do not give enough to, or believe enough in, local government. When I offer local government something, Labour Members say, "Don't give it to local government—it can't do the job."
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Secretary of State mentioned the unearthing of past irregularities in the WDA. Will he confirm whether any more are to come into the public domain, or do we know about them all—including the land deal to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Am I to understand from an earlier answer that the Secretary of State can do all that he proposes by administrative fiat and that legislation is not required?
Mr. Redwood: My advice is that more than adequate powers exist among different public sector bodies, including local authorities, to do what is required. When we complete the detail, I will make clear how that is being done. As to irregularities, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that he seeks and that I should like to give. I can never be sure that all past irregularities have been found, but I hope that they have. I have asked people to search extremely assiduously so that I can inform the House. If any further irregularities come to light, I will report them as soon as I know of them. I have reported those that I know about.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: May I say how much I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? I am particularly pleased that my constituents will be given an opportunity to purchase their own properties, but I also welcome the transfer of grant-making powers to local authorities. I find it strange that Opposition Members have not been more welcoming, given the number of times that some of them have accused the Government of having centralising tendencies. Here we have an example of their transferring powers to local authorities: surely Opposition Members should welcome that, as I do.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he is quite right, and I am delighted that he agrees with my policy.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about an inquiry into past land deals engaged in by the WDA in Cynon valley. There have been many rumours, and it is time that they were laid to rest. What will be the terms of reference for the inquiry, and can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that its results will be published in full? Nothing less will satisfy my constituents.
Mr. Redwood: I have asked the chairman to satisfy himself about what happened in the land transactions, with the commissioning of an independent investigation. I shall want to know from him what he subsequently discovers, and I shall tell the House either way—that is, I shall tell the House if nothing improper has come to light, or if something improper has come to light. In the latter event, action will be needed.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Secretary of State noticed that no Opposition Member has objected to the increase in the number of democratically elected representatives? On the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman, however, seems to be so devoted to yah-boo politics that he cannot resist giving his "boo" when we have not given our "yah".
It is some comfort to Opposition Members to know that at least the Government have started to cleanse the stables that they themselves have fouled, but would it not have been better if the Secretary of State had appointed as

471
chairman someone who was respected in Wales as a non-political figure rather than a card-carrying member of the Conservative party who earned his living by collecting money for the party in a tax haven abroad? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman put across his sincerity in trying to cleanse the stables further by appointing more democratically elected members and genuinely independent chairpersons?
Mr. Redwood: I am suggesting the appointment of the maximum possible number of democratically elected people within the maximum permitted number of directors on the board. It so happens that that would take the number to five, which I think is a good number because it is the number of historic shires in the area concerned.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has at last welcomed the proposals. However, I have listened carefully to all the comments that have been made, and no Opposition Member had said anything kind about them until he made his point.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, I found them very disappointing. Mr. Rowe-Beddoe has developed a great reputation in Wales for the straightness of his dealing, his enthusiasm for the task and his considerable business skills, which were the reason for his appointment. I know that he is always happy to meet Opposition Members as well as Conservative Members so that he can understand their concerns and ensure that he does a good job for all parts of Wales.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State stressed that the policies were relevant to the whole of rural Wales; he then referred to the transfer of social and economic grant-making powers to local authorities. He also said that that would be the responsibility of the local authorities concerned. Can he clarify the position of parts of rural Wales that are outside the DBRW area but are none the less rural? Will local authorities in those areas have the social and economic grant-making powers to which he refers?
Mr. Redwood: I believe that they have the powers. Money may be the issue, which I shall consider in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments. The intention is to make social grants under existing local authority powers. As I explained, I shall consult on that and report to the House when I have had a clear answer on the best way of making payments. Of course, I wish to ensure that all parts of rural Wales have access to fair treatment both under a grant scheme and any other scheme that we may develop. For example, it may be possible to develop the strategic development scheme, which is already of great benefit to many parts of Wales.
Mr. Peter Hain: The Secretary of State said that he would transfer current spending of, I think, £2.4 million to local authorities. Will he confirm that that excludes overheads and administrative and managerial costs, which therefore will fall as additional costs on local authorities? Will that money be ring-fenced by way of allocation to local authorities, or will they have to carry the cost from their broader finances, as has happened on many previous occasions, of which community care is a classic and disturbing example?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. I want my officials to discuss such points with local
472
authority associations and representatives so that we can reach a fair solution to the transfer and handling of these grants. We have a little time in which to do so, because I propose that the changes should apply from the next financial year.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Secretary of State say something about the future funding of the Welsh Development Agency and the DBRW? At present, a large fraction of their expenditure results from the sale of property, which will continue for only two or three more years. What will happen in 1996–97, when there will be a black hole in future funding?
Mr. Redwood: Some time ago, I set out to Parliament in the general expenditure figures what the position will be, and I do not propose to change those figures today. They will be reviewed in the normal way in the autumn for subsequent years. I do not accept the gloomy analysis that there will be a great black hole after three years. Opposition Members forget that the agencies are not only selling completed properties, thereby gaining moneys from those sales, but are creating new assets. They will not suddenly run out of assets. The idea is that they should not become great land owners and property holders but should be interested in new business and development, reusing the money time and again.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State said earlier that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) had read the mood of the people of mid Wales. I obviously did not read the mood of the Western Mail yesterday. The Secretary of State said that I would probably be negative about his proposals, but I welcome some aspects of his statement. I appreciate the extension of the role of local government, which was debated during discussions of the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
I should like to raise one or two small points for clarification. First, I take it that the smaller grant approach will still apply under the new system, because there is a difference almost in culture between the WDA and DBRW. Smaller ventures in mid Wales are important. Secondly, will the Minister confirm that EC grant funding will be available under the new set-up? I presume that it will be, but such funding is vital. I echo other hon. Members' comments: I expect that the DBRW will retain a strong presence in mid Wales, where its headquarters will remain.
On a small but technically important point, the Secretary of State is aware of my concern about rack rents and the letting of units. I wrote to him about that, and in reply he said that he would consider it. Will he in due course, please, forward instructions to the new body about high rents, which in the past have dissuaded people from taking units?
Mr. Redwood: I certainly want the rents to be sensible so that we can fill the space because we want the businesses. Rents should be at market levels so that we can let the space. I have always made that clear to the development bodies; that is the policy that I am asking them to follow. We must continue grants for smaller ventures. They are important to mid Wales, where the scale of most enterprises is smaller than in the more industrial

473
south. I do not think that it will in any way trouble the EC grants regime. That is not the intention; I want that to carry on.
I have already answered the point about office accommodation and headquarters. I am not announcing any changes today. I will listen to what the new chairman has to say. I do not visualise any major changes at the moment, but I will listen to what he suggests.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State accept that his announcement will be greeted with some disappointment in those areas of rural Wales which are not currently covered by the DBRW? A opportunity that has been missed, especially in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, parts of Clwyd, parts of Gwynedd, and even in those areas that were formerly part of the south Wales industrial heritage which, sadly, are now becoming rural areas. A great opportunity has been missed for giving the social remit—which, as it would appear from the statement, is continuing in one form or another by local authorities—to rural areas to be exercised by the WDA in the rest of rural Wales. Will the Secretary of State reconsider that point while he is reconsidering other details? If that is changed, I suggest that there will be a great welcome in some of the hillsides of Wales that are not currently covered by the social remit.
Mr. Redwood: I am pleased to look at what can be achieved under existing local authority and national government powers in the way I have described. We will now consult with local authorities and, of course, I will reflect carefully on what hon. Members have suggested during today's exchanges.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Secretary of State return to the legal dubiousness of spending the money in the way in which it was spent throughout the 1980s? In 1982, the WDA advised the Welsh Office that it was illegal to spend the money in the way that it was being directed. How does the Secretary of State intend to clarify that position? It is extremely important that mid Wales lost grant status according to DTI criteria and the money was redirected through the WDA into mid Wales.
We have yet to find out—and other hon. Members have asked this question in other ways—how the Welsh Office will justify, through economic criteria, as the DTI justified, giving grants to certain parts of Wales but denying grants to other parts of Wales which may be just as deserving or
474
even more deserving. How will you justify that? How will you clear up the legal minefield in which the Welsh Office has got you?
Mr. Alex Carlile: Madam Speaker?
Mr. Redwood: Madam Speaker—I will do that bit for the hon. Gentleman as well—he is right. There have been doubts cast on the legal base. Some of those doubts apply to the loan scheme set up by the Labour Government in February 1979 and similar ones apply to the 1982 scheme, in which the hon. Gentleman is obviously interested. I have made it clear to the House that I have proposals here which I think can be done without any doubt at all. I think that that is the best way forward because I do not like recommending to the House things about which doubts can be voiced.

BILL PRESENTED
  CHILDREN ACT 1989 (PROHIBITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) AMENDMENT
  Miss Joan Lestor, supported by Mr. Clive Soley, Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Malcolm Wicks, presented a Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 so as to ensure that corporal punishment is not used in childminding and daycare for young children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]
Statutory Instruments, &c.

  SUMMER TIME
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Summer Time Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—,[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 96 (Scottish Estimates),
  That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

  Class XIV

  Vote 1

  Agricultural support, Scotland.

  Class XIV

  Vote 2

  Agricultural services, agricultural grants and fisheries, Scotland.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Question agreed to.

Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Housing in Wales
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move,
  That this House records its concern at the continuing high level of unmet need for social housing in Wales; recognises that adequate provision of rented homes at affordable rents is a fundamental necessity; is opposed to any intention to reduce the proportion of the Tai Cymru budget dedicated to providing rented properties or to reduce the level of Housing Association Grant; calls for the restoration of a financial regime which would make the purchase and renovation of existing properties by both local councils and housing associations economically feasible; and demands the establishment of a Parliament for Wales with legislative and revenue-raising powers that would enable the people of Wales to implement housing policies appropriate to their specific needs and priorities.
  It had been my intention to speak in last Wednesday's debate on housing initiated by the Labour party, but on the morning of the debate I found that it was to be specifically about England, so I could not speak about Wales in that context. When Plaid Cymru was offered a supply day this Thursday, I decided to take the opportunity to have a debate on housing in Wales. It is a vital issue at present, as I shall try to show. I want to show that at least one party in Wales is concerned about this topic.
  I shall show the extent of the continuing problem with regard to housing in Wales, and I shall show that Government policy is, by and large, in disarray. There is a danger of foisting on Wales approaches already pursued in England which would be entirely inappropriate and damaging here. I am not for one moment saying that they are appropriate in England either.
  It is true that Tai Cymru hopes that housing associations will provide more than 4,000 units of social housing in 1994. That sounds substantial, but it means that we would return to the level of provision that we had in 1980 after a long period of under-provision. Nevertheless, it is important to congratulate the housing association movement of Wales on its ability to respond to the challenge of providing social housing and delivering that substantial number. I was associated with that movement for more than 10 years.
  The figure of 4,000 needs to be set in the context of a number of issues that I shall raise. First, there has been an enormous increase in homelessness in Wales over the past decade. It is a serious problem. The number has increased by 84 per cent., with 10,270 households accepted as homeless in 1992—the highest number ever. The Shelter report, which is quoted in the Western Mail today, shows that the position is not getting better; it is getting worse.
  Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Gentleman quoted the number of homeless households in Wales as being in the order of 10,000. The figure that I have for 1992 is 7,345. My source is Welsh housing statistics. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House his source?
  Mr. Dafis: My source is Shelter, which has access to similar sources to the hon. Gentleman. Even if his figure is right, it is a serious problem.
  Over the past decade, there has been an increase of 121 per cent. in the number of homeless families housed in temporary accommodation. There is a particular problem with regard to young people. It is estimated that between 7,500 and 10,000 young people experience homelessness in some form every year. That is an astonishing figure.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem among young people includes a very large number of young people who simply are not in a position to buy accommodation? Whatever the Secretary of State's proposals to make it possible for more people to buy accommodation—welcome though they may be—there will still be a large residue of homeless young people who need houses to rent which are not being built.
  Mr. Dafis: That is a crucial point, and it will be the main thrust of my remarks. However welcome proposals to facilitate owner-occupation may be, that approach cannot satisfy the needs especially of young people.
  Another unsatisfactory aspect is the special circumstances in Wales with regard to the condition of housing. In Wales, 36.8 per cent. of the housing stock was built before 1919, compared with 26.6 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is a significantly higher level. In certain industrial areas—for example, the Cynon Valley, about which I made some inquiries over the past week—more than 50 per cent. of the housing stock predates 1919. Much of that housing stock is inhabited by pensioners. As a result of the industrial legacy of that part of Wales, a high proportion of them suffer from varying degrees of disability. That means that we have disabled, elderly people living in antiquated houses which are seriously in need of repair.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: We know that the population of the Cynon Valley area has fallen recently and there has been additional housing provision. With that background, how would the hon. Gentleman explain the increase in homelessness to which he referred?
  Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I did not refer to the Cynon Valley specifically in relation to homelessness. I was talking about the condition of the housing stock. A high proportion of the residents of that housing stock are elderly people who suffer a disability. They live in old property that badly needs renovation. Of those old properties, 9 per cent. apparently still lack or have to share a bath, shower or WC. They are still inadequately insulated. I am told that it is pretty well impossible for anyone who is not on benefit to obtain an insulation grant. The grant is entirely for people on housing benefit and some of those elderly people have a small pit pension which makes them ineligible for benefit.
  To people living in old property badly in need of renovation, the effect of the imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel is particularly damaging. It is not too much to say that that represents a serious threat to the health and certainly to the welfare of many elderly people in such housing conditions. It is worth pointing out that there is a downside to owner-occupation among low-income families. The vast majority of the houses in

  477
  question are owner-occupied: 42 per cent. of all owner-occupied houses in Wales are in significant need of repair.
  The Government will say that they are tackling the problem through the renovation grant system. Let us examine that system, which is in serious disarray. A tremendous amount of good work has been done and large sums of money have been poured into the renovation of existing sub-standard property. It is worth saying at this juncture that sometimes demolition and rebuild might be a more cost-effective option and we need to explore that.
  Substantial sums of money have been spent on renovation of existing old property, but the whole thing has been badly handled. Hon. Members will remember the open cheque book system that applied for the first year or two of the system. While the open cheque book applied, there was no problem. The money was available and the work could go ahead apace. However, there was an enormous expansion in demand without the funds to meet it. The open cheque book system came to an end. Councils found that they must either break the body of law on mandatory grants or break the body of law on control of local government expenditure. I can quote an example from the ombudsman's report. Councils were legally obliged to make mandatory grants for renovation, but simply did not have the funds to do so. That has led to a great deal of frustration and delay, of which we are all aware from our constituency mail.
  In the south Wales valleys, the waiting period for a renovation grant is eight years in Cynon, 10 years in Merthyr and nine years in Rhondda. The Welsh Office has responded by attempting to make the funds more quickly available by reducing the maximum grant level to 24 per cent. However, that will mean that many of the least well-off in the poorest properties which need the greatest sums for renovation will be unable to undertake the improvements. That is not satisfactory targeting, of which the Government are very much in favour.
  Renovation is a good idea for environmental reasons because we wish to avoid developing green-field sites. It is a good idea for social reasons because there is often social cohesion in areas of existing property and because it avoids the costs of providing new infrastructure. So renovation of existing property is a good idea, although on the surface it is the more expensive option.
  It is regrettable—everyone in the housing association movement in Wales agrees with this—that nowadays housing associations are simply unable to purchase and renovate. The Secretary of State for the Environment recently said that he wished to see housing associations return to purchasing existing property and, in that way, restoring the quality of life in well-established areas.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the key issue is a fiscal one? VAT is chargeable on renovation and makes the cost that much higher. Presumably the judgment ultimately involves sweeping away VAT.
  Mr. Dafis: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman might have read my next sentence. The decision to impose VAT on renovation and to differentiate between it and new build is a Government decision. It needs to be reconsidered. It is not in the gift of Tai Cymru or even of the Welsh Office. It is in the gift of the Government.
  VAT is not the only factor. Tai Cymru's acceptable cost
  478
  guidelines do not recognise that other extra costs besides VAT are associated with the option of renovation. There are extra maintenance costs. In my experience, major repairs which involve considerable cost frequently have to be done to renovate a property.
  We need to look afresh at creating a financial regime which will enable housing associations to undertake renovation work and, because renovation may not always be the best option, to consider how to purchase and demolish and new build on existing sites. I know of several instances of housing that has been expensively refurbished and could have been more cost-effectively replaced by new building on the existing site. We need to consider ways in which that could be made feasible where a property has reached the end of its useful life. All properties reach that stage at some time. Housing associations and councils are better equipped to undertake such tasks than many owner-occupiers. They are certainly far better equipped to do so than private developers and landlords.
  The question of rents is a vexed one. Since the introduction in 1989 of the new mixed funding regime, housing association grant—HAG, as it is called—as a percentage of the total cost of providing new units has been pushed down. It currently stands at 62 per cent. The result is that rents have been pushed inexorably upwards. The Government argue that housing subsidies should be targeted through housing benefit rather than to bricks and mortar. That is the Government's rationale. It sounds plausible enough on the surface, but it, too, has a serious downside, which is increasingly recognised throughout the housing movement and the world of housing expertise.
  Housing associations are already worried that only those who are in receipt of housing benefit can afford to take their property. That is becoming the case. It means in turn that people just above the benefit level, but still low paid, hard-up and unable to enter the open market for purchasing a house find it difficult to obtain housing. It also means that the poverty trap leads to a disincentive to unemployed benefit recipients in such properties to take employment. The poverty trap is a well-known phenomenon and it applies particularly where rents are high. It means in turn that housing association estates tend to have a high percentage of benefit-dependent unemployed people. That brings social problems.
  It also has to be said that housing associations often do not have the resources or experience to provide the special management skills such as counselling or, in some cases, enforcement. They do not have the capacity or resources to tackle such problems. That is what tends to happen where the cost per unit dominates policy. There is a strong feeling in the housing association movement that cost per unit has constantly driven development.
  The rent situation is already harsh with HAG at its present level—42 per cent. of housing association tenants pay 25 per cent. or more of their income in rent. That is approaching serious unaffordability. It is a harsh regime for those who have to pay rent and it is socially problematic for the reasons that I mentioned.
  If the Government proceed with their proposal to reduce HAG from its present 62 per cent. to 55 per cent. by 1997, rent levels will become intolerable. The situation could even become inflammable. People will be annoyed and worried to the point of desperation, if rent levels rise in that way. City analysts UBS have calculated that rents would rise by 34 per cent. in those circumstances, and that 83 per cent. of tenants would be paying unaffordable rents, which

  479
  depends on how one defines unaffordable. The Government refused to present an affordability index at the time of the Housing Act 1988, even though the housing association movement pressed them to do so.
  On the whole, the housing association movement believes that affordable rents are between 20 and 25 per cent.—certainly less than 25 per cent. The Government seem to be thinking of an affordability index of about 35 per cent. It is a very serious matter.
  If HAG is reduced to 55 per cent, there will not merely be a problem with rents. Most housing associations in Wales would find it impossible to raise the remaining 45 per cent. from banks and building societies and we must attend to that problem.
  The mixed funding system could unravel and disintegrate, which brings me to the subject of low-cost home ownership. Tai Cymru has drawn up a new proposal for assisted ownership, whereby aspiring owner-occupiers who cannot buy on the open market have to raise only 70 per cent. of the cost of a house and HAG provides the remaining 30 per cent. That is an interesting proposal and I have no objection, in principle, to providing some public subsidy, which is what it is, to enable some categories of people to become owner-occupiers. I have no philosophical problems with that, as it is a useful approach, especially when local people on relatively low pay have to compete in the same housing market as wealthier incomers. We were familiar with that phenomenon in my constituency in south-west Wales and throughout western Wales in the late 1980s, when local people were priced out of the market because of demographic phenomena—migration and so forth. That sort of subsidy for acquiring one's own property is useful in that context.
  The latest Tai Cymru proposals are ingenious. It is not the first time that it has come up with such ingenious ideas and I am prepared to praise it for that. The system is preferable to shared ownership, which has had some limited success but also some grave failures. It is good to see Wales ploughing its own furrow in devising policies in these times.
  I am very dubious, however, about the rationale for assisted ownership presented in Tai Cymru's discussion paper—the creation of social stability. The idea is that social stability can somehow be enhanced by integrating at least 25 per cent. of owner-occupiers into any estate with more than 20 homes. The rules state that, initially, assisted ownership will be provided for in those circumstances. Any estate of more than 20 houses will have to have 25 per cent. of people on an assisted ownership scheme.
  Significantly, that shows that Tai Cymru recognises the social problems created by the high-rent policy forced on it by the Government. There is a clear recognition of those significant social problems in Tai Cymru's policy document. We must tackle that aspect—the high-rent, low-HAG policy—as well as the problem of low pay and unemployment, rather than attempting to solve the latter problem by an assisted ownership input in a social housing estate. That attempt at social engineering is unlikely to succeed, as we shall see in a few years' time. We will be able to check to find out whether it has worked in that way.
  A further reduction in HAG would be very damaging—indeed, it would be disastrous. It would be equally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to insist on an
  480
  ever-greater proportion of Tai Cymru's budget being set aside for low-cost home ownership. In Wales, we want no emulation of the situation in England, where the Housing Corporation is being forced—kicking and screaming, I understand—to increase the percentage of its budget for low-cost home ownership from 33 to 45 per cent. between 1995 and 1997. That is the way that England is going, but we must not go that way in Wales.
  All the evidence confirms that what one housing director told me in a letter this week is true throughout Wales. I shall quote his opinion, as I am sure that it is typical. He said:
  "There remains a significant problem of unmet social housing need which demands the provision of low-cost rented housing rather than housing for sale which may well be outside the scope of local applicants due to the uncertain local economy and low wage base".
  I am afraid that an uncertain local economy and a low wage base are not untypical of the Welsh situation. There is a consensus among people involved with housing policy in Wales—in the housing association movement, local authorities and charities, such as Shelter.
  The Welsh Office knows of the 1990 survey conducted for the Council of Welsh Districts and the House Builders Federation, which found that less than half of new households formed in Wales could afford to buy the cheaper, older, second-hand homes available in their area. The position has probably improved since then because the market is less vibrant, but it is not significantly different. A large proportion of new households will not be in a position to enter into owner-occupation, even with the assisted ownership scheme.
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman quoted a director of housing. May I quote another—the director of housing for Ynys Môn—who said:
  "I consider that the existing housing stock on the island, together with the current initiatives being undertaken in partnership with private landlords and developers, will provide the decent homes which every Ynys Môn resident has a right to expect."
  Mr. Dafis: I would be very surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) did not confirm that young people wishing to set up home for the first time will find it difficult to get housing in Ynys Môn. If he will not confirm that, it must be the exception, as that is the general picture throughout rural Wales.
  If one matched the housing stock—the aggregate number of houses—with local demand, one might be able to say that there was sufficient balance, but that is not the end of the story as there are population movements. Other people move in, and young people find themselves marginalised and unable to acquire property to live in.
  We know that the Government's not-so-hidden agenda—it is hardly hidden at all, in fact—is the advancement of the private sector, even in the provision of social housing. There is talk, which the Under-Secretary of State did not deny in a recent reply to me, of paying HAG-type grants to private developers and landlords, which is an entirely different approach. The private sector has expressed scepticism about the idea, knowing that it will be in competition with the housing association movement for the same financial resources. Surely it is far better for that sort of provision to be made through the public sector, housing associations and local authorities.
  The Minister of State for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction at the Department of the Environment,

  481
  extolled the virtues of HAMA, whereby housing associations become managing agents for private landlords. There is nothing particularly wrong with that in itself, but we must recognise how volatile, insecure and unstable such provision would be.
  Private houses are lying unoccupied at the moment because the owners have been unable to sell them in today's depressed market. As soon as the market becomes more positive, the properties will be put up for sale, so trying to tackle the needs of social housing through that sort of procedure would be profoundly unsatisfactory.
  Some Conservatives see housing associations as playing only a transitional role in the move towards an entirely privately owned housing stock. I am sure that many Conservative Members have that view. In Wales, the number of homes for rent in the private sector has fallen by 10,000 since 1981, so anyone who imagines that we will find salvation in that direction—either in terms of the number of homes or the quality of management—is deluding himself.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the decline in private rented sector has been brought to a halt since the Housing Act 1988 and will be ultimately reversed?
  Mr. Dafis: There is no evidence of that in Wales, and the statistics certainly do not confirm it. The hon. Gentleman might be looking at the figures between 1988 and 1992, but during the past 10 years there has been a decline.
  It would be wrong to look in that direction for the provision of social housing, certainly in terms of the quality of management. The Department of the Environment recognises that in its suggestion that housing associations should be providing management services to the private sector. That is a recognition that private landlords cannot, and do not wish to, provide the quality of management that is currently provided by housing associations and local authorities.
  Mr. Sweeney: Is not the reason for the reluctance of the private sector to increase the stock of private rented accommodation the fact that there is a fear that, at some stage in the future, the Opposition might reintroduce rent controls and other measures which would mean that investment in the private rented sector would prove to be misplaced? Is not all-party co-operation and an assurance to the private sector that it is to be welcomed and encouraged, rather than constantly denigrated, the solution to the problem?
  Mr. Dafis: I was not denigrating the private sector, and I was not saying that the private sector might not make a contribution. I am saying that it would be foolish to look in that direction for a major contribution to solving the problem of social housing in Wales, and the statistics clearly indicate that.
  There are people in the Conservative party who are prepared to delude themselves concerning the role of the private sector. In one of the debates on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs called for a wide-ranging new housing Bill in which the brave new world of the private sector would be advanced even further. It was a very interesting dialogue between the Minister and the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham),
  482
  in which local authorities were denigrated as landlords and the scenario of the large-scale provision of social housing by the private sector was proposed.
  What was on the cards there was local authorities having no housing for rent at all. Clearly, there are different emphases within the Conservative party and one of the purposes of the debate tonight is to find out where the Secretary of State for Wales stands in the Conservative party in the matter. Will he represent clearly identifiable Welsh views and interests, or is it his priority to promote a right-wing agenda within his own party? Recent reports indicate the latter. It is said that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce the right to buy for housing association properties which have been provided with mixed funding. That would have far-reaching and problematical implications.
  Hitherto, the existence of a degree of administrative devolution has afforded some protection for Wales against the worst excesses of right-wing ideology in housing and other policies. However, it is insufficient protection, and we must ask ourselves: what will protect us from a new housing Bill? What will enable us to devise an approach to housing that is truly appropriate for Wales and in keeping with our values and priorities? We say that only a Welsh parliament with legislative and revenue-raising powers can enable us to do that. We hope that all the Opposition parties will support us tonight in this matter.
  5.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question to add instead thereof
  'congratulates the Government on its comprehensive housing policies to meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Wales; welcomes in particular the high and increasing level of home ownership in Wales; supports measures to promote wider home ownership; notes the high level of investment by Tai Cymru since 1989 which has exceeded £1 billion and produced nearly 22,000 homes; welcomes the attraction of substantial private funding to the housing association programme enabling greater diversity and choice; and rejects the call for the establishment of a Parliament for Wales which would create an unnecessary tier of Government and would waste resources.'
  We had a ramble through the by-ways of housing policy from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), ending with a short eulogy to the idea of an all-taxing, all-regulating and all-legislating Welsh assembly. It is interesting that the Opposition still have not clarified all the details about the kind of assembly that they would like, but at least the hon. Gentleman's party is clear and straightforward: tax more, legislate more, put in more red tape and tie people up in more bureaucratic knots—that is the kind of assembly they would like for Wales.
  I look forward to seeing the verdict of the electorate on that in due course in a general election, and I know that the electorate will say a big no to an all-taxing, all-legislating assembly of that kind.
  The long march of Everyman to freedom began with rights to justice symbolised by Magna Carta. It gathered momentum in the 19th and 20th century enfranchisement of all adults in the political life of the country. As the 20th century draws to a close, it is strengthened by a majority coming to own property and by many coming to benefit from college education. Everyman has gained his rights, his votes, his dignity and his enlightenment. Owning a home of your own is an almost universal aspiration and the experience of most.

  483
  In the 1920s and 1930s, the suburban semi spread all over Britain, and the suburbs of Cardiff and Swansea grew. Sneered at by the liberal intelligentsia, it was real social housing. Behind those front doors, people enjoyed more comfort than had been available to their parents. By those hearths, loves and lives were cultivated in a fruitful family way. The superior mind of socialist Bloomsbury found that hard to take—as some Opposition Members seem to—along with their whisky and soda. That housing was what people wanted then, and that is what many people in Wales want again today.
  Design should not be solely a matter for the expert. We all have a view, and the profusion of styles is a consequence. Architecture moulds and reflects the spirit, and architectural style in Britain, I am pleased to say, is now much more varied than it was in the 1960s. There are many good examples in Wales.
  The drab conformity of buildings in the countries of the old Warsaw pact reflected their totalitarian and uniform world view. Concrete architecture was also part of the levelling spirit of post-war Britain—mean-minded and unhelpful. British architecture today is part of the energy and variety of contemporary life and a vital part of our housing policy.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware that in many of the more historic towns of Wales—I am thinking of Caernarfon in particular, but there are others around Wales—it may be more costly to provide housing and other buildings to the acceptable architectural standard that the right hon. Gentleman describes. Will he confirm that the Welsh Office will always be prepared to look sympathetically at the differential in cost between the market value attainable by a development in such towns and the higher cost necessary to meet those historic architectural requirements?
  Mr. Redwood: In sensitive areas and conservation areas, it is particularly important that architecture should be sensitive to what is in the surroundings. I visited Caernarfon recently—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—to see the good work that is going on there on the projects that we and the local authority are backing to restore some of the beauty and excellence of the buildings in the heart of the town.
  On the more general point, design matters. If it requires money—and it is legal to grant permission—I should like to see that work done. Sometimes it does not require more money—just a different and better design.
  People should also be careful to look at the total cost—not just the one-off capital cost of a building, but the maintenance costs and the cost of using a building over many years. How depressing it is to visit schools where extensions were put up in the 1960s, for example, with flat roofs. They were cheap at the time, but my goodness, they have cost us dear ever since in trying to remedy the problems that they created. I want no part of that today in our housing policies; I want good design and practical, sturdy buildings, which also add something to the architectural life of our towns and villages.
  People are now walking tall in modern Wales and modern Britain. People know that owning their home gives them more options. When we buy a house, we appreciate that the money we spend can make us richer. If people rent
  484
  a house all their life, the money they spend can make the landlord richer. At a time like the present, when interest rates are low, when land is cheap, when inflation is low and growth is back in the economy, it is ideal to make a further leap forward in that great policy.
  The idea that social housing should be housing for rent is one of the oddest in British social policy. Subsidised housing for rent not only reduces the scope for people to move house and to develop their lives as they see fit: low-cost home ownership is better value for the tenant and the taxpayer and it does not have the drawbacks of some rented accommodation.
  Those who are truly concerned, as I am, to provide real social housing should think twice about those pensioners who pay high bills when they have their lowest income and are most frail. Many of those who have bought a house have much better prospects in their old age. They may be able to live on in their house for the rest of their life rent free. Alternatively, they may sell the house and use the money to provide more suitable sheltered accommodation in old age, in a setting of their choice, with the care of their choice.
  If a couple had set out, just before the war, and purchased a house in Wales, after 20 or 25 years of paying a mortgage they would own their house. They would have no more mortgage to pay, let alone rent, and they would have an extremely valuable asset. If that same couple had set out and rented property—I am advised that rents were about 30p a week—and if they were still fortunate to be alive and renting a subsidised property, they would be paying 100 times that rental each week and they would have nothing to show for all the money that they had spent over all those years. For that reason and many others, the best social housing of all is low-cost home ownership.
  The success of our housing policy in the 1980s was to attract many more people into ownership. The biggest advances by far came through rising incomes and more employment opportunities, which enabled many people to buy new homes of their own for the first time in the many attractive estates and villages that grew up around Wales. A very successful council house sales programme converted many tenants into owners. In the 1990s, we need to make sure that housing associations, too, make their contribution.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on what has been perceived as a particularly difficult British economic problem? He has rightly pointed out that, in the past, investing in one's home was considered the best use of a person's money. In other European countries, however, investing in some company that makes something is considered a better use of one's money. The problem is that, over the years, it has been a better option in Britain to invest in bricks and mortar than in industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that tendency might be a part of our problems today?
  Mr. Redwood: People can do both, should do both and, now, largely do do both. Their investment in industry is mainly channelled through their pension savings, usually made on their behalf by their employers' schemes. There is room for both types of investment. Given the current levels of investment in industry, the stock market and in housing, I do not believe that we need to engineer an artificial shift

  485
  of the type that the hon. Gentleman has described. There is room for both types of investment, and investment in housing has a lot to recommend it.
  Too few housing association tenants have the opportunity to buy their homes. My policy for the housing associations in Wales is to encourage a higher proportion of low-cost home ownership schemes and to encourage right to buy for new tenancies.
  Local authorities can also play an essential role in facilitating home ownership and, at the same time, freeing up their stock for those waiting for council homes. Today, I am announcing a package of £4 million for local authorities from the homelessness reserve. Of that sum, £1 million will support enterprising schemes, including proposals from Newport borough council working with Lovell Partnerships to provide 36 homes and from Alyn and Deeside and Ogwr for 23 do-it-yourself shared ownerships. Some £2.4 million of the £4 million package is available to local authorities for transferable discount schemes, which will enable them to give significant grants to people who move out of council houses to purchase their homes. This means a new tenant for the local authority home and a new home owner at the same time. For those who wish to do so, I am allocating £600,000 to providing accommodation to elderly people moving out of larger council housing into accommodation more suited to their current needs.
  Local authorities are in a position to cheapen the initial capital cost of the home by making land available on favourable terms or free. In Wales, I want to see more of those on lower incomes having more immediate access to a home of their own. I also intend to expand shared ownership schemes and other schemes where a subsidised capital value can offer someone a cheap way into a home of their own. The taxpayer is well protected by having a claim on the property should the person decide to sell and realise the gain in the short term.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: As part of the policy to encourage home ownership, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the decision in the case of Murphy v Brentwood district council, which went to the House of Lords on appeal in 1991? As a result of that decision, there is no legal obligation on a local authority should a person who owns his own home find that it is defective. That person cannot sue the local authority for any fault in the inspection of the property during its construction. That represents a major retrograde step for home owners and has caused great concern to people who are purchasing a property.
  Mr. Redwood: There are other ways of protecting the interests of those whom the hon. Gentleman is seeking to protect. I assume that they would take proper advice when they were thinking of purchasing their home. There are ways around the problem that the hon. Gentleman is trying to place in the way of that important policy.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Let me spell out the implications of the decision. If a person buys a property from another person and the second owner finds that the builder has gone bankrupt, the insurance company will not cover that property if internal defects appear because of the absence of footings. As a consequence of the case, there is no recourse to sue the local authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that decision and bring in legislation to overrule it? That decision has reversed all previous law. Now, it does not matter what the building regulator says to
  486
  the local authority, because the building inspector can do absolutely nothing. People will have no come-back on the local authority if a defect is found.
  We want to avoid what happened with BISF housing and Cornish Units, which had so many problems that the Government were forced to introduce legislation on defective housing to remedy them.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has partly offered his own answer, because, when problems emerged, the Government took action to remedy them. I will, of course, read the case to which he referred, but the particular chain of events that he described is a rather extraordinary one and not likely to become common, as he fears.
  Now is an extremely good time to make a major advance in low-cost ownership. Land prices fell during the recession and building costs have been controlled by fiercely competitive markets. I have asked the agencies in Wales to bring forward more land for sale. I cannot accept a position where they are hoarding more than 4,000 acres of land, some of it usable for housing.
  As a response to the invitation, the Land Authority for Wales will be making available 500 acres per year for all purposes over the next three years. Cardiff Bay development corporation has 150 acres under offer or available; the Welsh Development Agency is bringing forward 330 acres over the next three years and the Development Board for Rural Wales is currently reviewing its land stocks with a view to releasing at least 27 acres. Over the next three years, a total of some 2,000 acres of land will be offered for sale from the public sector. I trust that some of that land will be used for housing.
  I also wish to ensure that the training and enterprise councils provide the tradesmen whom the builders will need over the next few years as house building increases again from the low levels of the early 1990s.
  I am asking all councils to ensure that sufficient land is granted planning permission for development. I do not want massive increases in development in the most beautiful and prosperous areas of Wales.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said on increasing home ownership and look forward to more people in Wales owning their own homes. However, does he recognise that one group not being catered for is that of young people who are not yet in a position to buy their own homes and who would not obtain the finance? Can we look forward to an announcement of increased facilities to enable them to find properties to rent?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall cover that point later in my remarks.
  I wish to see realistic attitudes towards redevelopment in areas that most need jobs, especially building jobs, and where land can be recycled and reclaimed. I have asked the WDA to make a major increase in its land reclamation programme and I have given it extra cash to do that. The WDA's single most important task at home over the next few years is to reclaim sufficient land so that the building industry is well supplied, while the best areas of Wales, in environmental terms, are protected from developers' bulldozers.
  I shall use my influence over the new development plans of the unitary local authorities to ensure that, in total, Wales has enough development land available for her needs in the foreseeable future. I do not expect a balance

  487
  in each individual area, as I wish to ensure that the most beautiful and prosperous parts of Wales are protected, while giving maximum encouragement to those areas in need of regeneration and of many more jobs.
  Housing policy must recognise the pressures of social change but also the fact that it will influence social change itself. If we make subsidised housing too readily available to young people, it will induce them to leave home earlier than they would otherwise. Much housing policy in recent years has rightly been designed to take care of young people who are no longer prepared to live at home and other vulnerable groups.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the Secretary of State's point about developing land while protecting the most beautiful and prosperous land, will he concede that, in some cases, land in a prosperous area with low unemployment is next door to a highly populated area with high unemployment, where there is no land to develop? In those circumstances, should not he try to encourage development on that land?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not think that there are as many such problems in south Wales as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Occasionally, I shall have to take tough decisions under the planning rules and laws. But I have made it clear in previous debates that, wherever possible, I hope that local people and their local representatives can guide that work. Today's statement offers a way to square the circle between those areas that are less keen on new jobs and development, and those that are keen. The balance in Wales is not too bad, so we come to a sensible answer overall.
  On social change and young people, some of that source of increased demand for housing needs to be met, while some of it needs careful handling through a range of other policies. I do not believe that a 16 to 18-year-old should have a right to a subsidised house just because he or she no longer wants to live at home. Only in extreme circumstances should the state intervene to break up a family—for example where violence or grave damage is being done. Most 16 and 17-year-olds are keen to leave home; it is a part of the natural process of growing up. But it does not mean that we should subsidise them to do so.
  The bulk of housing support is now routed through housing benefit directly tied to the incomes and outgoings of the individuals concerned. Blanket or general subsidies to bricks and mortar can be a wasteful way to proceed and there is always a danger that the benefits leak to those who do not need such help. There is no need to subsidise a three or four-earner family in a council house bringing in several hundred pounds a week from reasonable jobs; there is every need to provide housing benefits to the low-wage or no-wage family next door to meet the rent bill, which is why we have been shifting the balance of our support.
  Our care in the community policy has also added to the demand for suitable housing for the elderly, handicapped and mentally disabled. We need to ensure that sufficient sheltered and very sheltered accommodation is constructed and provided. We should not carry the policy so far that those who need the full support of residential care homes are discouraged from receiving it and are put into the community, where they may be less happy or secure. We need a balance, and I hope that all those involved in
  488
  making those difficult judgments will understand the need to reach a sensible conclusion in each case, where either is an option.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I apologise for intervening again, but I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has just said. In my constituency, two hospitals house some seriously physically and mentally handicapped people. Will he add to his remarks the belief that some of those people will need not just care but continuing nursing care of the quality they have now?
  Mr. Redwood: They need care that is appropriate for their circumstances. I do not want to get involved in specific cases, for obvious reasons. A judgment must always be made on whether people need medical care, which is under one set of arrangements, or more general care, which is under another. I want them to receive the care that they need. May I make it clear to all those involved in those judgments that, for my part, there is no wish to ensure that they are all placed in the community? Obviously, I am keen on the policy where it makes sense for them to be put into the community and where they and their relatives, as well as the professionals who make those judgments, think that that is the best solution.
  In the "Agenda for Action" in November 1991, we set a target of adding 10,000 subsidised homes over three years. I am delighted that Housing for Wales has provided more than 9,000 homes since then and is on target to provide a further 4,000 in the current financial year. As well as rented accommodation—it is primarily rented accommodation—those will include low-cost housing for sale. To that end, I have asked Housing for Wales to deliver at least 420 homes for low-cost ownership during 1994–95, and I intend to take further action to increase those figures in the future.
  Some elderly people find their larger family home too big for their needs. They might like a smaller property, but, if they rent rather than own, it can be difficult to find one. I am supporting the construction of more bungalows for the elderly, which will give them some choice and, where they choose to move, it will free a family home.
  Good progress is being made on Wales's first urban village at Victoria, Ebbw Vale. Offices and workshops are being developed alongside homes. All that is in a setting that makes use of garden festival features including lakes, wetlands and woodland. It is a vivid illustration of what can be done to regenerate land ravaged by dereliction. Plans are also progressing well for the urban village in Penarth Haven in Cardiff bay.
  I like the idea of urban villages that add something to the rich Welsh architectural tradition. Housing with a heart and communities that are more than the sum total of the houses built are the signs that an urban village has supplanted just another housing estate. Builders and developers take more care with layouts, design and landscaping when they have to persuade individuals to buy, rather than when they are working for the public client. One of the best experiences of my ministerial life before coming to Wales was to award the money to Manchester to demolish part of the Hulme estate—a concrete monstrosity which had aged badly during its short life. It was a standing reproach even to modern brutalism in architecture, and a mocking commentary on the beauty of Bath, which was said to "inspire" it.

  489
  Wales was mercifully spared the worst of such construction, but the warning remains: it is better to involve many rather than fewer in designing and buying houses, as it is more likely that they will reflect the spirit of those who will use them.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: This sounds like the Prince of Wales.
  Mr. Redwood: I give full credit to the Prince of Wales, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), from a sedentary position, has invited me to do, for his many good and brave words on architecture, which I think have made a strong impact on our architectural debate.
  The slab style of architecture reflected only too well a view of society, which said, "We shall give you"—in their words—"a 'subsidised dwelling unit', if you accept our control of your area. Don't ask for tenants' rights, tenants' information or better services—you should be grateful to us for defining the limits of your horizons. When you give your address, you may not get the job or credit as easily as you would if you came from somewhere else, so your dependence is so much more reliable."
  I want an end to such areas. It requires different housing; different patterns of ownership; higher expectations. Labour may say that it wants pathways out of poverty, yet it often blocks the roads that offer the most promise to most people.
  The other day, I was interested to read that Cynon Valley has decided that its housing problem has improved dramatically in the past three years. In 1991–92, Housing for Wales was spending about £3.3 million in the borough, and the construction of about 115 houses was started. Cynon Valley borough council has now revised its figures downwards, and decided that it needs to build only a maximum of 45 new houses this year. I understand that it has found that there is much more scope for the better use of its existing stock, and that demand is not getting out of control.
  That is an interesting idea from Cynon Valley. I look forward to that informing the speeches of some Opposition Members, instead of their usual diatribe that the demand is spiralling out of control, and that the only answer to the problem is to build ever more houses of a specific type.
  We should make clear the distinction between rooflessness and homelessness. Fortunately, rooflessness afflicts very few people in Wales. In Cardiff alone, where it would be more serious, the Government are paying £800,000 to provide accommodation and support for young, single, vulnerable people. I want no one to be roofless in Wales. I intend to ensure that accommodation is available for those people who need and want it.
  Homelessness is a condition which local authorities have a legal obligation to tackle. Many people who present themselves as homeless are by no means roofless, but they live in accommodation that is not ideal and they would like a change. One of the main aims of our continuing large programme of house building of all types is to meet their aspirations.
  The proposals on which the Government consulted earlier this year are designed to bring about fairer arrangements for those people seeking a better home, and those people who are waiting patiently for social housing.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North made several comments about the condition of the housing stock and about ways in which housing policy could
  490
  develop. Yes, I, like him, wish more houses to be improved, and I believe that our policy of making available a substantial number of grants to people on low incomes who live in homes of their own that need repairing, is tackling the job manfully. Between January and March this year, 4,194 grant schemes were completed, totalling about £43.7 million. That is another 4,000-plus homes that are in a much better condition. We intend to press on, with substantial sums of money, so that the job can be well done.
  I think that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was mistaking the issue when he commented that we were cutting the HAG grant rate too much, and expecting too much from the private sector contribution. I should have thought that he might welcome that. I hope that the Labour party will welcome it, now that its members are converts to the idea of private capital working alongside public money so that we can have more building work and better conditions for everyone.
  It is important that we attract an increasing amount of private money into that type of activity, so that we can build more houses for the amount of public money that we have on offer, because we think that tax bills matter as well as the achievement on the ground, and that is the way of managing both.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North expressed a fear about rents, but he did not take into account building and financing costs, which are vital to the equation before one can predict anything from the HAG rates as to how rents might be affected. I was glad that he praised some methods of shared ownership and assisted ownership, but then he seemed to turn against ownership altogether, which I thought was most disappointing, given the aspirations of many of his constituents.
  Wales approaches the end of the 20th century in good heart. Her people are better educated, better housed and more prosperous than at any time in her history. Wales is no longer a nation of tenants in tied cottages. Wales is now a nation of home owners—of those who have seized the opportunity of the Conservative moment, and have a stake in Wales's present and future prosperity. Home ownership—one of the foundation stones of a stable democracy—is now firmly rooted in Welsh soil.
  Conservative policies will continue to ensure that advance. If only Opposition Members would join in, they would discover that it is popular as well as right.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: That was a fascinating contribution from the Secretary of State. He and I hold degrees in history from the same university, but I suspect that our interpretation of the historic facts of the past few hundred years might differ, at least as regards Wales.
  I confess that it is the first time that I have heard the Magna Carta quoted in the Chamber during a debate on housing in Wales. The 13th century barons who devised that great charter in those far off days probably had no idea how most of their tenants lived. I guess that they lived in hovels. I wonder whether, if it were left to the Secretary of State, he might think that the same will happen in Wales, because what he said today bears no relationship whatsoever, either to the recent history of housing in Wales, or to the condition of the houses of the Welsh people.

  491
  The Secretary of State speaks at great length about the significance and importance of owner-occupation, and he is right. He said that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) did not support owner-occupation, which is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said that owner-occupation is not the only answer, which is what the Labour party says.
  Some people believe that the Labour party supports only rented housing, and that the Conservative party supports only owner-occupation. That is only half right, in the sense that the Labour party certainly believes in a proper choice for people in Wales, as in the rest of the country. Our opinion is that there should be a variety of tenure throughout Wales—that people should have the right to own their houses, but they should also have the right to rent their houses from local authorities, private landlords or housing associations.
  The Secretary of State touched on that side of the equation only very lightly, because he told the House and, I suspect, the nation—I mean the British nation rather than the Welsh—that his views on housing are effectively laissez-faire, fairly right-wing, ideological Conservative views about owner-occupation. He failed to mention—perhaps he does not realise, but I am sure that he does—that the percentage of people in Wales who own their houses is extremely large. In our south Wales valleys, a massive proportion of people own their houses. It is no new phenomenon to them.
  It seems to me that the Secretary of State failed to understand that, although there were problems in the past with regard to the building of council house estates, because enormous estates were built which were too big and caused all types of social problems, the housing problems in Wales would have been phenomenal if those local authorities had not built those houses in past decades.
  Mr. Sweeney: Although it is true that, historically, the percentage of owner-occupancy in Wales has tended to be high, is not it fair to say that it has increased from 59 to 72 per cent. since the Conservatives took over power from Labour?
  Mr. Murphy: Inevitably the right-to-buy legislation has meant that thousands of council and development corporation houses have been bought by tenants. Of course the percentage of owner-occupation has increased. There is nothing new about that development or that phenomenon. In those intervening years, however, the number of people who are waiting for homes on council house waiting lists has also increased. There are now 75,000 people in Wales whose names are on local authority waiting lists, and there are nearly 19,000 names on the waiting lists of housing associations. So although, yes, owner-occupation has increased, at the same time the number of people who desperately need accommodation has also increased.
  Why on earth cannot the Government understand the need for all types of accommodation, as all European Governments do? Perhaps that is the reason why the Secretary of State does not like it very much. He knows that, in Europe, there is a genuine and good mix of rented accommodation, private and public, and owner-occupation. That richness of diversity of tenure provides the answer to the housing problems in Wales, as it does to
  492
  housing problems in Britain as a whole. To that extent, the Secretary of State did not answer the questions that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North rightly and properly asked in his good speech.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The figure for housing stock in Wales today is more than 100,000 higher than it was 14 years ago. The homelessness problem has been caused by marital breakdown and because young people now elect to leave home earlier, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We have the highest divorce rate in the whole of Europe, which is probably why many of the people are on the waiting lists.
  Mr. Murphy: It may be that the divorce rate is high, but this is not a debate on moral values or divorce. It is a debate on the housing needs in Wales. I do not know whether constituents come to the hon. Gentleman's advice surgery every week to talk about accommodation problems, but I am convinced that all hon. Members—whether they represent a Welsh, English or Scottish constituency—will have had the same experience. The problem of housing is high on the list of those who visit our advice surgeries, not simply because they are divorced or because they are single parents, although those are important factors. What do we do with divorced people? Should we not house them? What about the children involved? Are they to be denied housing because their parents are divorced?
  We are mistaken if we believe that the housing problems have disappeared simply because the right-to-buy policy has given people the opportunity to buy their own homes from local authorities. The Government are spending much less on housing in Wales than they have for a long time. Between 1989 and 1994, spending on housing fell from £197 million to £79 million. Council house rents have gone up. While the Government have been in power they have been obsessed with local authorities and their role in the provision of housing, whether in Wales or the rest of Britain. They will push up rents as high as they can to ensure that houses are sold to tenants. As a result, council house provision in Wales comes to a halt. Although almost 250,000 houses are still owned by local authorities in Wales, they still need maintaining. The Government have fallen down on providing sufficient money to local authorities to do the job.
  The Government state that housing associations are the social providers of housing. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North when he says that we are now in deep trouble because of the changes that the Government are making to the subsidies paid to Tai Cymru and housing associations. The reduction of the grant from 62 to 55 per cent. next year means that rents will rise on average by about 34 per cent.—they have already risen by 61 per cent. since 1989.
  It will become evident that the only people able to afford the rents will be those whose rents are paid by some form of housing benefit. The last thing that we want to do is to turn the estates built by housing associations into ghettos.
  Mr. Morgan: Welfare ghettos.
  Mr. Murphy: As my hon. Friend says, they will be nothing more than welfare ghettos.
  If ever there were a prescription for social divisiveness in Wales, that is it. What we need is what Governments of

  493
  both colours developed in my town of Cwmbran—the only new town in Wales for 30 years. They developed a mix of owner-occupation and houses with reasonable rents. That mix will disappear and all that will be left in Wales will be rented provision that provides nothing more than welfare ghettos, which will be bad news for Wales.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way because I am interested in exploring that issue. Does he also recognise that it is not only the new build housing association areas that are becoming welfare ghettos, but older, inner city areas? House prices are relatively cheap in such districts, so housing associations have bought up about one fifth or perhaps 30 per cent. of the housing stock—I know that that is true in certain parts of Cardiff. Those districts are becoming ghettos as a result of the policies that my hon. Friend is explaining.
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right—I know that he has personal experience of those districts as he has represented them, both as a Member of Parliament and as a councillor. It is important for us to realise that the problems that we have identified exist not only in the valleys and rural areas, but in Welsh cities. I fear that the divisive policies that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon could make the position even worse.
  Society in Wales is becoming polarised, which is the last thing that we want. We need much more harmonisation, which can occur only if there is a proper mix. But because the Government are obsessed with not allowing local authorities to play a housing role, either as a provider or an enabler, we find ourselves in a serious situation. The Nationwide building society has threatened to pull out of the housing association sector as a direct result of the Government reducing the grant from 62 to 55 per cent.
  A subject that must exercise the mind of anyone involved in housing in Wales or any public representative in Wales is the Government's consultation exercise on homelessness. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcements on any action that will reduce homelessness. If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the radio this morning, he will know that 500 church housing groups have condemned the Government's latest proposals on homelessness. The Government are setting the desperate against the very desperate. We must not create a situation where those on housing waiting lists are set against those who are homeless—they are often the same people.
  Statistics show that, in 1992, only 11 per cent. of households that were accepted as homeless were rehoused in ordinary council houses. That shows that the policy does not work. I suspect that the Government's hidden agenda—perhaps not in Wales, but elsewhere in Britain—is to see the homeless figures fall. They wanted unemployment figures to fall, so they changed the system and massaged the figures. They say that homelessness does not exist, so the figures fall, but the problem remains. I urge the Secretary of State to think hard. All sorts of people in Wales, including those in women's refuges, could lose out as a direct consequence of the Government's proposals on homelessness.
  The Secretary of State talks about the housing stock in Wales. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North rightly said, 37 per cent. of houses were built before 1919. Some 42 per cent. of all Welsh owner-occupied houses in Wales are in need of repair. Although the finance
  494
  has been increased in the past few years, it is not new money. Instead of being used for council stock, the money is being spent on private stock. Whoever heard of a system where a mandatory grant for housing renovations cannot be used because the local authority has been cash limited by the Welsh Office? As a result, I suspect that villages and towns, particularly in the valleys, will be severely affected by the dotty combination of Government policies that do not seem to mix.
  The maximum renovation grant has been reduced from £50,000 to £24,000. Obviously, the houses most in need of repair are those least likely to be repaired, and the quality of housing will be affected. Our rural districts are also hit.
  Mr. Redwood: How much additional new money is the hon. Member and his party prepared to pledge to housing in Wales?
  Mr. Murphy: Two years before a general election I am not in a position to give the figures and I would be foolish to do so. If the Secretary of State would tell me by how much the Government were to increase or reduce taxation next year, I would be prepared to answer his question. He knows that when the Labour Government come to power after the next general election, we will look at the books and work out our priorities. Our priorities will be different from those of the present Government. We intend to use the capital receipts held by local authorities to build houses and to improve the council stock. We would not do something as daft as to award a mandatory grant, but not allow a local authority to use the money.
  Everybody in Wales agrees that the problem with owner-occupation is not so much that it is bad as that people in Wales often cannot afford to become owner-occupiers. I welcome anything that the Government do to provide low-cost housing in Wales for owner-occupation. That is vital, but we must not forget that in many of the cities and valleys of Wales—although not so much in the rural areas—there are secondhand homes which are quite old but which can be bought for £30,000 or even less. In 1990, the Council of Welsh Districts reported that 54 per cent. of new households in Wales could not afford home ownership. The same is roughly true today. Private house building is down; only 6,000 were built last year, as opposed to 9,000 five years ago.
  What I am saying holds good for every part of Wales. Dyfed has the lowest average male manual earnings of any British county. Powys has the lowest average male earnings in the country. In Mid-Glamorgan, 22 per cent. of men and 40 per cent. of women are economically inactive. In Gwynedd, male disposable earnings are 14 per cent. below the British average. Wales is at the bottom of the earnings list in Great Britain. If people do not earn enough, they cannot afford mortgages. That is why only 6,000 new houses a year are being built now.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to figures published by Lloyd's earlier this year, the average amount spent on housing in Wales is 16 per cent. of a person's income, whereas in England it is 19 per cent?
  Mr. Murphy: I do not give much credence to figures from Lloyd's, but, whether they are right or wrong, they do not invalidate the figures that I have just given. We are the

  495
  lowest earners, and that in turn means that people in Wales, especially young families setting off up the housing ladder, cannot afford to buy houses.
  Mr. Sweeney: Surely that is only one half of the equation? If housing costs are lower in Wales, then lower wages in Wales should not make the slightest difference. In fact, if the gap between English and Welsh housing costs is wider than the gap between earnings, Welsh people will be better able to buy their own homes.
  Mr. Murphy: But even people in the parts of Wales with traditionally low-cost housing cannot afford to buy. The survey done by the CWD four years ago showed that the average price of a house was about £31,000, and it has not changed much since. Even so, houses are not being bought. No one should delude himself that people in Wales are in a position to buy houses straight away. They are not.
  We know that young couples do not enjoy the same opportunities today as they did 10 or 15 years ago—whether to buy a house, or to rent a house from an association, a local authority or the private sector. That is why 5,000 people in my constituency linger on the waiting list, and the situation is not improving.
  The answer is not to say that we need more private-sector owner-occupied houses. That is certainly part of the answer, but it is only part of it. Because the Government do not want to allow councils to be involved in house building, and because they are cutting back the work of the housing associations, matters will only get worse. I think that we need another report on Tai Cymru. We have heard about all the reports on other quangos, and I should like to know what Tai Cymru is up to half the time. If the Government keep on cutting grants, it will not have much left to do. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will have a look at Tai Cymru's work in the months to come.
  We must allow councils to start using their capital receipts to buy houses. We also need a change in planning laws in our rural areas so that people can stay in the villages and towns in which they were brought up. The Government must abandon their homelessness review and provide proper accommodation for those in desperate need of it. More members of local authorities must be represented on the board of Tai Cymru—none of them are at present. The Government must abandon their obsession with local authorities.
  Only this week, the Queen gave her Royal Assent to the Local Government (Wales) Bill, and within six or seven months, the new shadow authorities will come into being. Those 22 new authorities in Wales will be housing authorities and the opportunity exists to allow them to provide proper housing for the people of Wales. The Government should give them the resources and the opportunity to do just that.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said that he was concerned about the fact that there was insufficient housing provision in Wales. As I listened to the list of prescriptions that he gave the House, however, it seemed to me that everything that he proposed would lead to less housing being available.
  496
  The hon. Gentleman complained first about the rehabilitation of property. I acknowledge his point about the financial difficulties that have resulted from fiscal changes to do with VAT and charges. He also rightly outlined another problem: when someone goes to rehabilitate a property, he does not know what difficulties he may find, so the costs, necessarily, become higher. The hon. Gentleman suggested that grants should therefore be higher. Without more resources, however, that would mean fewer houses. That is the difficulty that has faced Tai Cymru in all its decisions. It has not opposed rehabilitation; it is just that, if we choose the more expensive route, we end up with fewer houses. That is surely not what we want, given a recognition that we must provide more social housing, and it goes against the direction in which our policy should be aimed.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also spoke about rents. The same trade-off applies to rents. If we drive them downwards, perhaps by increasing housing association grant rates, as the hon. Gentleman proposed, again, without increased resources, there are bound to be fewer houses. That points up the emptiness of the remarks by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who was not prepared to tell us anything about resources, but who was prepared to describe the direction in which we should move in respect of rents, HAG rates and so on. Without additional resources, I repeat, in the end, that fewer houses will be provided.
  Mr. Dafis: The balance between HAG and private money is crucial. In theory, we can increase the number of houses if we can continue to increase the proportion of private funding—but there must be a cut-off point. That is the vital balance to be struck between the number of houses provided and the rents charged. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of further reducing HAG in Wales?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we cannot drive down HAG rates inexorably without ultimately finding that private finance is not available. The hon. Gentleman will know that I addressed the Federation of Welsh Housing Associations conference precisely on that point. We know from private financiers that once the proportion falls below 50 per cent., private finance may dry up. We have not yet reached that point. Still, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue for the future. A move in the opposite direction, to increase HAG rates, will inexorably lead to the provision of fewer houses.
  Earlier in the debate, I intervened to say that the Welsh housing stock currently stands at record levels. That fact is not generally acknowledged when we debate housing issues. Since 1979, for instance, more than 100,000 extra homes have been provided. I return to the point about Cynon Valley: I recognise that homelessness there has increased, but it has done so at the same time as the population has declined, even though we have provided more homes.
  Social factors are the reason why we need so many more homes—there are many more households. This is not a moral judgment or an attack upon those who, for one reason or another, have been engaged in a marital breakdown, but we cannot say in a politically correct way that we shall not speak about, or draw attention to the fact that, despite the massive addition to the number of houses in Wales, we still have a prevailing homelessness problem.

  497
  We have to examine the reasons for that and, at the same time, recognise that there is a duty on the Government to do what they can to alleviate that problem.
  I make no apology for saying that during the past 20 years, the divorce rate has doubled and we now have the highest divorce rate in Europe. Those are important factors in understanding some of the difficulties that are placed within the remit of Government in addressing housing problems. What is the response? Since Tai Cymru was formed, 22,000 extra homes have been provided. Housing for Wales has so far spent £903 million, provided by the Welsh Office in a variety of ways. Listening to the debate, one would think that the whole thrust of the Housing for Wales programme is towards home ownership of one sort or another, through shared ownership or whatever.
  Housing for Wales aims to deliver about 10 per cent. on the assisted ownership basis, according to the latest proposals, and the fall from that initial target of 10 per cent. has been due largely to the recession in house prices. All the evidence shows that in recent years people have not generally been going into private home ownership so much because, for the first time, we have seen the phenomenon of declining house prices.
  As we now have historically low interest rates and house prices are starting to rise again, it is essential that Tai Cymru should take advantage of that by returning to the 10 per cent. figure and helping those people by adopting the remarks and words of the hon. Member for Torfaen and offering people the choice. If up to 10 per cent. of the people funded by Tai Cymru wish to take advantage of the scheme, they should be able to do so. The great advantage is that if we are able to spend the money in that way, we shall end up housing more people, and that has to be in everyone's interest.
  Mr. Dafis: Would the hon. Gentleman approve of an increase over and above the 10 per cent. currently allocated to the owner-occupied sector? Would he like that percentage to increase beyond 10 per cent?
  Mr. Evans: I believe very much in choice. If I have a criticism of the original "Agenda for Action" paper—I have to be careful as when it was published I was deputy chairman of Tai Cymru—it is that the Government set a target for owner-occupation. I do not believe that the Government should be setting a target for the level of owner-occupation that they would like in Wales. I believe in choice, and Tai Cymru is right to devote 10 per cent. of its resources to providing the opportunities for people to exercise that choice. If a significant number of people wish to exercise it, we can consider expanding the scheme thereafter, but that is the advantageous way to move.
  Let me also outline to the House a view that I have expressed on several occasions in relation to general housing provision. Tai Cymru currently provides about 4,200 houses. The Welsh Affairs Committee received evidence from the chief executive of Tai Cymru to the effect that we need to provide up to 5,000 houses per annum and I support that target.
  We have to bite the bullet and challenge those people presenting significantly higher figures. I am aware that Shelter Cymru and the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations are talking in terms of an expansion upwards to 10,000 units per annum. I doubt whether that could be delivered, but one has to recognise what the cost of that provision would be. Looking at the implications for private
  498
  finance—some of which have been raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—that would ultimately mean the Welsh Office spending about five times as much on social housing in Wales as it does today. Those who support Shelter Cymru's aims should recognise the substantial financial costs.
  Even if we had unlimited resources, it is important to recognise some of the other problems faced by those who are looking for proper and adequate housing within their own communities. I speak particularly about rural communities in my constituency. In recent weeks, I have spoken to some of my constituents in Llangattock and Bulch. The Llangattock community is quite small and the national parks planning guidance, policy and programme for that area allow for the building of 15 houses in Llangattock in the next 10 years. I understand that the policy has been approved, or at least examined, by the Welsh Office. There are 98 people on the waiting list in Llangattock, yet under the planning process only 15 new houses will be built in the next 10 years.
  That problem exists not just in my constituency; there is a similar problem in Bulch and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Yns Môn (Mr. Jones). Recently, the hon. Gentleman and I were helpfully sent housing strategies and operational plans from Mr. John Arthur Jones, the noted director of housing in Yns Môn, which make it quite clear that planning permissions within Yns Môn are insufficient to address the number of people actually on the housing waiting list in the area.
  There are real planning permission problems in some of our rural areas and I believe that the Welsh Affairs Committee, while expressing concern about some aspects of planning permissions that had been granted, invited the view that there should be some developments in some areas based upon the Welsh settlement pattern. That is important in some parts of rural Wales and is not always recognised by planning authorities.
  It is important for the Government to examine the allocation of housing. Although I recognise that additional houses should be provided, allocation is also a matter of great concern. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend announced some changes to the development board, following a number of critical reports, one of which related to a housing allocation matter that activated the entire Welsh media. I spoke today to the local government ombudsman's office and I was informed that in the past five years, he has confirmed 16 cases of critical reports on local authorities in relation to housing allocation matters, 14 of which were serious enough to warrant a finding of maladministration. That illustrates that the allocation of housing is not a matter to be thrown aside; it requires some important consideration.
  Mr. Murphy: I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he is going to give some consideration in his comments about allocation, as he knows that the vast bulk of local authorities in Wales allocate by a proper points system. What does he mean by further consideration?
  Mr. Evans: My area has moved to a points allocation system which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, favours people who present themselves as being immediately homeless—those who are effectively roofless. If a person takes steps to find himself some temporary accommodation while seeking permanent

  499
  accommodation from the local authority, sadly, as things stand today, he or she will be on waiting lists for months, if not years, and ultimately probably not housed at all. Those who make no effort to find themselves temporary accommodation have an advantage over those in housing need who make some temporary arrangement, who, as a result of having taken that temporary arrangement, are disadvantaged in housing allocation thereafter. The whole issue should be examined by the Government and changes brought forward.
  If the Government encourage local authorities to provide temporary accommodation, perhaps in the private sector, for people who are immediately roofless, they could take action with regard to other aspects, one of the most important of which concerns houses in multiple occupation. I have received a letter from Radnorshire district council which draws attention to the Prime Minister's commitment, given in the House on 6 May 1994, to have a Government review of the licensing of such houses. Some documents that have been sent to me show that the likelihood of injury to tenants in such accommodation is six times higher than is the case with other tenants. That leads me to the view that action is necessary.
  I welcome the fact that there has been a 34 per cent. reduction in the use of bed and breakfast accommodation, but I should ultimately like to see its use eliminated. I am strongly of the view that it has no part to play in Britain's housing provision. I am also concerned about overall levels of housing benefit. However, in deference to the House and the fact that others wish to speak, I shall leave that point.
  Much has been said about Tai Cymru's proposals about assisted ownership. As I said earlier, that amounts to barely 10 per cent. of the overall resources that will be made available by Tai Cymru, which will still be geared towards the provision of rented housing for those in housing need. Housing for Wales should be congratulated on the significant contribution that it has made in that sector over the past five years. It would be wrong if the tenor of the debate were to lead to the view within housing circles in Wales that the thrust of Tai Cymru's provision in future will be directed only towards owner-occupation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: By making his excellent choice of subject for today's debate, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) drew from the Secretary of State an interesting and provocative statement about the future of housing in Wales. I share with the Secretary of State the hope that owner-occupation can be increased substantially, particularly if that makes it accessible to a wider range of people in the social stratum of Wales. It is extremely important that quality housing should be available to as wide a range of people as possible. The evidence suggests that those who own their own houses sometimes look after them rather better than do those who live in homes in public ownership, so more owner-occupation could lead to a higher quality of property in Wales.
  One issue on which the Secretary of State's statement was a little disappointing was housing for rent for young people. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that 16
  500
  and 17-year-olds cannot and should not expect to be provided with their own properties to rent. Family life has its difficulties. All of us who have been the parents of teenagers know that the period between 14 and 18 can be one in which there are tense moments, but they are part of building towards an adult life.
  However, the Secretary of State may have overlooked the extent of the need for housing for rent for young people older than 17—the 18 to 25 age group. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) about the increasing divorce rate throughout the United Kingdom, but that is a fact with which we must live.
  It is also a fact that, in well-regulated families, parents experience intelligent but difficult, or intelligent but wise, young people who, when they reach the age of 18, 19 or 20 build up their own relationships and rightly want to lead their own independent lives, and perhaps are entitled to expect society to give them a footing on the housing ladder. In rural mid-Wales—for example, in Newtown or Welshpool in my constituency—it costs as much to rent a room or a small flat as it does in London, but the wages are significantly lower. There is not the supply of houses to rent that is needed. I do not suggest that that is logical. Many people in the construction industry do not realise that there is, potentially, significant income to be made from building flats to rent. The Government should encourage developers to realise that the opportunities are available and that they are rather foolish not to take them up, but they are not doing so.
  Therefore, I invite the Government to consider whether there might not be ways to give private developers, rather than the money, the confidence to realise that building houses for rent for young people is a realistic way first, to provide properties in which young people can live and, secondly, to make a reasonable amount of money from sound business investment. Particularly among the smaller developers—in rural Wales it is inevitable that developers will be small—there is a lack of confidence in that.
  That is not a matter of ideology. It is destructive to talk about left and right-wing ideology when one is discussing the building of houses in which young people can live. It is inevitable that there will be a mix between public housing, in one form or another, and private housing, but we must try to ensure that we achieve the quantum of housing that meets at least the majority of need.
  I think that all hon. Members are worried when young people, sometimes with a baby or expecting a baby, come to them, and they find that one partner is living with one set of parents and the other with the other set of parents. That is a common experience. We must do something more to try to provide such people with the properties that they need in the period before they have the earnings and the capital base to borrow money from banks or building societies.
  In this short contribution—I know that others wish to speak—I want to make three other points. The first relates to renovation grants. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was right to refer to the appalling waiting lists for renovation grants. In my constituency—I have written to Ministers about one or two of the cases—young people live in caravans for years because of the queue for renovation grants. Some of those renovation grants are for old properties that are well worth saving; some are of

  501
  historic value. Every year that passes makes it more expensive to rebuild such properties and bring them up to a reasonably modern standard.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the renovation grants regime in order to ensure that it operates in such a way as to achieve a reasonable throughput. It is difficult to explain to constituents, other than by blaming the Government, why they have to wait three, four or five years for such grants. I suppose that those of us in Opposition parties can blame the Government with impunity, but it does not increase one's job satisfaction. I would rather be able to praise the Government on this issue and say that the grants are being made more readily available. It is not fair to blame local authorities. Montgomeryshire district council has been doing its best in this sector.
  My next point concerns incomplete private developments. Again, that may be peculiar to areas where private developments are inevitably small, because of rurality, and where the developers are therefore small. My constituency is peppered with private developments which have started with a splendid plan, full of landscaping, trees, good roads, sound drains and everything else that one could wish. Architects are good at preparing such drawings, but they are prepared for builders who, unfortunately, are part of what Customs and Excise call the phoenix syndrome—small developers who go bust and rise from the ashes in a different form on the following day leaving unfinished estates, broken roads, inadequate retention sums, no trees and large bills for the owner-occupiers who are the very people whom we want to encourage to buy properties. That often happens to estates where the properties are relatively cheap and are built to a budget.
  Local authorities do their best to imposes conditions on developers, but, if one looks around not just my constituency but others and sees the estates that have been in a dreadful state for years, they do not seem to be working well. It would be good if the Government could examine that issue and find a way to ensure that new dereliction on estates does not arise.
  I agree with every word that the Secretary of State said about physically and mentally handicapped people and care in the community. There are people who cannot realistically lead an independent life in the community. I will not draw Ministers again on whether there should be nursing or non-nursing care. I am happy to settle for the Secretary of State's unequivocal statement that there will be appropriate care, based, of course, on appropriate advice.
  There are in Wales patients in hospitals for the mentally handicapped for whom appropriate care is nursing care. I am not satisfied, and neither are their carers or relatives, that those patients will be cared for properly if they are placed in the community in two-person or three-person accommodation with changing staff. I ask the Secretary of State to consider ensuring that where they are needed, communities are provided for groups of a dozen or 15 residents—some of whom may be in or near a persistent vegetative state—in which a high level of care is available, so that the public may be reassured that the weakest members of our society are given the strongest protection. Of all the issues discussed today, that is the most important.
  We must care for those who cannot care for themselves. Otherwise, as we know, serious abuse follows. It is not enough to wear sackcloth and ashes after sexual abuse has
  502
  been committed against weak members of society. I hope that I may look forward to the Secretary of State putting his wise words into wise action.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am sure that quality, availability and affordability of housing are close to the top of the agenda for all hon. Members, even though we may differ over the appropriate means of achieving those ends. Every week in constituency surgeries I hear about housing problems. They are not a representative cross-section, but, anecdotally, they are relevant. Complainants fall into two categories—young people, often single mothers, desperately trying to find somewhere to live, and older people desperately seeking a transfer from one council house to another.
  Young people in the first category are symptomatic of a breakdown in family values. In an ideal world, they would be living at home as members of stable families, and saving up money before even thinking of having a baby. Unfortunately, young people leave home and form relationships, not necessarily in that order, and the girl in question becomes pregnant and needs somewhere to live.
  The second category is the result of council housing estates tending, in general, to be unpopular places to live. Well-intentioned national and local government policies in years past have resulted in growing problems in society—a vicious circle of deprivation. New generations often grow up with no firmly rooted family values, family support or stability in their lives. As a consequence, crime becomes endemic in such areas. Many constituents who come to my surgeries begging for a council transfer do so because their homes or cars have been vandalised.
  Last week, I saw a constituent who has five children. Three of them are handicapped—one of them severely so. The social services department allocated that lady a car to enable her to transport the extremely handicapped child. It was set fire to, and shortly after the social services provided a replacement vehicle. Just before her visit, that car also was vandalised by stones being smashed on its roof.
  Social housing is necessary for some people, but is not desirable. I long for the day when there will be a shift in the balance. My constituency has 75 per cent. owner-occupancy, nearly 20 per cent. council or housing association occupancy, and just 5 per cent. private rented accommodation. I want the private rented sector to be expanded because that is how to achieve more flexibility in the housing market.
  The Government's right-to-buy policies have been extremely successful. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) did not do the Government justice when he said that there has always been a high percentage of owner-occupancy in Wales and that it would inevitably continue to rise. In fact, it increased from 59 per cent. in March 1979 to 72 per cent. at the end of 1992. That did not happen by accident. The Government applied a variety of useful measures to encourage owner-occupancy. The right to buy, which was strenuously resisted for years by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, enabled more than 90,000 public sector tenants to purchase their homes.
  In 1993, the Government launched a rent-to-mortgage scheme, which extended the opportunity to own to another 70,000 tenants in Wales who cannot immediately afford the full purchase price. Owners of long leases of flats have been given the right to enfranchise their properties. The

  503
  long decline in the private rented sector has been arrested, thanks to the Housing Act 1988. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) was sceptical about whether the private rented sector is growing, but between 1990 and 1992 the number of privately rented dwellings increased by 15,000.
  Housing associations have become the main providers of new, affordable housing. Since 1985, public expenditure on housing associations has been supplemented by £177 million of private sector finance. That means that more homes can be built at a time of public expenditure restraint.
  I want to sound a note of caution, because the social problems that developed from the expansion of council housing estates may recur in respect of housing association estates. I see that happening already in my constituency. One of my constituents complained recently that, shortly after she purchased a house on a new estate, the developer had difficulty selling the remaining properties because of market conditions. Consequently, a job lot of the properties was sold to a housing association. That lady feels that the misbehaviour of some of the tenants who have moved into those properties has led to a reduction in the value of her house.
  Mr. Murphy: What a shame.
  Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman may say that—from a sedentary position—but surely we should be concerned about people who find themselves in the negative-equity trap because of bad behaviour on the estates on which they live. We need to ensure that, in future, huge housing association blocks do not create the same problems.
  Dr. Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman's assessment of the position seems fairly insulting to some of us who grew up in excellent houses on council estates, which are fine places in which to grow up. When the Conservative Government took office in 1979, local authorities were suddenly deprived of the ability to maintain such houses. It is a question of maintenance, whether the properties concerned are in the public or the private sector.
  My local authority has been forced to send letters warning people that they will have to wait 20 years for maintenance grants. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us where the sense or justice is in that. How much better it would be for such groups of houses if enough money were available to renovate and maintain them.
  Mr. Sweeney: It is a bit rich for a Labour Member to talk about the maintenance of council houses. For a short time, I lived on the Hulme housing estate, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That estate was run by Labour-controlled Manchester city council; the standard of maintenance seemed to be nil, and half the properties in the block that I inhabited were empty.
  Since the present Government have been in office, the number of houses in Wales has increased from 1.1 million to 2.2 million in absolute terms. The problem is matching housing stock to housing needs. I believe that that can best be done through the private sector and market forces. I must declare an interest: I am a landlord, albeit not in
  504
  Wales. I believe, however, that in order to increase occupancy of houses the Government must try harder to encourage landlords to enter the private rented sector.
  The Government have rightly allowed those with lodgers to receive the first part of their rental income tax free. Further steps need to be taken to encourage multiple occupation, which is currently inhibited by draconian regulations. I am not convinced that living in bedsits serves the best interests of, for instance, students and young mothers; I think that such accommodation is basically lonely and anti-social, and brings about misery and the breakdown of family ties. More people should live en famine, with perhaps half a dozen people sharing a house. Students have had wide experience of that way of life, and if such properties are well run and in good condition they can provide landlords with a good return and justify investment.
  The Opposition parties could contribute in an important way. They are fond of looking forward to the day—constantly receding—when they may take office. The private rented sector would greatly appreciate a commitment to support and encourage increased provision of private rented accommodation. That would produce a better balance in the housing market and help to guard against shortages.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: This has been a good debate and most of the speeches have been constructive. I intend to be generous: hon. Members on both sides of the House have made some excellent points. Although there has been a difference of emphasis, most of what we have heard has been positive. I confess that I found some of the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) rather bizarre; at times, I could not follow his train of thought. I was surprised that he should attack housing associations, which have demonstrated excellent management skills over the years. The hon. Gentleman would like much of the balance to be transferred to the private sector, but many private developers do not possess such skills.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out that many private estates in Wales are left after the developers have gone bust. Roads are unmade, weeds spring up and amenity areas become overgrown. The record of some private developers leaves a lot to be desired. No one suggests that a single organisation has all the answers to the problem of housing provision; a balance must be struck between the requirements of those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford their own homes and those who cannot do so, whatever the circumstances. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) said, social circumstances sometimes put people on waiting lists, but—
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has not been present for the debate.
  I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, but it does not remove our responsibility to try to find some answers. I think that the main answer lies in a proper balance between local authorities, housing associations and private developers, which should work together to meet the needs of the people of Wales. If it has done nothing else, the debate has shown

  505
  how important it is for such co-operation to continue. Tomorrow's Hansard will show that, in that regard, it has been excellent.
  I said that I intended to be generous in my praise for those who have spoken, but I must point out that the Secretary of State was rather uncharitable about my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who made an excellent and well-researched speech.
  Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) alleged that I had not been present during the debate. That is not true; I had to leave the Chamber for half an hour to hear a serious complaint from one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, Mr. Gordon Pritchard, about Ynys Môn borough council.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Hon. Members cannot use debating time to explain why they were or were not in the Chamber. A brief explanation might be all right, but further explanations are not necessary.
  Mr. Jones: I think it important for me to respond to points made by hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate and who have made constructive contributions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North on the presentation of his speech, its detail and research and the way in which he advanced his arguments.
  Dr. Howells: And his good looks!
  Mr. Jones: Yes, and his good looks—the most important factor of all.
  The Secretary of State seemed to want to give us a lesson in home ownership. The Minister of State, Welsh Office will know that there is a long tradition of home ownership in Wales. The word perchentyaeth is rooted in Welsh culture, history and tradition. The Secretary of State should discuss that with the Minister so that he will understand that we are not averse to home ownership, which we have always valued and which we want to extend.
  The Secretary of State referred to Magna Carta. We are fortunate in Wales: we have much information on our history. We know about not only Magna Carta but the laws of Hywel Dda. When the Secretary of State discusses those laws over a cup of tea with the Minister, he will learn that throughout their history Welsh people have attached great importance to home ownership. I am sure that he will recognise that. Perhaps in his reply the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will acknowledge that on behalf of the people of Wales.
  The Secretary of State made some interesting points about the role of housing associations and the need for them to encourage low-cost home ownership. We should like him to say a bit more about that on another occasion. His use of the word "encourage" is interesting. If he means that he would like housing associations to move in that direction, that is acceptable; but if he is saying that the funding for Tai Cymru will have to move in that direction, that is another matter. We are entitled to know whether it is the former or the latter. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer that question.
  We have heard some interesting arguments about housing association grant. My hon. Friend the Member for
  506
  Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said that he did not want it to be reduced to less than 62 per cent. I recall that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor said that he did not want it to be reduced substantially. We did not hear whether the Secretary of State would support such a reduction, so the Under-Secretary must say what the Government have in mind. What proportion of HAG will be paid?
  All statistics and surveys show that the three key issues that most affect people's lives are their families, their health and their homes, which are reflected in the problems that hon. Members hear about in their surgeries every week. Housing is the single most important issue to our constituents. That is why we chose the subject for our Opposition day debate.
  Housing is important because it meets not only the physical need for shelter from rain and for comfort but the emotional need of well-being and of satisfaction with one's position in life. Will the Government ensure that more people in Wales have such benefits? We acknowledge that people will own their own homes, and it is acceptable that their proportion has increased, but, as a result of Government policies, some people have no opportunity to own a house of any description and their lives are being blighted. We want the Government to have the priorities that the people of Wales consistently vote for but are never delivered.
  The problem is that since 1979 a welter of legislation has been passed. Housing Act after housing Act has sought to deal with the problems. We accept that some of those Acts have worked, but, as always, they have failed some groups of people.
  I must confess that I was interested in the Secretary of State's remarks about a Welsh assembly or parliament raising taxes. This Government have raised more taxes than any other in the history of the United Kingdom, so to accuse us of wanting to raise more taxes in a Welsh parliament was pretty rich.
  The right hon. Gentleman also talked about increases in legislation. I was elected to the House in 1987. The number of Acts, including housing Acts, has rocketed since 1979.
  Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend said that some categories of people inevitably faced difficulties. Does he accept that areas also experience difficulties? In Dwyfor, in my constituency, second homes account for 20 per cent. of the housing stock, and pressure is placed on the rented sector because rents are dictated by the holiday market. That is an important industry, but private rents are too high for people who want to rent. Likewise, people cannot afford to buy because the cost of buying a house is determined by factors outside the local economy. In Dwyfor, Meirionnydd and other areas where tourism is important, there is a need for rented social housing because external factors mean that the market cannot provide.
  Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has long experience of those matters. He has been in the House a number of years and has seen the problems that have occurred in my and other hon. Members' constituencies.
  My hon. Friend has reminded me of an important point. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said that if the value of houses in Wales is lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the amount of grant local authorities were giving was lower, somehow or other equality resulted.

  507
  The hon. Gentleman should remember that the property boom of the 1980s alienated many young Welsh people, who could not get into the property market. Between 1985 and 1988, house prices in Ynys Môn doubled. Incomes, however, did not double during that period. Having set their heart on a house, young people who had spent years saving up a deposit were faced with despair because they could not afford the mortgage. A couple who had tried to save a small deposit and obtain a 95 per cent. mortgage on a property worth £40,000 in 1985 found that, in 1988, its value had risen to £85,000. Their incomes or salaries were not sufficient for them to afford the house.
  Pressures have therefore been placed on the planning system and on the provision of housing for social need. I reject the hon. Gentleman's argument that there should not be any room for social housing in Wales. It is crucial that we move on the issue today.
  Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I appreciate that I have named the hon. Gentleman, but I must finish making my points because we want to wind up the debate quickly.
  We have a different housing philosophy in Wales. We want a proper balance. The motion states that the only way in which we can properly meet the housing needs of the Welsh people is to have a parliament of our own in Cardiff.
  6.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We have had an interesting debate. We realise now that both the Welsh nationalists and the Labour party would take action that would result in a reduction in the amount of social housing being built in Wales, that the Labour party is determined to spend more in this area, but is desperately afraid to say how much, and that both would impose the extra taxation that a Welsh assembly would cost the people of Wales.
  Opposition Members talked about the need for specific Welsh policies. I honestly do not know where they have been for the past few years. Have they not taken note of the many initiatives which we have taken forward in Wales precisely to meet the specific housing needs of the people of Wales? Have they not read "Agenda for Action for Housing in Wales", which was published by my predecessor in November 1991? In that document—the first of its kind anywhere in the United Kingdom—we set out our policies, which we have been following over a number of years and which have brought forward real achievements, of which we can all be proud.
  The agenda set out three main objectives: to encourage home ownership for the vast majority of the people in Wales so that about 80 per cent. of households can achieve owner occupation by the turn of the century; to create greater diversity of choice and supply for those who cannot afford or do not want to be home owners; and to improve both the quality of the housing stock and the lives of the people who live in those homes.
  There has been much reference to the high level of unmet need. However, there are no national criteria for housing need or an agreed level of housing need, precisely because it is not possible to define housing need as an
  508
  absolute. Estimates of need for social housing in Wales vary widely and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, almost always tend to be overstated.
  I was interested in the exchanges between the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) with regard to homelessness figures. The hon. Gentleman accepted that his figures were probably wrong. The difference between my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman meant that the hon. Gentleman could easily be 50 per cent. out. However, that did not seem to matter to him; they were just figures that he could throw up in the air.
  I shall set the record straight for the hon. Gentleman. The latest figure for the number of homelessness cases at March 1994 is 2,628. That can be compared with 2,867 in March 1993. As I know that Opposition Members cannot work it out, it is a reduction of 8.3 per cent. The reduction in the number of homelessness cases should be widely welcomed.
  Our role in meeting housing need is to set the broad policy framework and encourage local authorities to employ the wide range of options available to address housing need and to make the best use of the resources available to them. Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess housing need in their areas. They are the appropriate organisations to prepare local housing assessments which will provide the context for housing associations and other agencies to plan their strategies and programmes, as well as help to inform the distribution of resources. These assessments provide the basis for authorities' strategic and operational plans, taking account of likely available resources as well as priorities between competing needs and the best use of resources in meeting objectives that are essential for the effective delivery of housing services.
  I suppose that I should thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North for the congratulations that he inadvertently gave the Government on their housing record. He specifically congratulated the housing associations in Wales on what they have achieved. However, it is the Government who have massively supported and enabled the housing associations to go forward and achieve all that they have done. In 1989, the Government established Housing for Wales to build on the enthusiasm of housing associations in Wales and to work in partnership with local authorities.
  Since Tai Cymru was established, total investment in Welsh housing associations, including that for the current financial year, is in excess of £1 billion, producing almost 22,000 necessary new homes in Wales. In the current financial year, the total resources for Housing for Wales will be about £200 million, which should enable more than 4,000 new homes to be completed.
  I remind hon. Members that the introduction of mixed funding has enabled 50 per cent. more homes to be built than under the old system. Housing for Wales is now the main provider of new social rented housing in Wales. It works closely with local authorities, which recognise the benefits that the new mixed funding regime can bring. I am pleased to say that local authorities have transferred almost £70 million to Welsh housing associations in the past five years to provide additional social housing.
  The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) asked me about next year's housing association grant rate. I completely reject the wild prediction made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He should know, as I

  509
  am sure all Opposition Members know, that the question of the housing association grant rate will be considered, as it is always considered, during the normal round of the public expenditure survey.
  We will carefully consider all the questions that need to be addressed: whether we should be subsidising bricks and mortar or helping families; and whether we should be providing cheap rents for all, or providing more homes, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) spelt out. All of us would recognise that it is unreasonable to subsidise people who can afford to pay, because that means that people who are deserving will be deprived of necessary housing.
  I am pleased to report that strategic housing agreements between Housing for Wales and nine local authorities have been signed since the initiative was introduced in 1991–92. I see that as helping to cement the partnerships and take further forward the excellent relationship that exists between Housing for Wales and local authorities.
  We also recognise that an active private rented sector offering a variety of accommodation and tenures is necessary for those who cannot or do not wish to buy their own homes. I found it somewhat ironic that the hon. Member for Torfaen sought to remind us that he was a history graduate. His history seems to have stopped at some time in the past. He certainly does not have much recollection of current affairs. He tried to claim that he was in favour of a variety of housing tenures, including the right for people to rent from the private sector. What his history should have told him is that his party voted against the Housing Act 1988, which did so much to expand the opportunities for the private rented sector.
  The number of private rented dwellings in Wales increased from 80,000 in 1990 to 95,000 in 1992. For Opposition Members who cannot do arithmetic, that is an increase of 19 per cent. That is a substantial and worthwhile contribution to expanding the sum of housing available for the people of Wales. We are not content with that. We are going forward with the rent-a-room scheme which was introduced in 1992. Householders no longer have to pay income tax on rent from a lodger if the gross annual rent is less than £3,250. That is a further worthwhile contribution to expanding the sum of housing available in Wales.
  Naturally and rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor referred to the needs of housing in rural Wales. To assist authorities to meet particular rural housing pressures, we created the rural housing reserve in 1991–92. Investment over the past three years has totalled nearly £16 million, leading to the production of some 700 homes. In the current financial year, £4 million is available which, together with investment through Housing for Wales, is expected to produce 1,150 homes. Rural authorities also benefit from other central reserves, including renewal, rented private sector and homelessness reserves. I need not remind my hon. Friend that Housing for Wales devotes at least one quarter of its resources to rural housing. Between 1989–90 and 1993–94, investment totalled nearly £240 million, producing nearly 4,700 new homes.
  Our final "Agenda for Action" objective is to improve the quality of the housing stock and, of course, of the lives of the people who live in those homes. Much reference has been made to renovation in the debate. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for what he said about the provisions to which my right hon. Friend the
  510
  Secretary of State referred for the mentally handicapped under community care. This is not the time to expand on that, but we have published our new guidance for the Welsh mental handicap strategy. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find in it exactly the provision that he is looking for and which we are all looking for. It is important that we continue to try to ensure that the right care and choice are available to mentally handicapped individuals and their carers.
  Since the current home renovation grant was introduced in 1990, almost £850 million has been made available for home renovation in Wales. That includes for this year £149 million for mandatory renovation grants alone. That is £3.5 million more than last year. It should enable Welsh local authorities to complete some 9,600 grants.
  I was interested to note the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North that we should bring clearance and demolition back on to the agenda. While I accept that that is not entirely irrelevant, I feel that we have moved on from the days of widespread clearance, and rightly so, exactly in the way, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we have put behind us the grey architecture and slab concrete of the socialist past.
  In addition to the renovation grants, £26.3 million has been made available to local authorities in each of the past two years for disabled facilities and discretionary grants. The current funding arrangements for disabled facilities grants enable local authorities to consider all housing options, including transfers to more suitable accommodation, in responding to the needs of disabled people.
  Dr. Howells: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: I fear I do not have time. I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Torfaen, who complained that we were not spending enough. Just as his party would not say at the last election, the hon. Gentleman would not say how much he would spend. He brought out that canard about capital receipts, which he then pledged himself to make available. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will be upset when he sees that in the record. I well know the claims that Welsh Labour councils have made that that would mean spending of at least £177 million. It might help the hon. Member for Torfaen, if he rushes off to see his hon. Friend, to say that the local councils will have only £23.7 million to spend from their capital receipts.
  I remind the House that grants are also available to landlords to repair and improve or convert houses or buildings into flats and accommodation. We can boast a good record on area-based renewal schemes in Wales: 13 renewal schemes have been declared, and there are more in the pipeline. Resources of more than £17 million will be available in the current year for area-based schemes.
  One matter was conspicuous by its absence from the speeches of Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly concentrated on the fact that the vast majority of people in Wales aspire to home ownership. That is demonstrated by the high take-up of the right-to-buy initiative. More than 100,000 council tenants have exercised the right to buy since 1979. Surveys keep telling us that 80 per cent. or more of the people of Wales want to own their own homes. Opposition Members hardly referred to that at all. Where was the welcome for the progress that has been made in increasing home ownership

  511
  from 59 per cent. in 1979 to 71 per cent. now? We recognise and we will continue to respond to the aspirations of the people of Wales for a higher level of home ownership, and we will deliver.
  One other idea was conspicuous by its absence in the debate. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was remarkably brief in referring to an assembly for Wales, although I know that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn went on at slightly more length about it. That ancient, discredited policy from the 1970s has been trotted out as the great idea of all the Opposition policies. Yet we know by the token references that Opposition Members have made to it this evening that they are doing nothing more than going through the motions.
  Wales is now better housed. Major sums are being provided for new social ownership and maintenance of existing housing. There are more opportunities for ownership, which is the exact and clear aspiration of the people of Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced today an exciting expansion of the transferable discount scheme in Wales. We are making great progress. At the same time, we continue to ensure that there will be choice—real choice, unlike what the Opposition offer. I am confident that we shall go forward. We shall continue to go forward. The last thing that we in Wales need is that ultimate quango—a Welsh assembly. It has been roundly rejected by the people of Wales before and it will be rejected again if it is ever put to the test.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 153.

  Division No. 290]

  [7.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Murphy, Paul

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Pendry, Torn

  Cox, Tom

  Prescott, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Salmond, Alex

  Dafis, Cynog

  Short, Clare

  Dixon, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dowd, Jim

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Henderson, Doug

  Wilson, Brian

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bowis, John

  Amess, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clappison, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Booth, Hartley

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  512

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Conway, Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Cran, James

  Merchant, Piers

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Mills, Iain

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Devlin, Tim

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Duncan, Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Elletson, Harold

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Pickles, Eric

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Rathbone, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Richards, Rod

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Riddick, Graham

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  French, Douglas

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Garnier, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Sims, Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Sproat, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Stephen, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Stern, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Hague, William

  Streeter, Gary

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Sykes, John

  Harris, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Thomason, Roy

  Hendry, Charles

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hicks, Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Viggers, Peter

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Walden, George

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Jessel, Toby

  Waterson, Nigel

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Watts, John

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Wells, Bowen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Whittingdale, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Willetts, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Wilshire, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Wood, Timothy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Legg, Barry

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  MacKay, Andrew

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on its comprehensive housing policies to meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Wales; welcomes in particular the high and increasing level of home ownership in Wales; supports measures to promote wider home ownership; notes the high level of investment by Tai Cymru since 1989 which has exceeded £1 billion and produced nearly 22,000 homes; welcomes the attraction of substantial private funding to the housing association programme enabling greater diversity and choice; and rejects the call for the establishment of a Parliament for Wales which would create an unnecessary tier of Government and would waste resources.

  Social Security Benefit Rights
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.27 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
  That this House would fully restore social security benefit rights to all 16 and 17 year olds.
  I was slightly surprised this afternoon when a message was received in our office which suggested that I speak as long as I like because there would be a dearth of other contributors to the subject. That reflects seriously on aspects of the policies of the other Opposition parties and on Government policy, because the issue is serious and affects many young people and families throughout of the United Kingdom.
  I attach great importance to this aspect of social security legislation. It would not be amiss to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when you and I were 16 or 17 years old, we were living in the 1960s, when it seemed to young people that the world was their oyster. There were job opportunities in abundance and many of us, irrespective of background, could go to university, further or higher education, guaranteed a full student grant, and could find summer jobs with ease to eke out that grant. Those were very opportune times for many of us.
  I am deeply concerned about what is happening to young people throughout the United Kingdom today. Our young people should be filled with optimism and idealism. But instead we seem to have a society where many of our youngsters feel that they are in a dead-end. They feel alienated from the democratic process and downtrodden, and the world no longer seems to be the oyster which we envisaged in the 1960s. It now appears to be a shark—often a loan shark.
  In moving the motion, I shall quote several figures which I think are of relevance. [Interruption.] I note that there is an element of disrespect from the Government Whips and others on the Treasury Bench, but these are serious figures which should be taken into account.
  Figures drawn up by Shelter, for example, show that one in four of Scotland's unemployed is between the ages of 16 and 25. Training allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds have not been uprated since 1989. In September 1992, a careers service survey showed that only one training place for every 26 young people was available if they were registered with that service, although I am sure that the Minister will argue about the importance that is attached to training schemes.
  I shall quote from the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said:
  "The YT guarantee is not being delivered in full and, without such a guarantee, the absence of a right to continuing entitlement to Income Support can leave vulnerable young people with no visible legal means of support… If the general exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from Income Support were removed, those in genuine need would be able to access Income Support quickly in the normal way."
  The reality is, of course, that those young people cannot access income support in the normal way. Forty-five per cent. of young people staying in emergency accommodation had previously slept rough. [Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would listen to the statistics. He is busy
  514
  talking to somebody else, but I wish he would listen because the statistics are important and merit the attention of the House and of hon. Members who are present.
  My colleagues from Plaid Cymru have spoken on the issue of homelessness. That is a very serious issue, because if people have neither a job nor a home, what kind of hope is there for them? Last year, 14,000 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland were out of employment, and it was estimated that 75 per cent. of them had no income whatsoever.
  Throughout Britain, 122,500 16 and 17-year-olds were defined as jobless and, of those, 90,400 had no source of income. The reality is that 75 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds who are out of work have no source of income. They have no opportunity in society to find themselves a home or a job, and they have no income whatsoever. I suggest that the Government are driving them into despair.
  In 1988, the Government removed the benefit from young people. No doubt the Minister's response—which has been presumably written for him in a departmental brief—will emphasise that income support is available in exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. George Kynoch: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Ewing: I notice the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside's comment. No doubt he is, as always, looking for promotion within the Government. May I remind him of those exceptional circumstances?
  A 16 or 17-year-old might have access to income support if he is a parent, in physical or moral danger or if he is handicapped. That covers a small percentage of the number of people we are talking about and, of course, the bureaucracy ensures that many of the people who might be eligible in those circumstances do not apply. We will never know how many people do not apply for income support in exceptional circumstances; nor will we know the numbers who have been rejected.
  No doubt the Minister will talk about the severe hardship allowance as a safety net established by the Government. Originally that was introduced as a stop-gap measure for young people, but it has now become a mainstay provision. In the first 12 months of the existence of the severe hardship allowance, 10,669 successful applications were recorded.
  Let me remind the House of the mechanisms that young people have to go through to be succesful. A young person who wants to make a claim for income support under the severe hardship provision must register at the careers office and take his proof of registration to the unemployment benefit office. The unemployment benefit office will then issue the young person with a form to take to the local Benefits Agency office, where he will be interviewed. There are three offices through which any young person seeking that mechanism of support must pass.
  In the four years since then, the numbers have increased sevenfold. That is an indication of the crisis that exists. I also link that with the issue of homelessness, because that is a major aspect of the problems that young people face.
  The Scottish Council for Homelessness says clearly that one of the greatest problems that young people face is homelessness. It argues that we need to restore the claim to income support to 16 and 17-year-olds and ensure a single rate of income support for all those who are living independently, regardless of age.

  515
  Much has been made of the cardboard cities and the homeless in London, but it happens in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Stirling and any town within Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. What kind of life are we holding out to those young people? The attitude struck by the Government comes close to being criminal.
  It will be interesting to learn what other hon. Members say in the debate, and there is a moral issue at stake for all of us as legislators. I started by saying that when you and I were 16 or 17, Madam Deputy Speaker, the world seemed to be full of opportunities. For many people now, the world is not full of opportunities. Young people throughout the United Kingdom are left in desperation, despair and hopelessness.
  We have costed in our budget what it would cost to restore benefits to young people in Scotland, and we reckon it would cost £23 million. I believe that that would be £23 million well spent. It would enable young people to have dignity and the decency of an independent life.
  I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who sit on the Opposition Benches: what exactly is the Labour party saying to 16 and 17-year-olds? Much play was made during the European elections of the Prime Minister's attack on beggars, people sleeping rough and people who have not had any other opportunity in life.
  Yet when the Labour party was asked about what it would do, there were four different replies in one day. The acting leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), confused the issue when she said that there must be "good quality training" and "some assistance", but she refused to say what form that would take. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) intervened, saying on Radio 4's "World At One" programme:
  "If more money is required that will have to be considered… The major point is that we are not going to be passive and simply criticise the results of present policy."
  But no indication was given of what position the hon. Gentleman would adopt as shadow Secretary for Social Security on that issue.
  Labour's Treasury Spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that the Labour party would announce detailed plans "nearer the time" of a Labour Government. That, perhaps, was very optimistic from her point of view, because whether there will be a Labour Government is for the people to decide.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said:
  'The benefits to the young, in particular, equalled the benefits in most of Europe."
  Yet the reality is that 16 and 17-year-olds in the U.K. do not have equality with their counterparts in Europe. Not only the Government but the official Opposition face the challenge of reviewing their policies towards 16 and 17-year-olds. The Opposition must come clean tonight on their policy. My party has made it clear that it will reinstate the benefit; we have costed it and it is within our budget. It is an important aspect of our policy.
  There is an element within the House that does not understand the strength of feeling and passion within our communities about young people. Many hon. Members, particularly from Scottish constituencies, spent the past few weeks campaigning in the Monklands, East
  516
  by-election. People regularly said on their doorsteps that they were deeply concerned about what was happening to youngsters in our society. From time to time, we talk about the problems of drugs, crime and deprivation, yet it is in our hands to ensure that money is made available to young people to ensure that they do not fall into those traps.
  We must make clear our commitments, because principled guidance exists in our politics. I find it strange when I pick up The Herald and find that it carries the headline
  "Blair accuses Tories of stealing Labour policies"
  The newspaper reported:
  "Tony Blair yesterday accused the Conservatives of getting ready to steal some of his party's clothes on employment and social policies."
  On the same page, under the headline
  "Lang cautions against 'one more right turn'"
  the newspaper reported:
  "In fending off the challenges of a revitalised Labour party, which he accused of stealing Conservative policies in their quest for office, the Conservative party had to deal with voters wanting change."
  It seems weird to me that one party, the official Opposition, is accusing the Government of stealing their policies while the Government are accusing the other party of stealing their policies. Do we intend to address the issues that confront our society or are we just going to sit back and let 16 and 17-year-olds become the victims of unionist policies? I am not going to take any lectures from members of the Labour party in particular, but from any member of any unionist party about Santa Claus policies. The sum of £23 million is a small in comparison with the problems involved.
  My party is totally committed, if the other parties are not, to the idea of social justice in our society. We will ensure that that is offered to young people as well. That policy will not be assimilated by the rather exclusive nonsense of the London parties, which seek power for themselves rather than power for the people.
  My party believes that the packaging of the Labour party and of the Government are exactly the same—they just try to label it differently. I want to hear clearly from both of those parties tonight exactly what they will do for 16 and 17-year-olds.
  7.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises that vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds and those facing severe hardship continue to have access to benefits; believes that it is in the long term interests of 16 and 17 year olds that they do not go straight from school on to benefits, but into training, employment or further or higher education; and fully endorses the Government's training guarantee and the continued expansion of vocational, further and higher education.'.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the Government's amendment.
  For the past 15 minutes, I have felt like an innocent bystander at the clash of the tartan armies, because the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) were intended for consumption in an internal argument north of the border rather than to address the issues that should concern the House tonight.
  The hon. Lady was a little ratty with me earlier when I was having a discussion with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security

  517
  about a matter she had raised. I suspect that that was due to her chronic insecurity at being alone, at that time, on her Bench. No matter that the issue we are discussing is of great importance; alas, the sense of that importance was not shared at that time by her colleagues. I am delighted to see that the leader of the Scottish nationalists, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has arrived and I should be delighted to give way to him.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I was absent because I was on St. Stephen's green giving an interview on the future of Rosyth. Given that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting next to the Minister, perhaps he could use this opportunity to enlighten us rather more than the Prime Minister was prepared to do when my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked him a question about it this afternoon. Is Rosyth naval base to close, which will mean that more job opportunities will be lost for young people and others in Scotland?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the motion is narrowly drawn.
  Mr. Burt: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is: good try. I am sure that that does not relieve the sense of insecurity that his hon. Friend felt at the beginning of her speech.
  I was also delighted to listen to the hon. Lady's remarks about who is stealing whose clothes—whether the Labour party is stealing the Tories' clothes or the Tories are stealing Labour's clothes. All that is obvious is that no one is stealing the hon. Lady's clothes or those of her party, so it would appear that the paucity of her remarks tonight is reflected in her party's other policies. That is why no one wishes to steal them.
  I should like to address the real issues, which are genuine and important. That is why I am surrounded by a number of my colleagues who share my interest in this subject.
  Mrs. Ewing: Two thirds of my party are present.
  Mr. Burt: Two thirds of nothing is nothing.
  I accept that the motion tabled by the hon. Lady may be based on the best of intentions, but it is just one more example of how the Opposition parties fail to see how policy towards young people must be rather more than just a knee-jerk back to benefits.
  Our policy is the only real one on offer. It is about education and training for young people, and developing a positive approach to life in a highly competitive world market economy. It is about helping young people fulfil their potential so they can live independent and productive lives. It is about the United Kingdom as a whole; Scots as much as anyone else.
  If young people aged 16 and 17 are not yet in work, we offer them real options: Scottish highers and A-levels—as good as anything comparable anywhere in the world; general and national vocational qualifications, building up our vocational skills base; and youth training, also usually leading to NVQ level 2, which delivers a wide variety of courses to a wide range of abilities. All those options carry with them financial support in one way or another, either from the parents of those at school, employers or the youth
  518
  training allowance. Those options are available to all young people; young women as well as young men and members of any minority group.
  Given all this, I have to ask what is the point of reintroducing income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. All those not in employment, such as young mothers, are entitled to claim income support as of right already. So who would gain and what would be the effect if this apparently generous motion were actually put into effect? I suspect that, in terms of welfare, which presumably is the intended justification, the answer is "not much".
  Mrs. Ewing: Would the Minister like to give us the latest training figures on the basis of how many people who apply for YT opportunities are offered places?
  Mr. Burt: According to the figures for Scotland, there are more vacancies for YT places than there are people ready to take them up. At the end of the last monthly count, some 4,000 places were still vacant according to local enterprise companies. I do not believe that there is any doubt about the improved efforts of the Government and those who assist them to fulfil the YT guarantee.
  If benefit were restored, a majority of those in education and training would continue as they do now, and be supported as they are now. Those waiting for a place on a YT scheme could claim for a short time while they waited, but those in severe hardship can claim now, as they could in the future. As a result of the motion, extra money would be given to some young people, many of whom will be from relatively well-off backgrounds living at home with their parents. From a welfare point of view, the measure would be ineffective.
  What is worse, it would encourage those with less commitment to think they can give up their school, their course, their employer training and live on benefit. A wholly negative and inappropriate effect. During the mid-1980s, when the economy was moving ahead rapidly and unemployment falling—a look back, perhaps, to the halcyon time in her youth about which the hon. Member for Moray talked—claims from school leavers remained at a high level. That is an indication of the effect that easy benefit access can have. Perhaps even more significant, 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school would be able to go straight on to benefits with no incentive to do more. That gives exactly the wrong message and represents a sharp step away from the attitudes we should be trying to foster in this House.
  Anything that undermines our skills effort in this way is a serious matter. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund have said that the United Kingdom is set to have the fastest growth of any major economy this year and next. This growth will be reflected in Scotland. Unemployment has been falling and employment rising—26 per cent. of employers expect to increase the number of jobs on offer this summer, the most optimistic figure for four years.
  Especially important in the context of this debate is the forecast by the independent Institute for Employment Research that the number of jobs at technician level and above is expected to rise by 1.6 million during the 1990s. If we can educate and train our young people, the jobs will be there; and we will ensure that that education and training are available.

  519
  Our overall approach to unemployment and economic regeneration was recently highlighted by the OECD as the best way forward. The active policies that we are pursuing to help the unemployed were singled out in particular. We will not give up now on what is one part of a successful and coherent set of policies.
  The future demands better educated young people, and young people are recognising that it is in their interests to get those qualifications. In 1992–93, 70 per cent. of 16-year-olds stayed on in full-time education—a 70 per cent. increase over 1979.
  General national vocational qualifications have made an exciting start and are proving very popular. Action is in hand to ensure that they are rigorous and of high quality. They develop skills, knowledge and understanding in a broadly vocational context. We expect successful GNVQ students to go on to higher education and good jobs. NVQs—covering 80 per cent. of the work force—have now been accredited and will increasingly offer a firm basis for most job-specific training.
  We have substantially improved the educational information and advice available, which allows young people to make informed choices about the school or college and type of course that best meet their needs. The local education authority, via the careers service, provides statutory vocational guidance and planning services for young people. Again, the publication of performance tables for schools and colleges has been an important step and now includes vocational qualifications.
  Those steps should help us achieve a further aim—increasing the number of young people who continue to develop their knowledge and skills after their 16th birthday. The number has risen rapidly over the past few years—more than 20 per cent. since 1979, so that 87 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in some form of education and training. The target is 91 per cent. by 1995–96, and funding to the further education sector allows for a 25 per cent. growth in the numbers of their students from 1993–96. What a contrast to offer such a positive future, rather than turning back and offering our young people a future of benefits.
  Training is the other arm of our success story. The quality of training is improving rapidly. The Government are committed to ensuring that young people not in work or at school will have a greater range of choice through youth credits, and the opportunity to become better equipped with high-quality skills and qualifications. That will be achieved through the introduction of modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships, which will provide high-quality, work-based training to NVQ level 3 for 16 to 17-year-olds. To enhance further the range of options available for young people, accelerated modern apprenticeships will also be available for 18 to 19-year-olds. The modern apprenticeship initiative should result in some 70,000 young people achieving NVQ level 3 or higher each year.
  Youth training NVQs are a valuable step towards higher standards and there is evidence that young people are taking increasing advantage of the opportunities that we provide. The much higher standards now required by employers are resulting in many more higher level
  520
  qualifications. For example, the proportion of all leavers gaining an NVQ qualification rose from 38 per cent. for leavers in 1990–91 to 67 per cent. in 1993–94.
  In Scotland, our training policies have been centred on the creation of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with their unique remit to bring together training and economic development, and have produced good results for young people in recent years. In the Scottish Enterprise area, total vocational qualifications gained by trainees in youth training have risen by 50 per cent. from 7,015 in 1991–92 to 10,443 in 1993–94; there has been a 24 per cent. increase in achievement in youth training of vocational qualifications at levels 2 and 3, from 6,621 in 1991–92 to 8,211 in 1993–94; and the proportion of young people with employed status in youth training has risen over the same period from 25 to 41 per cent.
  Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for giving us those statistics, but is he familiar with the statistic from Shelter, which estimates that last year, 5,000 young people slept rough in Scotland at some time? Will he explain why, in this land of opportunity that he is outlining to us, 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough last year?
  Mr. Burt: We shall come to benefits and the safety and security of young people a little later. In contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Moray, I was offering a picture of how measures taken by the Government to improve education and training opportunities for young people were being accepted and taken forward. That is a much more positive picture than the hon. Lady was painting.
  Mr. Salmond: Answer my question.
  Mr. Burt: I shall come to the subject of benefits later. As the hon. Gentleman was late arriving, he can wait for me to come to his question a bit later.
  Even better results have been achieved in the Grampian Enterprise area, where youth credits pilots have been running for three years. Here, training starts have almost doubled and the vast majority of trainees have employed status and are working towards a vocational qualification. Indeed, attainment levels among young people in Scotland generally are such that the Advisory Scottish Council for Education and Training Targets has launched challenging new Scottish targets for competitiveness to replace the 1991 national education and training targets.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken over responsibility for training policy in Scotland with effect from 1 April. He will work within our overall Great British strategy, published in December last as "Prosperity through Skills", but now has the opportunity to adjust and develop aspects of policy to reflect Scotland's distinctive institutional arrangements and levels of attainment.
  My right hon. Friend is now reflecting on such adjustments and on the content of a package of training measures comparable in resource terms to that announced for England and Wales in the competitiveness White Paper. It is too soon to say what the package will include, but a number of areas are being looked at, including apprenticeship training and the guidance needs of young people.
  The Government are also committed to making the YT guarantee work. The hon. Lady mentioned that matter. We are spending more on youth training this year than last; and

  521
  in 1993–94, we spent £849 million, which is an advance on the previous year. In the future, we shall spend more per trainee. Broadly the same budget that covered 210,000 first-time entrants to the programme in 1990–91 will cover about 160,000 first-time entrants—more than 25 per cent. Fewer—in 1993–94. So, in spite of falling numbers in that age group, we are not only maintaining our investment in their future but increasing it.
  We also recognise the practical importance of linking the training with employers. Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils in Scotland have conducted marketing campaigns to generate more employer-based training places; funded new workshop and initial training provision; and offered subsidies to offset employer costs of training places. And for trainees with special training needs, additional funds have been provided.
  However, there will always be some people unable to take advantage of these opportunities, either in the long term or short term, and who need the help of the benefits system.
  In 1988, we substituted the youth training allowance for supplementary benefit for unemployed young people. That was a sign of our commitment to invest in the future of young people and help them make the most of their potential, which is a stark contrast with the proposals apparently put forward by the Opposition's Commission on Social Justice. Their proposal seems to be that we should pay more money for less work with no end product in terms of training or qualification.
  One of the most important policy aims of our programme was to ensure that those young people who could not take advantage of youth training, either through having to look after their child or because they were disabled or vulnerable for some other reason, were protected. We took great care to ensure that those vulnerable groups retained entitlement to income support at any time.
  Since then, we have extended the length of time that child benefit could be payable by up to 16 weeks after the young person had left school. That enabled parents to continue to receive not only child benefit but other benefits such as dependant's allowances and family premium while their children looked for work or YT places or, indeed, waited to go back to school or on to college at the end of the summer.
  In addition, where young people cannot stay at home to grow up in a stable and caring environment, we have given automatic entitlement to income support while they are in secondary education. Most important, we completed the safety net for vulnerable youngsters by introducing the severe hardship provision. That enables support to be given at any time to those in particularly difficult circumstances. To guarantee maximum flexibility, we made decisions under that provision discretionary. Each case is judged on its merits and, where there is a risk of severe hardship, benefit will be paid, normally until a job or training place is found.
  Help can be given under that provision to young people irrespective of whether they are homeless, living independently or living with parents who are having difficulty supporting them, so help is targeted to where the need exists. Our monitoring shows that help is reaching those who need it.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept that those discretionary payments must be backdated because of the nature of the award, so a young person in critical, emergency circumstances must apply for a social fund loan? Would not it be better if those youngsters received automatic payments without the backdating that leaves them in that vulnerable position for a period of time?
  Mr. Burt: Having visited the Glasgow unit that deals with that when I was first appointed, I am immensely impressed with the speed with which severe hardship provisions are dealt with. It is probably the benefit with the fastest turn-around, and I suspect that in very few cases are people who need a severe hardship payment turned away or given a length of time to wait.
  More important, as the hon. Lady knows, quoting the statistics, we are making more severe hardship awards than we did. We paid 118,000 young people under the provision in 1993–94, and we are currently dealing with about 11,000 claims a month, with a success rate of nearly 90 per cent.
  I know something about that, too, because, when I was first appointed, I received representations from lobby groups representing young people throughout the country, and one of the things that worried them was the availability of severe hardship awards. Not only did it appear to be a difficult route to follow, but there was insufficient information about who was, and who was not, entitled to receive benefit. There was a widespread belief that one could not obtain that benefit when one was living at home.
  I worked very hard, personally, with the lobby groups to explain that that was not necessary. We developed a new leaflet to publicise to young people's advisers that benefit would be payable even if the young people were living at home, if their parents were on benefit and they could not manage.
  We took steps to ensure that that information would be made available in the places where youngsters go. We took steps in the Benefits Agency offices to ensure that one person in each office would be responsible for 16 and 17-year-olds, and that that person would develop expertise and skill in dealing with them and dealing smoothly and rapidly with the complaint. We ensured that the benefit was more widely available. The same criteria had to be met as previously to ensure that someone was eligible, but efforts were made to ensure that those people who were in need had the best opportunity of obtaining it.
  I regard the increased figures as a reflection of the efforts that we took to make the benefit more widely available. I think that we did the right thing.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am interested in what the Minister says, and I think that there is some truth in it. Things have changed—there is no doubt about that, for reasons that I may refer to later. However, does he recognise what an indictment it is of the original quality of the arrangements, and of the continuing claim that there is a guarantee to every youth, that there should be 11,000 claims a month for severe hardship, 90 per cent. of which succeed? How does that square with the idea that every one of those youngsters was guaranteed a training place in the first place?
  Mr. Burt: They are guaranteed a training place and, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, the ability of the YT guarantee system to produce places has improved

  523
  markedly in the past year. On the most recent figures, I think that we are down now to about 1,800 or 1,900 people who are left waiting for more than eight weeks—that is all.
  A variety of different situations can give rise to a youngster feeling that he or she needs to make that claim. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Wilson: Neither can you.
  Mr. Burt: No. What we say is—[Interruption.]—No. I do not believe that is true. The guarantee does work. We have an enormous of number of people in youth training places now. As I said, the figures for Scotland show that there are youth training place vacancies.
  For a number of reasons, people might fall vulnerable and need severe hardship allowance. We make it available and have it as a safety net, but if no one was receiving it, I dare say that, as my colleagues appreciate, Opposition Members would argue that the benefit is so difficult to obtain that no one can claim it. Because we have taken genuine steps—I was grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—to try to make it more available to people in need, the hon. Gentleman criticised us because people actually take it up. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways.
  We continue to monitor the arrangements closely and we have every intention of making further improvements where necessary, although we need to see how the job seeker's allowance will operate before making any further moves.
  In conclusion, the Government have no plans to restore a blanket of income support to 16 and 17-year-olds.
  Mr. Salmond: I have been listening carefully to the Minister, and I still have not received an answer to my very simple question. Why, in spite of the picture of a world of opportunity that the Minister has been painting, with all those improved schemes, does Shelter estimate that 5,000 Scottish youngsters slept rough at some time last year? It is a simple question. The hon. Gentleman is reaching the end of his speech. May I have an answer?
  Mr. Burt: As I said earlier—when perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not quite concentrating—there is a variety of reasons why people might find themselves in need of severe hardship provisions. I am convinced that there is absolutely no reason why any single youngster should be on the streets of Scotland tonight. Assistance is available from the Government for benefit and for need. The numbers of people who might sleep rough on the street in any one night are hundreds rather than thousands. It is a matter of regret to all of us, but the hon. Gentleman knows of the variety of circumstances that lead people to be there, from the various surveys that are done.
  The Government have played their part, by making resources available and pursuing initiatives to try to help find homes for single people. Statutory responsibility rests with housing authorities. They should review their policies and priorities to ensure that they deal effectively with the problems that confront homeless and roofless people.
  However, being responsible for severe hardship allowance, knowing the way in which it has been applied in the past couple of years and knowing the efforts being made by hard-working and well-meaning staff to ensure
  524
  that it is available for those who need it, I do not believe that anyone who is genuinely in need would be refused that benefit. The success rate of 90 per cent. shows that.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall quote figures later that bear out what he said and show what an enormous change there has been in the way that severe hardship applications are treated, but the Minister should reciprocally recognise what a brutal policy that was in the first place, and what astonishing cruelty was visited on tens of thousands of young people before those changes took place. Those young people could not apply for severe hardship payments, and, as a result, they were cast thoughtlessly on to the streets.
  Mr. Burt: No. Once again, with the great gift that seems to affect people who sit on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Gentleman is able completely to misinterpret what I said.
  The benefit has always been available and could always have been applied for. My feeling, as perhaps one of the least brutal Ministers that the hon. Gentleman might come across—it is not my style—was that I saw a benefit that was available, about which the original intention of Government was entirely correct, but which, for some reason, was not working through to the people who needed it. That is part of the job.
  Opposition Members constantly ask the Government about eligibility for benefits and the need to ensure that those people who are eligible can claim. Those Members speak about claimants' campaigns and everything else. I saw a position in which the benefit was there, in which people were in need and lobby groups would come to me and say, "I think this should be available, but I can't seem to get it and no one knows about it," and so on. I said, "It is there, and it can be done." Other people simply did not know that the benefit was available because they had not gone and obtained the information, and the information was not disseminated. So we worked to do that.
  For me, that completed the circle. One has a Government who are offering, in a growing, expanding economy, jobs, training, further and higher education, which are being accepted by more youngsters than ever before. One has a positive picture for youngsters and, in addition, one has two safety nets—a safety net in statute for the vulnerable and a safety net through severe hardship benefit for others who have slipped through for any other reason. I think that that is the complete picture.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the benefit was available freely to all, I had a large number of complaints from parents in my constituency whose daughters were staying on at school after 16, saying that they were shacked up in Morecambe with their boyfriends at the expense of the Department of Social Security? That was the type of thing that the Minister rightly has prevented from happening.
  Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right and, indeed, as I mentioned earlier, there was a culture that, no matter what one's family background, if one was in a position to claim benefit, one did, whether one needed it or not. At the same time as politicians were walking the streets, urging people to ensure that their taxes were well spent, they were covering a position in which there was widespread misuse and no one wanted to do anything about it.

  525
  We ended that, I think, and I think that removing automatic entitlement to benefit for all 16 and 17-year-olds and replacing it with a system whereby we encouraged them to do their best, encouraged them to take advantage of the opportunities that we then increasingly made available, to improve their opportunities for jobs and skills in the future, was the best way forward. I still believe that, and I also still believe that we have protected the most vulnerable people and ensured that they do not slip through the net.
  We have no plans to restore a blanket of income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. To do so would be to concentrate on the wrong area and would be poor targeting of resources. It is far better to invest in high-quality training than to provide benefit for people who are not looking for work or training, thus encouraging unnecessary reliance on the benefit system.
  Instead, we are concentrating our efforts on more positive and productive policies, such as improving the education system to cater for young people's needs and abilities, and encouraging young people to make the most of their potential through education or training. We are providing good-quality training places to equip young people with the skills that they need to enter work and build successful careers. Those are the best ways for young people to begin to lead independent and productive lives.
  The hon. Member for Moray spoke of young people being independent through having automatic entitlement to benefits. What sort of independence is it when one is dependent on other people? It is far better that we encourage young people to be truly independent and to have the skills that they need for the future. It is better for us to provide that so that they can participate in a growing and positive future.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I always enjoy listening to the Minister. We play in the parliamentary football team together—I think that he plays inside left. However, what worries me is that the longer the Minister works in the Department of Social Security, the more like his boss he becomes. That is an alarming prospect, particularly for the Minister.
  The intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) suggested that such mischievous prejudice promotes and fires Tory youth policy, which is shocking. It is a slur on young people to pretend that one can build a policy around so many prejudices when young people are looking not for a dependency culture, which the Government wean them on, but real opportunities. Those opportunities were not mentioned in the Minister's contribution today.
  The subject is important because young Scots face a crisis, and their predicament is mirrored throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. An important process is at work. The youngsters of 16, 17 and 18 are making the transition from school to work—they are being integrated into society. The transition from childhood to adulthood should also be a transition from dependency on parents and others to independence. Such an important process shapes the formative years of virtually every youngster in Britain, but the Government have shocking policies to deal with it. It is vital that the Government take seriously all facets of the process.
  526
  The main question in today's debate is why young people in Britain are being sold short by a Conservative Government. No society, no Government and no political party can take the matter lightly. What happens in those critical two years can influence the nature and lives of young people. Equally important, it can influence the nature and lives of the wider community, so we must take the subject seriously. The Minister's comments smacked more of a smokescreen than of concern for the deep-seated problems in Britain.
  The subject of benefits and financial support for young people is important. There is a crucial distinction between the old-fashioned policies of the nationalists and the prejudiced policies of the Tories. The Labour party wants opportunities for young people. We want to move the culture further on—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is, as usual, mouthing from the Back Benches, and saying that the Tories are for freedom, choice and independence. If that is true, why has the number of people on income support in Scotland, as compared with the number of people who were on the old supplementary benefit, increased by 88 per cent? Some 1 million Scots are living on the breadline because of the Tory Government. Does that suggest independence or greater dependency?
  Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman was talking about different sorts of policies. What is the policy of the Labour party? As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, there is no Labour party policy.
  Mr. McLeish: We shall never be disappointed with the Conservatives. We have the old alliance—
  Mr. Burt: Answer.
  Mr. McLeish: I shall answer. We have the old alliance between the Conservatives and the nationalists. The party of nationalism thrives on the back of Conservatives, who fear that the nationalists might desert them in difficult times.
  I shall now explain Labour party policy. The position is clear: the Conservative party is the party of dependency. No matter what Conservatives claim, every fact suggests the opposite of what they say. I shall give the figures later to outline that point. I shall make Labour's position clear—I see that everyone is now sitting up. A Labour Government will ensure that there will be no young Scots, or anyone else in Britain, without a place in mainstream education, a place in further or higher education, a place in work with training, a training place or a form of income.
  We must move the debate away from the old, tired view of dependency to talk about giving young people opportunities.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: I am being assaulted from all sides. I shall give way in a minute.
  Unlike the present Government, we shall give young people the benefit of training opportunities. The best policy is to take young people seriously, not constantly to steep the argument in dependency.
  Mrs. Ewing: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly in the light of the alliances that he and his party have had with the

  527
  Conservative party over many years, including those in Tayside and in other regions of Scotland. They show where the Labour party stands. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party is committed to ensuring that benefits will be available to 16 and 17-year-olds at an uprated level? Is he prepared to give that financial commitment tonight on behalf of his party ?
  Mr. McLeish: I will not take lectures from a party of protest when Labour is preparing to be a party of power. Will the financial commitment of the Scottish National party to Scotland's young people come after the funding of a separate Scottish army, separate Scottish navy and separate Scottish air force? It is vital not to get sidetracked by such issues.
  A Labour Government will ensure that no young Scot is without a job, a training place, a place in education—higher, further or mainstream—or a form of income. That is crystal clear to me.
  Mr. Burt: For those of us who are dimmer and have not quite got hold of what the hon. Gentleman said, may I ask him to repeat it and make it clear? Is he saying that there will be an automatic entitlement to income support for all 16 and 17-year-olds under a Labour Government—yes or no?
  Mr. McLeish: I am surprised that the Minister should criticise himself as being dim, and I do not accept that he is. I shall clarify my remarks still further. I anticipated that the issue would rouse the sleeping partners on the Government Benches. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said:
  "Labour's priority is to make sure all young people get work, or good quality training. But if they cannot there must be some assistance—we are looking at these issues through the Social Justice Commission at the moment."
  That is the important issue that develops the debate.
  Mr. Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my intellectual capabilities. Will he comment on a quote from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)? She said:
  "If you're asking us what our plans will be on day one of a Labour Government, obviously we'll have to make the detailed plans nearer the time".
  Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that view of Labour party policy—which we think is closer to the truth—has been overridden by what he has said? The hon. Gentleman has still not said whether automatic entitlement to income support for 16 and 17-year-olds is to be restored. Will he answer yes or no?
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister clarifies the point himself, by talking about drawing up detailed plans at a more appropriate time—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Retreat!
  Mr. McLeish: There is no need for retreat, and I suspect that the Minister is now clear on the point that I have been trying to make, so we can move on to more important matters.
  It is vital not to let the debate get bogged down in the Tory agenda. The dependency culture has always been alive and well under this Government, yet they seem to want to keep on talking about it—because as soon as they
  528
  move to training or education they are on shaky ground. What is actually happening in Scotland certainly does not square with the Minister's speech this evening.
  The self-worth of our young people is crucial both to society and to their sense of well-being. They want to work, as the Minister would agree. What is more, they want to be trained and educated. They want to be successful, to build up careers and to start families.
  The problem with keeping the debate at a superficial level is that we may overlook the fact that young people are facing severe difficulties at a time of massive social, economic and employment adjustment. The labour market is changing. The Minister may say that a recovery is in progress, but looking around Scotland it is difficult to see where the jobs are being created. The Government's own quarterly employment figures show very little growth in employment. Young people now have fewer opportunities in the labour market, and it is changing qualitatively too. It is very difficult for them to break into it and—despite the rhetoric about skills—mass deskilling in much of our manufacturing base is also going on.
  The Government do not talk about apprenticeships these days. Although they have introduced a new concept using that name, they do not collect the figures any more. We know that there has been a massive reduction in the number of quality training places in manufacturing. Apprenticeships in my constituency were often the avenue of progress for many young Scots.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) highlighted the problems of homelessness in Scotland, but the Government will not acknowledge that the nature and structure of families are changing. There are hon. Members on both sides who want to moralise about that, but the hard facts, meanwhile, have to be dealt with in public policy development. I refer to the linking of homelessness with family breakdown and other family difficulties. All this is part of the changing culture of Scotland and of Britain, and it reinforces my point about treating issues affecting 16 and 17-year-olds with sensitivity.
  There is mass unemployment in Scotland. Even on Government figures—manipulated and altered 30 times in 15 years—nearly 3 million people in Britain and 250,000 Scots are out of work. What kind of environment does that offer young people? When I was 16 or 17—or when the Minister was, come to that—we could choose from quite a large number of jobs. There was no housing problem either, and probably no difficulty with finding training. Now, mass unemployment has changed everything. I must tell the House with some passion that bright, dedicated youngsters in my constituency who want to work are painstakingly looking for work, but in Fife there were only 18 vacancies, at the last count, registered at the careers service. I appreciate that they were not the only vacancies available, but looking for work is a soul-destroying business nowadays.
  Mr. Kynoch: How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the unemployment rate among those under 25 in the United Kingdom in April 1994 was 5 percentage points better—that is to say, lower—than the average rate in the European Union? Is he aware that a recession has been going on around the world, and that the policies of this Government have generated greater employment and prospects for our young people?
  Mr. McLeish: In the world that I inhabit, in my constituency, those sort of comments do not square with the facts of life. We can talk about differences between European nations, but the figures are compiled differently —[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may hum and haw all he likes, but he clearly does not want to hear the answer. The Italian and Spanish figures show up significant differences for this age group, but the figures are compiled quite differently. What matters is that young people in my constituency want jobs and are little interested in what happens elsewhere. We should therefore dispense with bogus analogies that do not stand up to examination.
  Another point about unemployment is that youngsters are trading down their expectations, and that is bad for their sense of self-worth. Young people in my constituency who have qualifications are doing jobs that require none, and those who have been doing jobs that needed no qualifications are doing no work at all. That depresses them, and it should give us cause for concern.
  Another problem derives from people's attitudes to young people—a point emphasised by the intervention from the hon. Member for Lancaster. People have their prejudices and then build them into sweeping generalisations, which can then sometimes motivate public policy. I do not believe that young people in Britain have changed, but they are surrounded by great change, and we have a Government who have walked away from facing up to the consequences of that change.
  I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is here for the debate. Ministers often talk about youth unemployment. I have with me some figures from the Department of Employment computer which have not been published. They show that, at the last count, nearly 10,000 young Scots were classified as unemployed but not included in the official figures. Why not? The Government believe in an opportunity-led, laissez-faire, free-market Scotland, so perhaps they can explain the discrepancy in the figures.
  I have another question for the Minister. Unpublished figures from the Scottish Office show that, on 14 March 1994, 7,831 young Scots were eligible for youth training, 5,551 were covered by the guarantee, but 5,428 were without a start date. How does that fit in with the central proposition by the Secretary of State for Employment, who speaks eloquently about only 150 young people in England and Wales not having had their requirements met by the guarantee? If that number is right, why is the number 5,500 in Scotland?
  The hon. Member for Moray also discussed the severe hardship allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has already pointed out that the benefit is widely available and its take-up is being increased, but that many young Scots, not because they are in desperate hardship but just because they need the money to live on, are applying for it. If the Government view the benefit in that light, why cannot they take a more enlightened view of the whole question of financial underpinning for young people? Figures supplied by the Department—an excellent Department it is—suggest that between 500 and 600 young people each quarter are applying in my constituency for the allowance. Multiplied by a factor of 15, we arrive at a crude figure for the whole of Scotland of about 8,000 applications for the SHA.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is approaching a point at the heart of this debate with which I strongly agree. What he is saying is that, because of the pressure of events, this selective, discretionary benefit is becoming a universal benefit. That being so, why do we not agree to make it a universal benefit, end the pretence and stop people slipping through the safety net?
  Mr. McLeish: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) agrees with the central theme. A central problem for the Government has now been raised by the Opposition parties. The benefit is now available although it was applied brutally at the start. Young people were coming to me who simply could not get hardship allowance on any criteria because the Government were pushing their free market ideology and hoping that the benefit would not have to be paid. That has changed dramatically and I leave it to the Minister to think through the ultimate consequences.
  The other important point about the financial support of young people is that it is simply a mess. The Government tinker with child benefit and extend it; they have a bridging allowance which moves like a ship at sea; there is severe hardship allowance and then there is youth training allowance. Does the Minister think that the incoherent application of public money in such a way is the best and most productive method of helping young people and society? I suggest that it is not.
  To finish my catalogue of concern about young people in Scotland, why do the Government provide no minimum wage protection for young people in the workplace? They decided to get the wages councils off the backs of young people and let the market flourish—in their eyes—knowing full well that for young people it meant simply a cut in wages and further exploitation in the workplace.
  Why do we have the poorest employment conditions for young people in Europe where rights are undermined and access to tribunals is simply non-existent? It is obvious that there are major problems for young people in Britain. Their greatest worry is the central problem of lack of economic independence and from that flow all the consequences in terms of poverty, homelessness and, in some inner cities, crime-related difficulties.
  Mr. Burt: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I am following his argument closely. I cannot see, however, that if he tries to return to a system of universal access to benefit, he is helping with the problem of dependency. If the opportunity exists and is provided universally, the determination to be on training schemes and the like may not be there. I do not see how making the benefit universally available would get over the problem of dependency. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be some form of selection, to what extent is he offering something different from what the Government are offering?
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister may have been following the arguments, but that is not the issue at stake. The Government sought to strike up a partnership with young people after the abolition of universal entitlement in 1988. They have not honoured their commitment to young people. On 14 March, 5,500 young Scots had been guaranteed training, but the Government have reneged on that guarantee. That issue has to be taken seriously. It is not

  531
  about universality or the dependency culture; it is about the Government who have simply sold young people short and reneged on their commitments.
  We are concerned about reneging on commitments because we need training and access to employment opportunities in every facet of Scottish society. The Government cannot have it both ways and most young Scots are being denied, or having to go through obstacle courses to get, certain forms of minimum income. At the same time, they are being denied opportunities for training that they were promised in 1988 and beyond.
  The Government have smashed any partnership and destroyed young people's confidence in their ability to deliver. The debate is about moving the country on so that we do not patronise young people, but see them as a positive resource; it is all about encouraging opportunity and getting away from the sole issue of trying to make it as difficult as possible for young people to be financially independent. A YTS place paying £29.50 does not provide independence, but it produces self-worth by putting young people in a workplace environment; they are meeting other workers and are seen to be building and shaping their own future.
  The Government must appreciate that it should be the right of every youngster between 16 and 18 to be given a chance. They should not be bogged down with keeping young people without financial support, and as part of that, reneging on their guarantee. That is unforgivable and the Government stand condemned. If they want to practise as well as preach independence, choice and freedom for young people, it must be about positive opportunities rather than keeping them hooked on dependency culture.
  We need a complete rethink on youth policy in Britain. A number of facets of that crisis have been identified tonight—some of them have been raised by hon. Members —but we need an inquiry into the condition of young Scots and a fundamental review of youth training.
  We hear nonsense from the Minister about there being more places available than young people taking them up. In my constituency, there are a large number of YT places, but no one in his right mind would want to go anywhere near them. That experience is mirrored throughout the country. Volume has to be linked to quality and when the Minister makes statements about large numbers of vacancies, he should look at the quality of vacancies and ask himself the following question: if he were that age, would he be happy to go into an environment where health and safety protection is non-existent and exploitation is high on the agenda? That is the nature of some of the YT places.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it is totally out of proportion to suggest that health and safety protection are non-existent in any training place in any factory, given the interest that the health and safety inspectorate takes in every workplace in the country? Has not he gone over the top?
  Mr. McLeish: If the hon. Gentleman had listened properly, his comment about going over the top would not apply. I made the point in response to the Minister's claim that there was a massive number of vacancies. I could take the hon. Gentleman to so-called vacancies in Scotland; young people are right not to go near them. Careers
  532
  services are often coerced into putting such places into the statistics to satisfy the Government, but, given a free rein, they would not do so. There are places where young people are being exploited and lack of health and safety provision is one aspect of that. I did not say that it was the same in every workplace, but a large number of vacancies are in that category.
  I made the point that youth training needs a fundamental review. We have to change our attitude to young people. It must become more positive and less prejudiced and we should think in terms of opportunity rather than dependency. We also need to move to the concept of making young people as fully productive as possible. It is all about full employment in a modern context and allowing the self-worth of all youngsters to be generated in the way that they want—not in the way that Governments or employers determine—and to allow them to work in an environment of opportunity to give them the best possible start. We want positive young people with potential to be able to develop that to the fullest.
  We believe that the Government's current policies on benefit and training simply do not satisfy the wishes of young people and, of course, we want the Government to tidy up their act on statistics to give us more facts and less smokescreen.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. George Kynoch: I come to the debate on three different footings: first, as a former employer in Scotland; secondly, as a former director of a local enterprise company in Scotland—Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey local enterprise company; and, thirdly, as a parent of a daughter aged 20 and a son aged 17. One of my children has passed through the 16 to 17-year-old stage and the other has just left school and wants to go on to further education, so I am sympathetic to the problems that 16 and 17-year-olds have to face.
  I am also here as an hon. Member representing constituents, seeing just what is happening in my constituency and my part of Scotland. The unemployment rate in the Grampian area, for example, at about 5.4 per cent. at present, is the best in Scotland.
  This debate is not about costs but about the completely different attitude to employment and life in general of Conservative Members on the one hand and Opposition Members on the other. The Opposition parties have different complexions. At the Monklands, East by-election the Labour party fought hammer and tongs with the Scottish National party. I give my condolences to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for not quite making the winning post. However, I must also extend my condolences to the Labour party for its significantly reduced majority.
  Mr. Wilson: Do the hon. Gentleman's condolences to the nationalists extend to regret that the 799 Tory votes did not go to the Scottish National party, in which case the Labour majority would have been lower?
  Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I was not responsible for the way in which Conservative voters voted in Monklands, East. However, general elections can often be a completely different matter from by-elections. I am drifting slightly from the point, but I am

  533
  sure that the by-election concerned the employment prospects of young people and the way in which they are treated in Monklands, East.
  Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that many in Monklands, East simply were not Tory voters—probably gey few. Is not the Scottish National party now seen as the tartan socialists, the real socialists in Scotland, and was that not a factor in the election?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is sufficient on the Monklands by-election. Let us return to the motion.
  Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has a valid point. The Scottish National party is clearly the Scottish socialist party. The philosophy that it is putting forward today is one of total dependency. Young people who are leaving school are being offered the chance to go on to social security immediately. They have no incentive to make their own way.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) when he talks about the transition period for 16 and 17-year-olds between full-time education and going out into life as adults, having to pay their way and live in the outside world unprotected. It is important that there should be a gradual transition. They should not be given an easy route forward. They should not be given a benefit and do nothing in order to claim it. We need to provide the right environment in order to encourage Scots to better themselves and lead the industries of the world, as they have done in the past.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kynoch: I should like to carry on for a minute.
  Not every 16 and 17-year-old needs to go down the benefit route. Many go on to higher education. The Government have already achieved their goal to have 30 per cent. of young people in higher education by the end of the century. In the 1970s, under a Labour Government, the proportion of young people in higher education was a mere 17 per cent. We must be doing something right in encouraging people to do what is better for them.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is no longer in her place, but she talked about when she was at university with a full grant. She said how things had changed and how students were no longer able to exist on their meagre takings through the grant or the loan system. I was at university at approximately the same time and I can remember only too clearly that when they were at university all students picked up part-time work. The hon. Lady implied that that was no longer possible, but my daughter, who is now at Heriot-Watt university, and her colleagues all manage to find part-time jobs. They do so because they want to and because they want extra pocket money. They want to go out and do it themselves; they do not want it handed to them on a plate as Opposition Members seem to wish.
  Mr. Salmond: I am sure that Opposition Members will think, "Jolly good for George's daughter." The hon. Gentleman refers to young people in Scotland as "them". Will he consider the logic of his argument about the dependency culture? Why should his argument stop at withdrawing benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds? Would not the logic of his argument be to pick on the adults as
  534
  well as the young people? What defence does he put for the safety net of universal benefit provision for adults? Is not the logic of his argument to withdraw it from everyone?
  Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is trying to say that we should be encouraging people to get off benefits, with which I heartily agree. It is right that we should try to have an economic environment in which we can get conditions right so that we can get employment up and unemployment down so that benefits are not required. However, we must still have that safety net for those undergoing severe hardship. That is exactly what the Government have done. It is hypocritical for the Opposition parties to talk about the dependency culture as they have when they want a dependency culture.
  Mr. McLeish: This is an important point. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of what proportion of Scots between 16 and 18 do not want to work? What is soul-destroying about a debate such as this is the presumption that young people do not want to be trained; do not want to work; do not want to get up in the morning. My experience is the opposite. I believe that the overwhelming majority of young people have enterprise and initiative. The predicated argument is always that in some way we must do down young people by putting them through a rigorous, punitive, coercive benefits regime because otherwise they may become dependent on benefits and may not want to go into the outside world.
  Mr. Kynoch: I never said that. The hon. Gentleman talked about the difficult transition from the dependent, protected society of school life into the outside world. If young people are suddenly cast into the outside world without the gradual transition of guidance and encouragement to better themselves through training or further education, the tendency for some is, unfortunately, to fall into the trap of dependency on the state. That would not be serving our young people to the best advantage. It would not be fair on young people and it would not fulfil the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has tried to put forward tonight.
  I followed part of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the big problem with the Opposition parties is that one has clearly made a commitment and has said that in the unlikely event that it was in power in any shape or form it would have universal benefits—the nationalist party. I must be significantly dimmer than my hon. Friend the Minister because I am not clear whether the Labour party is advocating universal benefits. If it is, the hon. Member for Fife, Central would have his fingers smacked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) because there is the edict that the Labour party cannot pledge anything at present. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is doing a wonderful presentation job with no substance. Like the hon. Member for Fife, Central, he, too, would gloss over an issue such as this and we would hear nothing of substance.
  We are talking about more than just benefits. We are not talking about costs. We should not be looking at costs; we should be trying to provide an environment in which British industry becomes more competitive so that it can flourish and gain trade in opposition to other nations. Page 30 of the Government's recent competitiveness White Paper, "Helping Business to Win", states:
  "Hard working people with high skills and the knowledge and understanding to use them to the full are the lifeblood of a

  535
  modern, internationally competitive economy."
  I could not agree more. I come from the highly competitive textile industry in Scotland, which has passed through incredibly difficult times because of competition from low-wage countries in the far east, where products can be produced significantly cheaper. The Scottish industry had to produce something different. As time passes, British manufacturing industry must ensure that it produces quality products manufactured by skilled operatives, using the latest technology. It is imperative to provide the facilities that will allow youngsters to be trained in the proper skills and technology that industry requires.
  I repeat that it is a question not only of costs but of producing a premium product that can command a premium price. Scotland in particular has the skills. Locate in Scotland has been incredibly successful in attracting investment because of the skills available there. If those skills are to be nurtured to make employment potential even greater, we must create a training environment such as never before.
  Since the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies, training opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds have increased significantly with local interpretation.
  Mrs. Ewing: Evidence taken by the Employment Select Committee on 21 October 1992 showed that 7,946 young people in the youth training guarantee group in Scotland were without a training place. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is progress?
  Mr. Kynoch: Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait to hear my further remarks about training. I would refer to her constituency in particular, but, to be fair, her LEC bridges both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I shall refer to the benefits of the skill seekers operation pioneered by Grampian Enterprise.
  Some of the problems of the YTS scheme have been addressed by the skill seekers scheme. The Government have tried to introduce the right environment. They should not interfere and coerce industry to improve training, but cajole it into providing opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds.
  Local enterprise companies face the difficulty that much of business is reluctant to train. That is sad—but in recessionary times, short-sighted companies cut back and do not provide training places. It is important to place greater emphasis on youth training and I welcome Government expenditure in that direction. Expenditure on training throughout the United Kingdom in 1993–94 totalled £844 million and it will remain at approximately the same level in 1994–95—despite the fact that the number of 16 and 17-year-olds is falling and a higher proportion are remaining in further education.
  In Scotland, the youth training and skill seekers budget totalled £86.5 million in 1993–94 and is forecast to increase to £93.5 million in 1994–95. We are seeing greater Government commitment to better training.
  Grampian Enterprise pioneered skill seekers and training credits. In 1990, the Department of Employment offered the then Training Agency area offices the opportunity, in the run-up to the establishment of LECs, to pilot a system of training credits. Grampian Enterprise seized that opportunity, realising that there could be major
  536
  benefits compared to the youth training to which the hon. Member for Moray referred. Youth training relied heavily on non-employed placement and disestablished the normal relationship between the employer and young employee. In Grampian, that resulted in a drop-out rate higher than 40 per cent.
  Most young people leaving YT did so to enter a real job rather than the indoctrinated job that YT offered, so that they would have something of a future. They entered that job without substantial training, which was most unfortunate. With skill seekers, Grampian's primary objective was to re-establish the principle of real jobs with real training. Since 1991, the turnover of 16 and 17-year-olds in training has significantly improved.
  When Grampian ended the YT scheme, there were 1,900 people in training. Only 32 per cent. of them had employed status, and those working towards a vocational qualification accounted for 50 per cent. The number of leavers achieving a vocational qualification was pitifully low, at 8 per cent.
  Six hundred employers contracted to operate youth training schemes. The company that I operated took YTS youngsters and employed every one. We used it as a pilot skill seekers scheme. Having put those young people through training, we felt that we could then offer them jobs. Almost all of them accepted positions with the company.
  After three years of operating skill seekers in Grampian, almost 4,000 young people are in training compared with 1,900 on 1 April 1991—of which 95 per cent. are employed. Ninety-five per cent. are working towards a vocational qualification and 54 per cent. of leavers achieve a qualification. The number of employers contracted to the scheme is 2,200, compared with 600 before. There is much greater co-operation with local industry. [Interruption.] I hear sedentary suggestions that my comments may be having a negative effect on some people. I am sure that, if they are having any effect, they are probably making youngsters—wherever they may be listening—rush off to Grampian Enterprise to take advantage of its skill seekers scheme.
  I mentioned the number of trainees on that scheme who were aiming for recognised vocational qualifications. Many are seeking such qualifications at level 3—craft level —or above. The figures for YT are not currently available, but we know that more than twice as many trainees are now aiming for higher-level qualifications.
  I believe that Government intervention—if we are to call it that—in the youth labour market is helping employers to train young employees and direct them towards recognised vocational qualifications, thus enhancing the skills pool. The Government have provided an opportunity for all youngsters to go out and better themselves, preparing themselves more effectively for the outside world with better skills and better equipment to provide British industry with higher-quality, improved products and more efficiency—thus bringing about a better economy, a better Britain and a better Scotland.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for opening a debate on a subject in which I have been very interested for a long time. I am sorry that her speech had to include the ritualistic attack on the Labour party, but I

  537
  suppose that she can hardly refrain from that. Among other things, there was also the usual build-up in Scotland, using radio, television and other parts of the media to attack Labour. I find that sad: I should have thought that the obvious culprit responsible for the plight of 16 and 17-year-olds was the Tory party. It is rather pathetic that the hon. Lady aimed so much of her fire in the wrong direction.
  However, I have no interest in bandying words with the nationalists tonight, because I know that the guilty people are the Government. I also know that, if ever there was an issue that demonstrated the silliness of nationalism in the United Kingdom, it is this one. The tragedy is that many of the young people who are sleeping rough in England's towns and cities—indeed, within a few hundred yards of where we are now—are Scots, people from our constituencies. Those young people have enough going against them; making them foreigners in the cities whither they have been cast out is surely an additional folly.
  Mr. Salmond: That is a remarkable statement, coming from someone who was not going to make any attacks. I should have thought that it was an argument for a better economy in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman was correct about one thing, however: he has been interested in this issue for a number of years. In his Adjournment debate in 1988, he said:
  "The only urgent answer is to restore income support to youngsters who do not have jobs or YTS places".—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 144.]
  When did he stop believing that that was the only urgent answer?
  Mr. Wilson: I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman's party; I was attacking the concept of turning young Scottish people into foreigners in this city. That is not an attack on a political party. If the hon. Gentleman's party stands for that, it is his party's problem, but it does no favours to the young people whom we are discussing.
  Mrs. Ewing: Answer the question. Will you pay the benefits?
  Mr. Wilson: With respect to the hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman asked two questions. I shall answer the second in my own way and my own time.
  I did not use my Adjournment debate to attack any minority party; indeed, I was pleased to allow Mr. Jim Sillars, then Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Govan, a few minutes in which to speak. To his credit, he did not use that time to attack the Labour party; he attacked the Tories. Perhaps, as someone looking for votes in west central Scotland, he had a better idea of where the blame lay than the current members of the Scottish National party.
  I do not believe that the past should be swept away. I believe that we owe the young people who have suffered under the current legislation more than that. We cannot simply move on, saying that things have changed and citing the reforms to which the Minister referred. In 1988, largely as a result of the efforts of a then junior social security Minister—the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—what I described then as an evil piece of legislation was introduced. That legislation withdrew the right to benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds. The Government did that without thinking of the human consequences and the damage that would be done to young people.
  I believe that that legislation should be permanently hung around the Prime Minister's neck. He was the
  538
  Minister who was primarily responsible for it, and for the vast reservoir of human damage—indeed, the ending of life—that resulted from it. The Prime Minister did that on his way up the greasy pole; he should never be allowed to forget that he was responsible for that damage.
  Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman seems to be neglecting all the safety net provisions that my hon. Friend the Minister outlined earlier. He is speaking as though the safety net was done away with, but it was not.
  Mr. Wilson: I was about to deal with the safety net.
  In my Adjournment debate in 1988, the Minister who replied was the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who has moved on to kicking the crutches away from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. He went through the litany of justifications for the measure. He said:
  "I can think of nothing more debilitating for the mass of youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world than to have automatically to depend on state benefits."
  I can think of something more debilitating: to leave young people without a job, without a training place and without a penny of legal income. That is what the Government did. He went on to say:
  "the offer of a YTS place is guaranteed."
  That was a falsehood then and, to a lesser extent, it is a falsehood now.
  The Minister continued:
  "In the 12 weeks since the new provisions took effect, 1,688 applications under the severe hardship provision have been received. In 1,139 cases, a direction resulted and in 549 a direction was refused."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 147–48.]
  The Minister said tonight that 11,000 severe hardship applications are made each month, 90 per cent. of which are accepted. But in the crucial early months and years of the legislation, about 500 applications a month were lodged. Five hundred people got through the hoops to make the applications, a third of which were disallowed. That prevailed for some two or three years, a little while before the present Minister took up his job, and no doubt he has made some useful changes.
  That is where my description of the legislation as evil is justified. In those years, tens of thousands of young people were recklessly cast aside without a job, without a training place, without a pretence that the guarantee would be fulfilled and without the severe hardship allowance, to which at least many of them are now entitled. The measure was one of the cruellest and most despicable acts of the Government under Baroness Thatcher, but we should never forget the role of the present Prime Minister.
  What brought about the change? Things were so bad, the human debris that was created was so extreme, that the Department of Social Security felt obliged to commission a survey from MORI, which drew some remarkable conclusions and which bear out what I have said. MORI conducted a survey of 500 youngsters, a self-selecting group because they had found their way into social security offices in the first place. The survey showed that 500 destitute youngsters had claimed for discretionary severe hardship payment. Almost half of them had slept rough. One in five had been sexually abused before leaving home. One in three of the boys had stolen or begged to obtain money. One in six was literally penniless when arriving at a DSS office, usually directed there by charities. That is what Conservative Members voted for in 1988. That is the scheme that the Prime Minister conceived and it had to be sorted out because of the wreckage that it had created.
  Mr. Kynoch: Do I therefore take it that the hon. Gentleman, if not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), is advocating the universal restoration of benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds?
  Mr. Wilson: I shall answer that question by referring to the original purpose of the measure. It was never about saving money because the money involved was not large, and it is not large now. It is a diversion to talk about the cost of restoring this benefit.
  There are three potential explanations showing why this was done in the first place: first, it would save money, which is a relatively unimportant argument; secondly, there were competing philosophies of what should happen to 16 and 17-year-olds, and whether they should be in the benefits system; and, thirdly—this was the major argument—with a stroke of the pen, the Government got all the 16 and 17-year-olds off the unemployment statistics. That is what they were doing in 1988 with the social security legislation. In one blow, they got 100,000 people off the unemployment statistics by the cruellest of logic.
  As we all know, they are not unemployment statistics. They contain only those who are unemployed and eligible to claim benefit. If, by definition, we say that 16 and 17-year-olds are not eligible to claim benefit, no 16 or 17-year-olds show in the unemployment statistics. That is what the legislation was primarily about in 1988. To this day, I regard that as the biggest insult to 16 and 17-year-olds—those who still have no job, no benefit and no training place, and who are not even considered to have the human worth in this society to be counted in the unemployment statistics. Yet that is what was done, and it is one of the ways in which the unemployment statistics have been reduced. There is an army of 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds out there who have none of those things and who do not even count as an unemployment statistic.
  I say this to any journalist who may hear this debate and who covers the subject of unemployment statistics: never again talk about the number of unemployed; talk about the number out of work and claiming benefit. As soon as one accepts the Tory terminology, one wipes the 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds from the face of the earth. That is what the social security legislation was about.
  Labour will not fiddle the unemployment statistics. We will not leave anyone destitute in the streets. We will fulfil a guarantee—replacing the bogus guarantee that was given by the Government either to give proper training to young people or to make one of the other provisions available to them. I shall ask the Minister a direct question.
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No; I must watch the time.
  Things have moved on a great deal. Instead of 500 applications a month for severe hardship, a third of which were refused, the Minister proudly—and with some reason for that pride—told us that there are now 11,000 applications a month, of which 90 per cent. are accepted. As the Minister was not here, I shall repeat that the gap between the two statistics is two thirds of 500 and 90 per cent. of 11,000. That is the difference between the evil of what was done between 1980 and 1991 and the improved system which now functions. To that extent, the Minister is due congratulations. If he had anything to do with the earlier regime, he is due none. There has therefore been some change in that direction.
  540
  I shall ask the Minister a direct question: if roughly 10,000 youngsters a week are, to all intents and purposes, getting benefits through the system, do they count in the unemployment statistics? Are they regarded as unemployed people who are eligible to claim benefit? Is severe hardship allowance a benefit for that purpose? I am sure that the answers would be interesting. If not, it is simply another sleight of hand to keep them off the unemployment statistics.
  I have some sympathy with the argument that it is not the best thing for young people to go straight on to benefit. I should prefer it if they went into training places or jobs. I invite Tory Members to come to my constituency and see the training centre at Moorpark house at Kilbirnie which is run by Cunninghame district council, where first-class training is given. It is not true to say—and no hon. Member has said it tonight—that all training is third rate or is exempt from health and safety or anything else. Some training is third rate, but training is good where proper resources are put in. That is the best thing for 16 and 17-year-olds—that or real jobs. But what must be in place is a real safety net for every 16 and 17-year-old who has neither.
  Mr. Kynoch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he realise that skill seekers, which was pioneered in Grampian and to which I referred, will be available throughout the local enterprise company structure in 1995?
  Mr. Wilson: I have discussed the question of skill seekers with Ayrshire Enterprise. The scheme has some worth, as many of the schemes and many of the people who are trying to implement them have worth. No one is denigrating training. We are saying that we should have more and better training and stop the pretence that everyone already has access to training.
  I shall finish by referring to the statistics for my constituency. I obtained today the Scottish Office careers service management returns for my constituency. At the Ardrossan office, 59 youngsters are in the guarantee and are registered for youth training. Twenty of them are due an offer of a place which starts immediately and do not have one. At the Irvine office, which covers the Garnock valley, 80 youngsters are in the guarantee and registered for youth training. Thirteen are due a place immediately and do not have it. In Ayrshire as a whole, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), 335 youngsters are in the guarantee and eligible for a place and 111 do not have a place. That accords closely with the figures for Scotland which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted.
  However, the argument is not about numbers. If one innocent youngster since 1988 under the legislation has been offered the guarantee of a youth training place and then denied it, was not given the financial support and was put in the position described in the MORI survey, it was an offence against the House and against humane government.
  Yes, there have been improvements, but the scheme is based on a flawed concept. If there is a guarantee, everyone should have a place. If there is not a guarantee, let us hear it honestly tonight and let us create the missing thousands of places. The fact that so many youngsters have suffered

  541
  under the scheme should be acknowledged historically. A Labour Government will fulfil that guarantee and no one will be left destitute.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not care if the nationalists attack the Labour party until they are blue in the face. It does not seem to do them a great deal of good. People in Scotland and the rest of Britain—it is a British issue—understand that Labour will not leave young people in that position. There will be a guarantee. No one will be left destitute. There will be good training, real jobs and a genuine safety net. That is what Labour offers and I am proud to offer it. The historical judgment of what was done in 1988 by this Government and this Prime Minister to that generation of young people should never be forgotten.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: It disappoints me to find so few Members in the Chamber tonight. Representatives of the Scottish National party are here, although only in the latter stages of the debate have they managed to bring in all the SNP Members. There are no Plaid Cymru Members present. There are no Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour party Members. Only three socialist Members have been present during the debate at any one time. There are no Liberals in the Chamber. Perhaps that reflects the words of the motion and suggests that it was defeated even before it got off the ground and even before the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) rose to her feet to advance the argument.
  In recognising that people felt that it was not worth while coming to the Chamber for the debate and despite the passionate words, to which I well relate in some respects, of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I suggest that if we went back to the past we would do no favours to the 16 and 17-year-olds. As the hon. Member for Moray said, there is something wrong about a system which allows idle hands. It creates a dead-end society. There is something fundamentally wrong with allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to lie in their beds and expect the state to pass cash to them.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North suggested that the 1988 legislation took 100,000 young people off the unemployment lists. I dispute the figures that he used earlier. My contacts in the enterprise companies, whether in the north or south of Scotland assure me that they can guarantee places for every youngster who comes to them. No youngsters are turned away.
  Given the words of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, if a youngster were turned away with no place, the Government guarantee and the contract would be broken at that point and the youngster should be entitled to benefits. If they want to work, but cannot, that is a different matter, but that is not the case. Youth training, in whatever guise, instils discipline and interest in youngsters. I fully appreciate that it is not all top class, but it is worth while because of the great range of opportunities offered to young people throughout the country by people who have put much effort into training initiatives.
  Yesterday, a question was asked in the House about the opportunities for engineering apprenticeships in Scotland —they are still alive and kicking. One company in my constituency Aviall, which maintains aeroplane jet
  542
  engines, is recruiting more and more engineering apprentices every year. They are highly skilled and the apprenticeships highly valued.
  When I listen to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and other Opposition Members, I wonder how many of them had spent time in a workshop, a factory or on the industrial scene. Many of them seem to come straight from education to this place and they miss out. I must inform the hon. Member for Fife, Central—despite the fact that he is not here at present—that his comments on safety are not recognisable, when one takes into consideration the role of health and safety inspectorates in the modern industrial world. Young people, in particular, are guarded within the United Kingdom workplace. Ill betide any employer who contravenes the United Kingdom's health and safety regulations.
  To return to Aviall and the apprenticeships that it is offering, 80 per cent. of its apprentices achieve higher national standard. That is not something to hang our heads in shame about when we discuss youth training. It was not achieved in the past and it offers much for the future. It says a lot, not merely about the training skills and education facilities available, but about the quality of our young people.
  As I recognise that there is only limited time, I shall refer briefly to youth training. Back in the early days, when youth training schemes first started, I took on such a scheme. Not all the youngsters involved gained employment with the company that I represented, but they all certainly gained work experience and moved on to other workplaces. About 75 per cent. of them achieved jobs, and that was on what was considered to be an underrated youth training scheme.
  Today, we have moved much further forward. Huge numbers of youngsters go into higher education in Scotland and that, in itself, is a tribute to the facilities that the Government have put on offer.
  Earlier we heard about student grants and students' difficulties. If we analyse what happens in other European countries, we recognise that our young people are not all that badly done by.
  I shall mention one point regarding the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. He said that there was a suggestion that Conservative Members believed that young people did not want to work. Quite honesty, that is totally untrue. Conservatives believe that people should use their resources to the maximum, and that there is no more important resource in this country than our young people. Conservatives desire to put them to work.
  It is all right for Opposition Members to come out with woolly words, saying that we need to give youngsters real jobs. The Government have created employment opportunities in this country and, while employment is falling in every country across Europe, it is rising in this country. That is important, and it offers hope to our young people.
  The Scottish National party motion is a total waste of time, and the absence of hon. Members from the Chamber is recognition that it makes a valueless contribution to the debate. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall try to answer the final comment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). He was self-contradicting, as that was not how he started his speech.
  The Scottish National party took this subject matter for our supply day debate this evening for three main reasons. The first was that it is a hugely important issue in its own right, and the fact that the Chamber is not stuffed to the gunnels is more of a comment on hon. Members than it is on either the issue or the motion. If we were to apply "Gallie's law" to the various subjects that are talked about in the Chamber, we would rapidly draw the conclusion that most hon. Members do not believe that any Scottish subject is worth while on any occasion. The Government Benches are seldom full when we debate a Scottish issue.
  The second reason why we chose the subject—I admit it openly—was that we wanted to tease out some of the neanderthal attitudes towards young people that have been displayed in the speeches of the hon. Member for Ayr and other Government Members. Their idea is that if people were entitled to benefit, they would somehow be tempted away from training places or the hope of career, that they would want to lie in their beds all day if they got benefit and that they would not have an incentive to get out in the big wide world. [Interruption.] I Those phrases have come up during the debate.
  The hon. Member for Ayr said that he resented the impression given by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that the idea among Conservative Members was that young people did not want to work. What other impressions can there be if the underlying argument of those who oppose the motion is that if young people are entitled to benefit, they will not go on a training scheme and will not go out to start a career?
  Mr. Gallie: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his assumption is totally wrong. Conservatives have been providing training opportunities that will give value to youngsters in the years ahead. We want to ensure that youngsters do not grow up with the dependency tendency that is so often encouraged by socialists and by the hon. Gentleman. The opportunities given to youngsters these days demonstrate that we value youngsters and that we are attempting to achieve the best from them.
  Mr. Salmond: Even the hon. Gentleman's interventions are self-contradicting. That is exactly the point. The argument that underlies his attitude is that somehow if people were entitled to the princely sum of £27 a week, of automatic benefit, they would veer away from a training course or a future career. That is a remarkable comment on the Conservative party's attitude towards young Scots and to young people elsewhere.
  The third reason why we chose this subject for the debate—again, I openly admit it—was to try to tempt some firm commitment from the Labour party, but I am afraid that the debate has failed on that. There should be a firm commitment on that issue. I wish that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had been able to give tonight the same commitment that he managed to give as a Back-Bench Member in 1988. It is entirely legitimate for one party to ask another what commitment underpins its attitude, if anything, and what underpins its policy, if anything.
  When I was preparing for this debate in the Library, my
  544
  musings were interrupted at various times by the stamping of feet from above. I was informed by an aggrieved librarian that that was the typical antics of the 1922 Committee at its end-of-term bash. I thought that the only thing that could possibly provoke such unanimity from the 1922 Committee was the resignation of the Prime Minister, but, no, apparently the Prime Minister did not resign this evening.
  Two things struck me about that enthusiastic foot stamping. First that, obviously, Rosyth had not been raised as an issue at that meeting—or perhaps Scottish Conservatives were elsewhere. Secondly, no one in that end-of-term rally could have reminded the Prime Minister that he was the Minister who withdrew benefits from youngsters in 1988. It is this Prime Minister who made one of the most disgraceful interventions during the European election campaign, when he argued that there should be a criminal offence of "aggressive begging". My party and the other Opposition parties believe that if any criminal offence was committed, it was committed by those Tory pickpockets who removed benefit from young people. That is the offence, not the consequences of it that we see, with so many youngsters on the streets in Scotland and elsewhere.
  The heart of the debate falls into two parts. First, the Minister failed to give a satisfactory answer to my repeated intervention asking for his explanation of the Shelter estimate that, last year, up to 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough at some time. That is related to a number of factors—for example, housing provision. One quarter of homeless applications come from young single people aged between 16 and 24. More than 10,000 young people applied as homeless to district and island councils in Scotland in the previous financial year. Of those, only 3,000 were deemed to be in priority need and, of them, just 1,900 secured permanent accommodation. There is simply not enough emergency accommodation in Scotland, because only one in five of young people who apply for it is admitted. It has also been revealed that 45 per cent. of those staying in such accommodation had slept rough at some time. That is the basis for the Shelter estimate that up to 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough at some time last year was reached.
  The Minister said that there was a variety of reasons for that appalling statistic. I suggest that the reason that up to 5,000 young people slept rough in Scotland last year is that those young people had no houses, no jobs, no available training and, in many cases, no hope whatsoever. As the Minister and his Scottish colleagues bear the burden of the responsibility for the inter-reaction of housing provision and benefit, would it not be reasonable to acknowledge that, if 5,000 youngsters are sleeping rough in Scotland, the system for which the Minister claims so much credit is not working in practice on the streets of Scotland?
  The second issue at the heart of the debate is whether a discretionary or universal scheme provides sufficient protection. There has been a massive growth in the number of people applying for, and getting, severe hardship payments in the 16 to 17-year-old category. However, that payment was never envisaged as a mainstream provision for such significant numbers. It has been used to mop up the effects of recession and the failure to meet the guarantee of a YT place for all who want one.
  During the debate, I was struck by the way in which the hon. Member for Fife, Central and other Opposition

  545
  Members have referred to the thousands of young people who are in the qualification category for a guaranteed training place but cannot get one.
  Mr. Gallie: That is not true.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but those details have been offered for constituencies and in global figures. Those details have even been given by local enterprise companies in evidence to a House of Commons Committee. If the hon. Member has not bothered to read the detail on offer, there is little that we can do to educate him. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that thousands of youngsters cannot get the training place which the Government originally guaranteed?
  Mr. Gallie: I dispute that. The Scottish Select Committee and I have been in touch with enterprise companies throughout the country and they advise us that a place is available for any youngster who wants to go on a youth training scheme. If all the places were taken up, there may not be enough, but places are certainly available on Ayrshire Enterprise for youngsters now applying.
  Mr. Salmond: Every time the hon. Gentleman intervenes or makes a speech, he contradicts himself in the process. He should accept that a mountain of evidence shows that thousands of youngsters in Scotland cannot get training places. He says that if every youngster available for a training place wanted to take it up, there would be a shortage of places. He thereby admits that the devil's bargain struck by the Government when they withdrew benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds, on the basis that a training place would be available for everyone, has not been kept.
  Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with a fax that I received today front Mr. Bruce Armitage, director of training at Grampian Enterprise, about the enterprise company in the hon. Gentleman's area of Banff and Buchan, which has the highest number of youths undergoing skill seekers training of any district council. It says;
  "In holding a firm line on employment with training we have not experienced any Youth Guarantee difficulties. At the end of March 1994, we had only 12 young people awaiting an offer under the Youth Guarantee."
  Will the hon. Gentleman respond to that?
  Mr. Salmond: I was making a general point. I am extremely pleased that youngsters in my constituency are finding things better than others elsewhere in Scotland. Unemployment in my constituency is lower than the Scottish average—it is rising fast now because of a number of factors in fishing and other industries—but it cannot be considered typical of the whole of Scotland, which is what we are meant to be debating.
  In evidence given to the House of Commons by local enterprise companies, it was estimated that up to 9,000 youngsters in Scotland at that time—admittedly, it was 1992—had not gained access to the training place which they were guaranteed.
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: I have already given way generously to the hon. Gentleman. I shall make the point once again that the bulk and burden of evidence are crystal clear.
  546
  Thousands of youngsters in Scotland have found the offer of a training place meaningless because a place has not been offered.
  Before those interventions, I was saying that the nub of the debate was whether a universal or a discretionary benefit was appropriate under those circumstances and I pointed to the massive growth in the number of people applying for severe hardship payments. Benefits Agency figures show that, in 1989, 10,609 successful applications were made for severe hardship payments in the UK and that, by 1992, that figure had risen to 77,906. There are two ways of looking at those statistics. First, one can argue that the severe hardship payment, which was originally a selective means of assistance and a discretionary benefit, has effectively become a safety net provision. For that reason, while the problem has not gone away, it has been ameliorated compared with a few years ago.
  I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North an injustice, but that was his basic argument. He was giving the Government too much credit because credit is not due. Clearly, tens of thousands of youngsters suffered when no effective safety net was in place. It can be argued that, because the severe hardship payment has become more than a temporary provision, some safety net is now in place. However, another way to look at the matter is to say that if the emergency and severe hardship payments have become a universal benefit, the argument for not having a universal benefit in the first place has been removed.
  If we concede this point of principle on the issue of 16 to 17-year-olds, it will be replayed throughout the income support and social security system. If it is conceded that discretionary benefits can be fair to everyone and provide an effective safety net, we shall witness the end of the universal benefit system, not only for 16 and 17-year-olds, but for whole categories of the population.
  As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who seemed to attribute qualities of self-reliance to people if benefits were withdrawn from them, it would be as appropriate to argue that of an adult Scot as it would be to argue it of a 16 to 17-year-old Scot. If he picks on the 16 to 17-year-olds—if that is the underlying argument behind the policy prescription that the Government are following—why not pick on a range of other groups of the population?
  My warning to those people who are not sympathetic to the argument in the motion would therefore be that if it is accepted that a selective discretionary benefit can provide an effective safety net for 16 to 17-year-olds, that argument will be replayed throughout the social security system, and sooner rather than later. It has been accepted, at least in some parts of the Labour Benches, that it is not a financial issue. The sums involved are minor in the global public finance sector. A philosophical question is at stake.
  It is argued by Conservative Members that youngsters, if given the option of a safety net, will accept that comfortable safety net and stay in their beds, as was said earlier, instead of going out into the big, bad, wide world and finding a career or training place. That argument underlies the Conservative party position.
  The Labour party's position is that it cannot give a spending commitment on anything. Why not?
  Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman has just recognised that it is not primarily a spending issue, why does he immediately afterwards attack the Labour party for not

  547
  giving a spending commitment? I have given, and other Labour party spokesmen have given, a clear guarantee that every youngster will be covered in one of the various ways mentioned. Any sensible party should devise the best modern way to assist all those youngsters. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is not primarily a spending commitment, I find it difficult to understand what he disagrees about.
  Mr. Salmond: That is exactly the point. I accept that it is not basically a financial issue. The sums involved are incremental in public finance, but there is a question of the philosophy of the Labour party at present, which unfortunately means that no spending commitment, however minor, can be given to any group of people, because it breaks the shadow Treasury law that one must not give a spending commitment on anything.
  The Labour party was thrown into confusion about that subject. It should have had the political initiative, as a result of the Prime Minister's disastrous intervention—about beggars in the street—in the European election campaign. However, within days, the Labour party's iron law on spending commitments had thrown the Opposition on to the defensive. In the immortal words of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, something must be done as long as there are no budgetary implications.
  Some issues inevitably have budgetary implications, even if those are minor as regards total Government finance, and this is one of them. At base, it is not an issue of finance or Budgets or money, but a moral issue about the withdrawal of benefit from young people in 1988—a wrong that was done to tens of thousands of youngsters, for whom the consequences have been severe—and about how it can possibly be claimed that an emergency provision can fulfil the safety net role which, elsewhere in the benefit system, depends on a universal benefit application.
  Why on earth should 16 to 17-year-olds, of all people, some of whom are the most vulnerable groups in the population and 5,000 of whom ended up sleeping rough in Scotland at some time last year, be singled out for the trial run of the selective benefits system down to which the Conservatives will undoubtedly drag this country?
  If the Labour party surrenders that principle to the Conservative party when there is very little finance involved, how on earth will it make a stand on any other principle? It is time to treat the subject as a moral issue, not a financial one. It is time for other hon. Members to justify themselves to 16 and 17-year-olds by joining my hon. Friends and me in the Lobby tonight.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): This has been an interesting debate. It was opened by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who began by deploring the absence of hon. Members from other parties. The effect was slightly lessened at the time by the absence of any other hon. Members from the Scottish National party. The hon. Lady has since been joined by some colleagues.
  We have had a full debate with some excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). We also heard some interesting speeches from the Opposition.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The reason why I was not present earlier in the debate was that I was away defending people against another aspect of Government policy—the withdrawal of the ability of adult trainees to train. The Government's attack on adults is mirrored by their attack on youth. I am here to support the Scottish National party, which believes in defending all people who need help and are being denied it by the Government.
  Mr. Hague: I am glad to have been of service to the hon. Gentleman by providing him with the opportunity to state his case and show his presence in the debate. His remarks tie in with some of the more outlandish comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who tried to portray the Government's policy on 16 and 17-year-olds as a sign of the Government's intention towards the rest of the population. The difference between 16 and 17-year-olds and the rest of the population is that we can guarantee that they will have education or training places. He said that there seemed to be a presumption by the Government that people do not want to work—
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: Let me make a little progress and then I shall give way. I want to answer as many points as possible in the time available.
  The Government presumption is the opposite of that suggested by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. They presume that people want to work, obtain education and training. Now, the overwhelming majority in that age group are able to do so.
  We should knock on the head at the outset the argument advanced at various times in the debate that the youth training system—the guarantee—is not working and large numbers of people are unable to obtain a place. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside spoke of his experience in regions of Scotland, including the Grampian region. He mentioned that in one instance only 12 people could not be found a place.
  The most up-to-date overall figures for Scotland—for which I think the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) asked—are that, as of 31 May, there are 4,308 people in the guarantee group, more than 1,000 of whom have been waiting for more than eight weeks. The number of vacant training places is more than 4,000. It takes time to fit some people into the right places, but those are the overall statistics, which we should bear in mind. Where problems arise, resources are directed at them. Fife Enterprise has allocated an additional £500,000 to increase by 400 the number of youth training places available in the Fife region. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will welcome that.
  The hon. Member for Moray asked about the cumbersome claims process. Most of the decision-making on severe hardship has been devolved from the central unit in Glasgow to local offices. That makes the process quicker and the local office can respond to local circumstances. We want to be particularly careful that vulnerable young people receive appropriate support. We have nominated an officer in each Benefits Agency district office who has special responsibility for 16 and 17-year-olds.
  We have improved training to make staff more aware of the specific needs of young people and how to deal with them sympathetically. We have also issued a best practice guide to staff, stressing the vulnerability and sensitivity of

  549
  the group. We have improved contacts with voluntary organisations and local groups that deal with young people so that they are aware of the support available.
  The Benefits Agency's plans to introduce a one-stop service will be particularly relevant to people in that group. They will eventually be able to have all their benefits business dealt with at one time, in one place and by one person.
  Mrs. Ewing: The Minister quotes figures for the youth training guarantee, but the fact is that many young people are not guaranteed a place on YT, and they certainly do not have a job at the end of it. He also talks about a one-stop agency for young people, but when will it start? The three offices that young people have to go through now deter many of them; it is a very bureaucratic process, and difficult to understand. We need a date.
  Mr. Hague: The guarantee is available to all who wish to take advantage of it, and most young people go on from training to get a job, or they undergo further education or training. The process is succeeding.
  The Benefits Agency's plans to introduce a one-stop service were announced some months ago and are proceeding. We cannot give a date by which the whole process will be finished, but there will be established in the agency a one-stop shop, and that is the ultimate objective of the agency's work.
  For the moment, the Glasgow unit remains responsible for decisions not to pay and for complex cases. It also closely monitors decisions that are taken. We are reviewing more effective procedures for claiming income support under severe hardship as part of our deliberations on the operations of the job seeker's allowance.
  The hon. Member for Moray claimed that other European countries were more generous to young people. I must take this opportunity to put her right. In most EC countries, social assistance benefits are not generally payable to young people under the age of 18. In Belgium, they are usually payable from 18, except also to people who are pregnant or looking after a child. In Spain, they are payable from the age of 25, except to people looking after a handicapped person or child. In France, they become payable from the age of 25, and are also payable to those looking after at least one child. In Ireland, 18 is the relevant age, in Luxembourg, it is 30 and in the Netherlands, it is 18. Hence the hon. Lady's assertion that other European countries are more generous to young people of this age group does not quite correspond with the facts. I hope that she will study with more care some of the figures from the Community.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked about the quality of training places on YT. Stringent requirements are placed on TECs and LECs in respect of the quality of training places. The types of places are geared to the needs of the local labour market. Seventy-six per cent. of those completing training enter jobs, further education or training. Seventy-four per cent. of YT leavers completing their training in July 1993 gained a qualification or credits towards one. That is evidence that the quality of training is good, and local enterprise companies are required by contracts with Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise to offer high-quality training appropriate to the needs of the local labour market. If contracts are being breached, cases should be brought to the attention of the relevant chief executive.
  Mr. Salmond: If the Minister is correct and all these training places and opportunities are available to young people, will he answer the question that his colleague could not? In Hague's promised land, why were 5,000 youngsters in Scotland, according to Shelter, sleeping rough last year?
  Mr. Hague: There is no question of "if it is right that these places are available". They are available. There is no reason for anyone to sleep rough on the streets of Scotland tonight. It is, in any case, rather misleading to talk about 5,000, because it is an estimated figure for the whole year. At any one time, the number is probably nearer several hundred. There is no need for any of those people to be there. Severe hardship payments are available for those who need them and there is a guarantee of education or training for the whole of that age group.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: No, I really must get on. The hon. Gentleman made a 20-minute speech before I began my wind-up and I have answered his point to the satisfaction of a large proportion of the House.
  The idea that the offer of a guaranteed place is a falsehood is not true. All 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed a YT place and a training allowance. If some choose not to take advantage of the opportunities available, it is their choice. The Government believe that young people should make a positive choice for training rather than becoming dependent on benefit. The overwhelming majority make that choice and want to take up education and training.
  We want young people to make the most of the opportunities provided. That is consistent with the policies that run through the current review of social security—focusing benefits on those who need them, removing disincentives to work and making sure that social security is affordable.
  We believe that young people should start their adult lives equipped for the future and not dependent on benefits. They should not be encouraged to be dependent on the resources of the state. It is better to train in new skills and increase their ability to earn for themselves. That view has wide support on all sides of the House and Labour Members have expressed support for it in principle this evening.
  It adds up to a sensible strategy of offering education or training to all, removing any financial incentive not to take up training, creating the right attitude and leaving only a tiny percentage of the total in the age group suffering hardship and making special provision for them if they do.
  I wonder what Scottish National party Members think would be gained by a change of the kind they have advocated? Have they thought through the consequences? What would happen if their proposals, such as they are, were agreed to? What would happen if we were to tell 16 and 17-year-olds that they would be better off than they are today if they left home? What would happen to the quality of our work force in future if we told 16 and 17-year-olds that the state would support them, irrespective of their willingness to be trained? What sort of nation are SNP Members trying to build?
  We also have to ask how the SNP proposes to pay for it. Labour Members were asked to state their policy this evening. With all due credit to the hon. Member for Fife,

  551
  Central, who made clarification upon clarification of his party's policy, he retreated into a fog of obfuscation. There is no clear Labour party policy on the matter.
  We are debating a motion which is only one sentence. The Scottish National party is clearly in favour of it. The Government are against it. We do not know whether the Labour party is for or against it, even though we had a lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Fife, Central. It is even more disturbing that Labour Members do not know whether they are for or against it; they are waiting for the Social Justice Commission to make some pronouncement and, even then, we do not know whether they will be for or against it.
  At least we can give SNP Members some credit for being consistent and knowing what they want to do. It is a pity that they have so many competing spending priorities, such as the commitment to a new national household minimum income or to campaigning for a common Euro-pension of £90 for a single person and £130 for a couple. I do not know how they propose to pay for that, particularly in an independent Scotland. None of it was thought through before they tabled the motion.
  It is strange that the SNP chose this subject for its Opposition half-day debate. Why did it not choose to debate the Scottish economy? Presumably, because it is improving. Why did it not choose to discuss unemployment in Scotland? Presumably, because it is falling. Why did it not choose to debate inward investment in Scotland? Presumably, because it is so substantial.
  Instead, the SNP chose to debate a policy based on misconceptions. It would be damaging in its effect, it is out of step with the policies of other countries, its consequences have been ill-thought-through and it is put forward without the slightest indication of how it is to be financed. It thoroughly deserves to be rejected.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 121.

  Division No. 291]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Alex Salmond and

  Mr. Andrew Welsh.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bates, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Devlin, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowis, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  552

  Gallie, Phil

  Richards, Rod

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hague, William

  Sims, Roger

  Harris, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Hawksley, Warren

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Heald, Oliver

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Hendry, Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Stephen, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Stewart, Allan

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Streeter, Gary

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Sykes, John

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Thomason, Roy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knapman, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Walden, George

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Legg, Barry

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watts, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wells, Bowen

  Malone, Gerald

  Whittingdale, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mills, Iain

  Willetts, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wilshire, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds and those facing severe hardship continue to have access to benefits; believes that it is in the long term interests of 16 and 17 year olds that they do not go straight from school on to benefits, but into training, employment or further or higher education; and fully endorses the Government's training guarantee and the continued expansion of vocational, further and higher education.
  Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the importance that many hon. Members attach to policy matters, is it in order for the official Opposition in particular, but also the Liberal Democrats, to abstain in such a vital vote?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is an experienced campaigner in the House; she knows that that is not a point of order for me.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  ENERGY AND ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5074/94, relating to energy and economic and social

  553
  cohesion; and supports the Government's view that, while energy may make a welcome contribution to economic and social cohesion, energy projects, policies and programmes should not be used specifically to promote cohesion objectives unless it is clearly appropriate to do so, and that the development of an increasingly competitive and efficient energy sector has an important role to play in the economic progress of the Community.

  GUARANTEES FOR CONSUMER GOODS AND AFTER SALES SERVICE
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10635/93 relating to guarantees for consumer goods and after sales service, and endorses the Government's response to the Commission.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Weights and Measures (Cosmetic Products) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.

    DEFENCE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Betting and Lotteries (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.

    FEES AND CHARGES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Seed Potatoes (Fees) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved. —[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Elmstead Market (Travellers' Site)
    10.11 pm
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is my honour and duty to present a petition from the parishioners of Elmstead Market. It concerns a gipsy site that is proposed for Grove arm, Elmstead Market, by Essex county council. It is contrary to the local plan, and will encourage development, waste agricultural land and pose a risk to historic woodland; it should not be proceeded with without the public inquiry to which the petition refers.
    Out of an electorate of 1,353, 997 people—73.5 per cent.—have signed the petition, and 94.4 per cent. of those have supported it; only 59 of those asked to sign it declined. It has the strong support of all the residents of Elmstead.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to establish a full public enquiry as soon as a planning application has been made.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Military Bands
    Mr. David Shaw: I have a petition on behalf of nearly 10,000 of my constituents, many of whom have worked with the campaign to keep the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal. It reads:
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble petition of the residents of the District of Deal, Kent and beyond,
    Sheweth
    That there is concern in Deal and beyond about the Government's review of military bands and its impact on the Royal Marines School of Music remaining in Deal; That the people of Deal believe the Royal Marines School of Music should remain in Deal; That the people of Deal and beyond hereby demonstrate the considerable strength of feeling of the local community towards retaining the School of Music in Deal; That the people of Deal trust that any review of military bands will lead to the most sensible national solution, namely the development of a combined services School of Music in Deal because of its first rate suitability for such a role, both financially and logically.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will appeal to the Secretary of State for Defence to intervene to ensure the retention of the Royal Marines Music School in Deal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc."
    I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to present this petition, which is hugely important to my constituents and many local societies, including the Royal Marines Association, the Men of Kent, the Deal Society and many others in Deal who have a long and close connection with the Royal Marines School of Music.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Local Government (Cleveland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: May I say at the outset that I and my parliamentary colleagues who have supported the four district option for Cleveland—my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), whom I am glad to see in his place, and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates)—fully support the decision that the Government announced yesterday on the future of Cleveland?
  The Minister for Local Government and Planning announced that he was mindful of the need to ensure a smooth transition, with adequate time for the planning of change. It is clear, given the time needed to prepare the new unitary authorities, that a start date of 1 April 1996, with elections to be held in May 1995, will fulfil that requirement of a smooth transition with adequate time for planning.
  The announcement has the support of the leaders and chief executives of the four district councils of Stockton, Langbaurgh, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough. Indeed, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the leader of Middlesbrough council, Councillor Mike Carr, stated:
  "Firstly (the new arrangements) will allow us to have elections before the new authorities commence their work. We have always argued that the new authorities should have a new mandate so that local people could exercise their democratic choice, and so the new councils could genuinely be a synthesis of the best of the two tiers of the current system.
  Secondly, no less importantly, it will introduce a sense of certainty in the process and a realistic timetable. We believed that we could 'deliver' by April 1995, but it would have been a close run thing. We certainly hope that the announcement removes a serious potential source of friction for the County Council and that they will see their way in cooperating with the transfer of responsibilities."
  It is not necessary for me to repeat the long litany of trajectories that we have been carried along to reach the point where the Minister made his statement yesterday. Suffice it to say that Cleveland county council was in the first tranche of the rolling programme of reviews announced on 3 June 1992 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Because they were in the first tranche of reviews, their case will be settled before others. It is right and proper, and indeed inevitable, that when the draft orders have been through a final consultative procedure—a final turn of the wringer—an order should be laid to enable the Government's stated intention to be met.
  The terms of the order should be such that, first, the districts can begin the preparatory work leading to the creation of the new authorities and, secondly, there can be certainty among the work force of the existing Cleveland county council as to their personal future.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Is not it absolutely essential that the local authorities are under some compulsion, particularly Cleveland county council, to co-operate with the planning process before the new authorities are established?
  Mr. Bell: The question of compulsion in a democracy rests uneasy with us all. What we always seek is a
  556
  consensus. What we hope we will see in this situation is a consensus approach to the problems of the four new authorities when the time comes.
  From a party that still believes in a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power to workers and their families, it will hardly surprise the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that we place great store on the future of the Cleveland county council work force. We are aware, as no doubt he is aware, of the serious uncertainty over job security during the review of local government overall, which is having a corrosive effect on staff morale and, indeed, employee relations. That uncertainty helps, rather than hinders, those who wish to resist change.
  The Association of District Councils takes the view, as do the Association of County Councils and the Local Government Management Board, that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will make it impossible in practice for outgoing authorities to dismiss staff not placed in posts by vesting day, and such staff must be transferred for the successor authorities to deal with. It is my understanding that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office are coming independently to a similar conclusion with regard to local government reorganisation in Wales.
  It is, therefore, in my view and in the view of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, incumbent on the Government to give urgent consideration to making a public statement accepting the need for all staff who wish to do so to be transferred to the new authorities. Paradoxically—if we can still believe in paradoxes—it would be not only in the Government's interests to be fair to the staff concerned, but in the interests of local government finance to make such a statement because the transitional costs would then be reduced.
  The Opposition have always played absolutely straight on the question of local government reorganisation from the time that such reorganisation was announced. At the time the local government review was announced, Bryan Gould, late of this House and even later of these shores, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that there would be a positive response to the Government's proposals on structure, provided, of course, that the process of consultation was seen to be independent. In the case of the abolition of Cleveland county council, not only has the consultation been independent; it has also been upheld by the law of the land.
  In my local press, I read that Cleveland county council has drawn comfort from judges' comments in their judgment last week with regard to Cleveland's request for a judicial review that the court had expressed doubts about the commission's public consultations.
  It must have been very cold comfort indeed, since on all the counts put forward by Cleveland county council, it lost. The council said that the decision of the Local Government Commission and the Government was unreasonable. It lost. It said that the commission had misconstrued the policy guidance on joint arrangements. It lost. It said that there had been a lack of proper consultation. It lost. It said that the Secretary of State should have referred back Cleveland, as he referred Durham back. It lost. It said that it was unfair for Durham to benefit from the 1993 guidance, but not Cleveland. It lost on that, too. The court rightly pointed out that the four-district option was

  557
  supported by the majority of the local Membets of Parliament. It was also supported by an opinion poll and by direct responses.
  The court pointed out that in the opinion poll there was a clear preference for one-tier local government—75 per cent. were in favour. As to who should comprise that tier, 31 per cent. supported the four district councils—8 per cent. favoured two councils. Direct responses showed a majority of 49 to 41 in favour of four councils. And the court, in its wisdom—whether the wisdom of Portia or the wisdom of Shylock is a matter for others to decide—referred to the submission of Cleveland county council that the Local Government Commission had paid too much attention to public opinion or vox pop, as it is now called. In the words of the learned judge, the wise and venerable judge:
  "If this amounts to a submission that democracy is not the panacea for all ills, it sounds odd coming from a county council."
  It might also be as well to point out that in the dismissal of the action of Cleveland county council against the Local Government Commission and the Government, Cleveland was ordered to pay all the costs of the hearing. The costs have been estimated variously at between £175,000 and £200,000. The council conservatively estimates them at £100,000, although it does not state whether this is its costs as well as the costs of the Government. It is equivalent to a one-off payment of 65p per council taxpayer. Dipping one's hand into the pockets of the council tax payer to pay legal bills is not a matter of compunction for Cleveland county council.
  Many far-fetched figures are bandied around by the council. It has said that the four-district option in Cleveland will cost £10 million a year more than the Teesside-Hartlepool option. But the Local Government Commission, the recommendations of which have been upheld by the court, estimates that the move away from the two-tier system will save between £6 million and £11 million a year. That means that the reorganisation will pay for itself within three years. That must be considered a satisfactory pay-back time to achieve a lasting basis for local democracy.
  The four districts have said that savings should be passed on in full to service users as either reduced bills or improved services, with the merit that the services are both local and accountable. The basis of local democracy through the four-tier option will be the provision and co-ordination of services, the provision of a voice for local people, particularly those who are disadvantaged, reflecting the priorities of their communities and working as a catalyst to stimulate growth and regeneration in their specific areas.
  There will, indeed, be a partnership between local authority, community and other agencies. There will, indeed, be shorter lines of communication. This will mean that the views and changing needs of the communities will be constantly reflected. There will be improved targeting of resources. The new authorities will serve identifiable communities. The four districts will be able to attract inward investment and co-operate on strategic issues.
  Middlesbrough has already attracted more than £700 million in Government and European Union grants. This has led to the creation of 7,000 jobs. The Tees Valley Development Company will be a genuine partnership between the public and the private sectors. It will aim to provide a professional, one-step service to potential investors in our region. It will maximise and co-ordinate
  558
  the efforts going on in all sectors to create employment. The Tees Valley Development Company will allow much more co-ordinated and effective marketing. The Tees Valley Development Company will be a catalyst for growth and economic regeneration. This is a vital issue of job creation.
  In short, the four districts are on course, the Tees Valley Development Company is on course and, with the Government's commitment to a timetable of May 1995 elections and a new authority in April 1996, the people of Cleveland will be on course to have their wishes respected. The question is then how soon can we assure those who work in Cleveland county council that they have a future. All four districts realise and fully accept that employees are their main resources and that reorganisation must be about creating structures in which they can work to best effect.
  The Local Government Commission has estimated job reductions of about 2 per cent. across all authorities. The calculations by boroughs have led to similar assumptions. The reductions can be achieved by early retirement or voluntary redundancy, but the four districts wish to stress—through me on the Floor of the House—that they will be concentrating on job retention not job shedding. The four authorities fully recognise that they will need staff commitment and experience to make a success of their new authorities.
  We are anxious about jobs, not redundancies. There is no doubt, however, that concern has been expressed about the current redundancy package envisaged. It is essential for there to be a fair and mandatory system of compensation. That is essential to complete the local government review successfully in Cleveland and, indeed, elsewhere.
  I would, therefore, ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider carefully the outcome of the consultations that are taking place between various parties in local government —members, managers and employees alike—to smooth their local government review and to settle staff uncertainty.
  As I said earlier, the Opposition have never played politics with local government reviews; nor do they seek to do so now. We are anxious that the review of local government should extend beyond Cleveland to cover the whole of shire England, within the framework laid down on 3 June 1992 by the then Secretary of State for the Environment.
  We do not regard local government as "The Cherry Orchard" of Anton Chekhov—no cherry picking there please. Just as the journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step, so those Cleveland Members of Parliament who support the four-district option expect the order to be laid before this House at the earliest convenient moment, with appropriate powers given to the districts to create the new authority, and that the dates of May 1995 for elections and April 1996 for the new authority will be strictly adhered to.
  As an Opposition, we shall also be looking over and beyond the boundaries of Cleveland, to be sure that there is no gerrymandering of commission recommendations for narrow party political advantage. We are glad that, in the case of Cleveland, full start-up elections will be held at the beginning of the shadow period for all new councils—as well as those in Cleveland, including those based on existing district boundaries.
  Since a good point is always worth repeating, as Lloyd George might have said, we say again that the vast majority

  559
  of staff should automatically be transferred to the new councils and satisfactory compensation provided for any not transferred.
  It is true that we live in a world where reality and the perception of reality become intermingled and where the perception of reality becomes more important than the reality itself. I am sorry to say that Cleveland county council has long passed that point. It must be in the interests of the work force of Cleveland county council for appropriate arrangements to begin to be made for their transfer to the new authorities. It must be in the interests of the people of Cleveland that the business community rallies around the Tees Valley Development Company.
  There must be full officer co-operation on the ground between the four districts and the county council, so that there is a straightforward and homogenous transfer of services, in the interests of our local community. And there is the ultimate—respect for the sovereignty of Parliament, for this House and the other place. The Government have announced their intention to lay the appropriate order for elections and for the new authorities. The will of this House, in the event the order being carried, is not something which can be dissipated before courts, before judicial reviews, before delaying tactics, before obfuscation and distortion.
  The people of Cleveland will demand no less than the fullest co-operation from those councillors who may themselves be candidates for the new authorities, and who may wish to submit themselves to the people of Cleveland on the principle that to be elected to the four districts is to serve, rather than to rule.
  Cleveland county council cannot now be saved. It has fought a long and arduous battle for survival. It still has dignity and respect for the work that it has done during its existence. It would be sad for the work force, members and officers if it were now to lose that dignity and respect. It is a case of those who have ears, let them hear.
  10.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I welcome this debate on the future of local government in Cleveland, and I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for reorganisation in Cleveland and for the decision yesterday that the new unitary authorities should be established on 1 April 1996.
  I am also pleased to see in the Chamber my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who have been tireless champions in favour of unitary authorities for Langbaurgh and Stockton respectively.
  It may be helpful if I set out briefly how we have reached our current position. In July 1992, the then Secretary of State for the Environment issued a direction to the Local Government Commission to undertake a review of Cleveland and County Durham.
  The commission must make its recommendations having regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. I believe that in many ways these two criteria are mutually reinforcing. One of the best
  560
  ways of ensuring that local government is effective is having local authorities that people identify with and feel committed to.
  The commission submitted its final report to the Secretary of State last November. The commission's main recommendation was that Cleveland county council should be abolished and there should be four unitary authorities covering the areas of the existing districts of Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton and Langbaurgh. In Cleveland, a survey by the commission had shown a massive 75 per cent. of residents supporting the principle of unitary authorities. The survey had also shown that of the various options offered to them, the option of four unitary authorities had the greatest support among local people. This option also proved the most popular among those who responded to the commission's consultation.
  In January, we accepted the commission's main recommendation of abolishing the county council and establishing four unitary authorities. This amply fulfils the criteria set out in the 1992 Act; that is, that there would be effective and convenient local government and that the identities of local people would be reflected. I believe that this decision has been widely welcomed in Cleveland.
  We hope that the local authorities involved will work together to plan future services. It is important to make it clear that there can be no place for continuing trench warfare by those authorities that will disappear as a consequence of the review and, as the hon. Member made clear, of the decisions of Parliament. Such behaviour is to the detriment of local people and to the detriment of local government as a whole, and there is no place for that.
  The Government's decision to abolish Cleveland county council was widely welcomed. However, there was and is one organisation that did not welcome it—the county council itself. As a result, it instituted judicial review proceedings against both the Local Government Commission and the Government.
  The county council put forward various grounds for its legal challenge. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, the High Court has given judgment against the county council and condemned it in costs. As the judges in the High Court suggested, there was nothing wrong with the commission's recommendations or with the Government's decision to accept them; it was simply a case of the county council not liking what the commission proposed.
  Mr. Michael Bates: I endorse fully what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said. Many of us find it deeply repugnant that one of reasons why the case was taken to the High Court, at the expense of the local taxpayer, was brought to light in the judgment. It said that the council had accused the Local Government Commission of paying too much attention to local opinion.
  Does my hon. Friend recognise that when four times as many people support the commission's recommendation as favour the Teesside-Hartlepool option, taxpayers resent deeply the idea of having to contribute between £175,000 and £200,000 of their money for something with which they do not agree? I advise my hon. Friend of my intention to take this matter to the district auditor at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Baldry: Everything that my hon. Friend said is absolutely right. As I said earlier, a survey conducted by the commission showed that a massive 75 per cent. of

  561
  residents supported the principle of unitary authorities. The fact that Cleveland county council could seek to pray in aid, against the commission, the fact that so many people supported the commission's proposals underlines the comment of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the county council has long since ceased to be able to distinguish between reality and imagination.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had originally said in May that his provisional decision, subject to the outcome of the judicial review, was that reorganisation should go ahead from 1 April 1995, with the elections to the new unitary authorities in May 1995. That timetable was certainly achievable and the district councils were keen to pursue it. There could have been a smooth transition with sufficient time for planning change so that there would be no risk to the delivery of services. The length of the legal proceedings, however, means that there is now a relatively short time between making an order and a start date of 1 April 1995.
  Those circumstances have led us to the conclusion that it would be wiser to put back implementation to April 1996. However, and it is an important however, the elections to unitary councils will still be held in May 1995, giving the newly elected councils almost a year to prepare for their new functions. I know that some hon. Members had been concerned about having elections to the new authorities after they had been set up and I am sure that the new timetable will satisfy their concerns.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised understandable concerns about the implications of reorganisation for local government employees. We are totally committed to a fair treatment for staff. The Local Government Staff Commission was set up in England in May 1993 to advise my right hon. Friend on staffing issues arising from reorganisation. The staff commission has
  562
  visited all the authorities in the first tranche of the review to listen to their concerns and those of their staff. It has since issued a circular, which set out the rules for deciding which employees will be transferred to the successor authorities by staff transfer order. It describes the scope for open competition for senior posts and defines which employees will be eligible for prior consideration appointment to posts.
  The majority of the county council's staff will, of course, simply transfer to successor councils. The staff commission will be advising on those categories of staff to be covered by automatic transfer. We expect that these will include almost all operational staff who provide services direct to local people, for example, teachers and care workers.
  For those staff who do not transfer by transfer order, it will be for the district councils, in consultation with Cleveland county council, to decide whether any of them will nevertheless transfer on 1 April 1996 under existing employment legislation.
  We have also issued further guidance to the staff commission, drawn up in consultation with the local authority associations and the staff commission itself, in order to provide as level a playing field as possible for staff of outgoing authorities compared with those of the continuing authorities.
  Last month, we also issued a consultation paper which set out the Government's proposals for redundancy schemes specific to local government—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Provision has been made for spending of £75,000 in the current financial year on subsidised child care for staff at various locations. This will provide 40 nursery day care places for children under five; and approximately 60 play scheme places for children five to 12 years old which are used during the main school holidays. These arrangements generally involve a subsidy of about 50 per cent. of the running costs involved. Subsidised child care provision is provided only if it can be justified on value for money grounds.

  The Department does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" nor make child care vouchers available to staff.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of running immigration appeals in 1991, 1992 and 1993, measured on a common base.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department of running the immigration appellate authorities for the financial years requested, measured on a common base, is as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Salaries

  1,236,645

  1,283,528

  1,617,629

  General accommodation expenditure

  920,585

  964,646

  1,307,911

  Non-running costs1

  2,539,677

  3,134,360

  3,472,296

  Total

  4,696,907

  5,382,534

  6,397,836

  1Non-running costs include the full time and part-time judicial officers.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average length of time for an appeal against the granting of a visa to be heard in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The current average time between the immigration appellate authorities receiving a certificate of readiness from a party to the date of a hearing is as follows:

  1991—Not available

  1992—13½ weeks

  1993—10½ weeks

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  The only survey of staff undertaken in the last two years has been a review of equal opportunity policy. I am not, at present, able to place a copy of the findings in the Library as the material gathered from the review has not yet been made available to the staff.

  Exodus Collective
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the charges recently brought against members of the Exodus Collective near Luton, the outcome in each case and the cost to public funds of the prosecutions.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following list comprises charges against persons believed to be members of the Exodus Collective, who have appeared before the Crown court at Luton either for trial or on appeal from the magistrates court.

  Charges

  Result

  (1) Violent disorder

  Discharged

  (2) Violent disorder

  Discharged

  (3) Possession of controlled drug class A with intent

  Discharged

  Possessing a controlled drug class A and handling stolen goods x 2

  (4) Using threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress

  Bound over in £250 for 12 months

  (5) Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or bahaviour with intent to provoke use of violence

  Bound over in £250 for 12 months

  Appeal allowed. Bound over and fine removed

  (6) Using threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to cause harassment alarm or distress

  Bound over in £250 for 12 months

  Appeal allowed. Bound over and fine removed

  The actual total cost to public funds of the cases listed is not readily available. However, it is estimated to be in the region of £92,000.

  In addition, five other persons appeared before Luton magistrates court charged with similar public order offences. The cost of the prosecutions of these further matters is not readily available.

DEFENCE

  Target Setting
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the key targets for 1994–95 that have been set for the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chief executive of the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency has been set the following key targets for 1994–95:
  261

  (a) To continue to ensure that all urgent dangers to navigation are promulgated by radio navigational warnings within 20 hours of receipt of the information.

  (b) To improve the state of revision of Admiralty navigational charts and publications in waters of UK national responsibility so that at 1 April 1995 82 per cent. will have been revised or reviewed within the previous 10 years and found to need no revision.

  (c) To achieve the endorsed and funded Defence programme. In pursuing all of his primary objectives, the chief executive will be expected to strive to deliver optimum value for money.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on key targets for 1994–95 which have been set for the Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) Defence Agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chief executive of SCS (NWE) has been set the following key targets for 1994–95, the agency's fourth year of operation:

  (1) For the 42 schools in SCS (NWE), to extend the scope of the local management of schools paralleling, as far as possible, the initiative in the United Kingdom, to include staff costs for locally entered civilians, certain staff costs for United Kingdom-based civilians, building maintenance and utilities.

  (2) By 31 December 1994 to launch, and complete, an initial programme of training for head teachers, parents and others serving on school advisory committees so as to develop their advisory role in local school management.

  (3) To improve efficiency so as to reduce net expenditure for 1994–95 by 2·5 per cent.

  (4) To maintain the overall pass rates in GCSE and A-level grades A to E and achieve a 2 per cent. increase in the percentage of pupils gaining grades A to C in five subjects and achieve an 80 per cent. pass rate in BTEC—first diploma—courses.

  (5) During the period of the plan to ensure that 95 per cent. of all teachers meet all the qualifications criteria for their post.

  (6) By 31 March 1995, to develop and implement methods for the regular gauging of customer satisfaction with SCS (NWE) schools.

  (7) Complete the planned school closure and reorganisation programme in line with the drawdown of British forces in Germany.

  (8) Continue to implement the Education Reform Act in accordance with the timetable laid down in the Act and subsequent regulations.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the chief executives of(a) the Duke of York's Royal Military School and (b) the Queen Victoria School in 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following key targets have been set for the chief executives of the schools in 1994–95:

  Duke of York's Royal Military School: Key Targets Curriculum
  In August 1994: To achieve at least 97 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A to G. To achieve at least five GCSE passes at grades A to C for 80 per cent. of pupils. To achieve 85 per cent. of A-level passes at grades A to E. To achieve three A-level passes at grades A to E for 80 per cent. of pupils. To achieve 30 per cent. of A-level passes at grades A and B. To achieve 100 per cent. award rate for BTEC national diploma courses. To implement new timetable in September 1994.
  Pastoral
  By September 1994: To complete detailed pastoral preparations for co-education. To implement school policy on extra-curricular activities. To update policy on assessing, monitoring and reporting in context of Dearing review.
  Finance and Administration
  To implement financial measures from pay and conditions review by September 1994. To implement efficiency decisions on management of works services in April 1994. To implement new school clothing system by August 1994. To introduce new
  262
  software package for administration and finance in September 1994 and to introduce new school billing system. To reduce pupil per capita costs to £11,246 by April 1995.
  Development
  To review agency framework document by April 1995. To start RAF section of the combined cadet force in September 1994. To achieve 200 applicants for entry in September 1995 by April 1995.
  Queen Victoria School: key targets
  To achieve at least three standard grade passes at credit and general levels (1–4) for 90 per cent. of S4 pupils. To achieve at least 5 standard grade passes (1–3) for 60 per cent. of S4 pupils. To achieve three higher passes at A–C grades or Scottish Vocational Education Council (SCOTVEC) equivalents for 60 per cent. of S5/S6 pupils. To complete the phased implementation of the national five to 14 programme in line with Scottish Office Education Department (SOED) recommendations. To complete the audit of the school's academic programme in line with the SOED guidelines for school development plans: Scotland: 19 January 1994. To review and where appropriate update curricular guidance (S2/S3) as detailed by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum: January 1990.
  Pastoral
  To continue to monitor the effectiveness of the school pastoral policy and organisation document, and specifically to report on parental response on its quality, with reference to "Ethos Indicators in Secondary Schools Scotland: May 1992".
  Extra-curricular Provision
  To maintain and enrich at least 50 extra-curricular activities, both physical and cultural, involving pupils aged 10–15 in at least three per week and those aged 16–18 in at least two.
  Management and development
  To complete the audit of all staff functions to maximise educational, administrative and financial efficiency. To commence teacher appraisal and development. To implement the marketing policy so as to reach all eligible families. To implement an effective marketing policy to generate non-public income to the school. To complete planning and begin works services appropriate to the admission of girls for 1996–97 at the latest. To review the school management and committee structure to ensure all major policy decisions are co-ordinated at board level. To complete the implementation of all financial control systems. To identify and implement efficiency measures equal to 2·5 per cent. of the school's budget.

  Gibraltar Garrison
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been reached on the Gibraltar garrison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  As a consequence of the political and strategic changes that have taken place in Europe the size and functions of the garrison in Gibraltar have been under review. That review has now been completed.

  The conclusion of the review is that the work of the garrison should concentrate on five core areas which are central to our defence responsibilities in Gibraltar. These are the nuclear warship berthing facilities, access to the airfield, the Windmill Hill signal station and the maritime data centre, the Gibraltar Regiment in its present form, and the maintenance of a headquarters with supporting infrastructure for both NATO and national roles. It will in addition be necessary to maintain ammunition and fuel storage facilities, and the Gibraltar Squadron will remain in being.

  All these functions will be supported by a single logistic unit. The Gibraltar Regiment, together with elements of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, will assume the responsibility for the day-to-day administration of all service men.

  Under a rationalisation scheme already in progress service and civilian manpower levels in Gibraltar were due to reduce to 700 and 950 respectively by 1997. The effect of the review will be to bring these figures to some 500

  263
  service men and between 350 and 700 civilians. Precise civilian numbers will depend on how many supporting functions are put out to contract, increasing local employment opportunities. Any reductions in civilian manpower will be phased to avoid putting undue pressure on the job market. Where employees have to be made redundant every effort will be made to retrain and re-settle them.

  The Government of Gibraltar have been fully informed of the outcome of the review, which will now be the subject of a process of consultation with the trade unions. The British Government are conscious of the economic implications and are examining wider initiatives to support the Gibraltar economy through the recently formed Joint Economic Forum.

  A copy of the consultation document is being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Army Training
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to seek further improvements in the provision of training for the regular Army.

  Mr. Hanley
  Significant improvements have already been made to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Army's training organisation. The structure and content of Army training are constantly re-evaluated to ensure that they meet the present and future operational requirements of the Army. As part of this process, as foreshadowed in my answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 21 June 1994,Official Report, column 108, my Department will now be undertaking a wide review of how and where Army-sponsored training is conducted. This review, which is separate from but consistent with the defence costs study, will be looking at the nature and content of training courses generally as well as at individual areas such as adventurous training, training support, market-testing, catering training, recruit training and training with the adjutant-general's corps.

  Individual studies will now be set in hand and the trade unions involved in the normal way. Any proposals for change arising from the studies will be subject to full consultation as appropriate.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the. Secretary of State for Defence what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the civilian 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. Aitken
  My Department has not conducted any general surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of staff during the last two years, although surveys have been carried out within parts of my Department.

  Braemar Weather Station
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading the Meteorological Office weather station at Braemar in Aberdeenshire to enable it to transmit data to the Meteorological Office at Bracknell daily.
  264
  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Meteorological Office under the terms of his framework document. I have therefore arranged for him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. George Kynoch, dated 7 July 1994:
  I am responding to your Parliamentary Question concerning the cost of upgrading the weather station at Braemar.
  Braemar is a private observing station which provides data on a voluntary basis to the Meteorological Office at Edinburgh at the end of each month. At present the Meteorological Office has no requirement for the daily receipt of the data. If the need arises the cost of upgrading the station to provide automated transfer of the data to Bracknell will be £2,500; additionally there will be other direct running and replacement costs of about £1,000 per annum. These costs do not include the Meteorological Office overheads necessary to process the data or supply services based upon them. Alternatively the observations could be passed by telephone to our Office at Aviemore for the cost of the telephone calls, from where they would be sent to Bracknell through our communication system; whilst this would avoid upgrade costs, the Office staff time involved in collecting and sending the data to Bracknell would be around £1,500 per annum.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to follow up the recommendation of the Air Accident Investigation Branch in its aircraft accident report 2/94, that his Department should commission an operational analysis of fast jet low flying training in the United Kingdom to determine whether the use of see and avoid as a primary means of collision avoidance is satisfactory from the point of view of flight safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  As a result of this accident, the pipeline inspection notification system was introduced in October 1993. Further safety measures already in hand include the following:

  (i) Hawk training aircraft are being painted black to improve conspicuity. Similar paint schemes are also being considered for other aircraft types.

  (ii) Action is in hand to fit all RAF aircraft, not already so equipped, with high intensity stroboscopic lights.

  (iii) The feasibility of installing forward facing headlights in tactical aircraft is being examined.

  (iv) A technology demonstrator for a collision warning system is currently undergoing trials.

  My Department is considering how best to take forward the particular recommendation of the air accident investigation branch in the light of results of the safety measures already implemented.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday playschemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  At present, my Department has seven workplace nurseries and seven holiday play schemes, although a further three nurseries are planned.

  Responsibility for the provision of child care facilities is delegated to individual budget holders and subsidy arrangements may vary. In some cases this is restricted to a contribution to capital and indirect running costs such as Maintenance, heating and lighting, while in others a

  265
  contribution is also made to the direct running costs—mainly staff and consumables. The contribution to direct costs varies according to local market rates for nursery places and those using the facility.

  My Department does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions", or make child care vouchers available.

  It is our policy to increase the provision of child care facilities wherever possible. Budget holders are encouraged to set up new child care facilities for staff where there is sufficient demand and where they can be justified on value for money grounds.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the order for the new RAF search and rescue Sea Kings was placed; and when he expects them to be delivered.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contract for the six RAF Sea King HAR Mk3A search and rescue helicopters was placed in October 1992. They will be delivered between July 1995 and February 1996.

  Proof and Experimental Establishments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what compensation has been paid to residents living in the vicinity of the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness for reasons connected with noise pollution.

  Mr. Aitken
  Between 1 January 1992 and 5 July 1994, a total of £13,393·94 has been paid in compensation as a result of damage caused by noise pollution.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been transferred from the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness to the proof and experimental establishment at Pendine for reasons connected with noise pollution.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the trade associations and individual customers with whom his Department has had discussions on the implications at the current review of proof and experimental establishments in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  The review covers all test and evaluation establishments, not just the proof and experimental establishments. Discussions were held with the following organisations:

  Society of British Aerospace Companies

  Vickers plc

  VSEL

  GKN

  Royal Ordnance plc

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Discussions were also held with a large number of internal customers such as MOD project managers and the Defence Research Agency.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about noise pollution have been received over the last three years from residents in the vicinity of(a) the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness and (b) the proof and experimental establishment at Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The figures are as follows:
  266

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994 to date

  Shoeburyness

  47

  218

  420

  533

  Pendine

  4

  6

  5

  Shoeburyness's figures are for the calendar year,

  Pendine's for the period 1 July to 30 June.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responses he has received from trade associations and individual customers following consultation on the Director General Test and Evaluation review at test and evaluation facilities.

  Mr. Aitken
  This consultation took the form of discussions. Written responses were neither received nor appropriate.

  Ferranti/ISC
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total estimated cost to(a) his Department and (b) the Exchequer generally, of the fraud at Ferranti/ISC; and what assessment he has made of the total number of jobs lost (i) directly and (ii) indirectly in the United Kingdom as a result of this fraud in the subsequent collapse of the company.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no means of assessing what, if any, additional costs it bore as a result of the fraud; the question of any loss to the Exchequer generally is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nor has my Department any way of isolating the net changes in employment in the company and in other United Kingdom companies as a result of the fraud from the changes brought about by more general trends in the defence and civil markets for the company's products.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much money from his Department's vote has been spent since the beginning of 1990 on upgrading RAF Machrihanish;

  (2) how much money from his Department's vote has been spent since the beginning of 1990 at RAF Machrihanish on the following: (a) the construction of a new control tower, (b) the construction of underground fuel pipes and pumps, (c) strengthening runway aprons and (d) the construction of new living quarters for service personnel and their families.

  Mr. Hanley
  The amount of money from my Department's vote spent since the beginning of 1990 on upgrading RAF Machrihanish is £10,060,000. The figure includes:

  (a) £407,000 on the construction of a new control tower, representing 20 per cent. of a NATO-funded project;

  (b) £2,090,000 VAT payment on NATO-funded construction of underground fuel pipes and pumps;

  (c) £2,000,000 VAT payment on NATO-funded airfield pavement improvements, including the strengthening of runway aprons;

  (d) £1,807,000 on the construction of new single living quarters.

  In the same period NATO has contributed £28,306,000 on upgrading at RAF Machrihanish.

  Clothing Organisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current regional distribution of jobs in the MOD clothing organisation; and if he will make a statement on the future location of that organisation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recently formed Defence Clothing and Textiles Authority is headed by the director of clothing and textiles, whose headquarters is based in Andover and his staff are currently located as follows:

  Location

  Total staff employed

  Andover

  53·5

  Bath

  23·0

  Bicester

  101·0

  Colchester

  135·0

  Didcot

  134·5

  Glasgow

  56·0

  Harrogate

  13·0

  Manchester

  8·0

  Sheffield

  8·0

  Proposals for the future location of the DCTA are currently being considered by my Department.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. Waldegrave
  Two employee surveys have been carried out in the Departments and agencies for which I am responsible. I will place in the Library copies of the findings of a survey of staff in Her Majesty's Stationery Office carried out in 1993. The results of a recent survey of staff in the Occupational Health Service have yet to be published.

  Women in Science, Engineering and Technology
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when a response will be made to the report of the Committee on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology entitled "The Rising Tide."

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have today published the Government's response to this report. We have accepted many of the committee's recommendations, including the central one that a development unit should be established within the Office of Science and Technology. This will work with other Departments and outside bodies to enable women to make the fullest possible contribution to the nation's science, engineering and technology.

  Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.
  268
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Visitors to my Department's offices in Westminster may use the same facilities for parking their bicycles as those provided for staff. Five sites have been designated bicycle parks; the remaining four have space available to park bicycles upon request.

TREASURY

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's policy is that child care assistance must be justified on value for money grounds, and that any child care arrangements must offer the best value for money choice.

  On this basis the Treasury participates in the Westminster holiday play scheme which provides child care for children between the ages of five and 12 during school holidays. A 60 per cent. subsidy is provided to staff.

  Until the end of July 1994, the Treasury and the Central Statistical Office are offering two places in a Westminster-based nursery for use by staff in emergencies. A 50 per cent. subsidy is given to staff earning less than £25,000 per annum. However, the contract has been terminated because of low usage. The Treasury does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or make child care vouchers available.

  The Treasury is about to undertake a survey of staff to establish what child care provision might provide best value for money in future.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the public sector borrowing requirement is accounted for from the capital receipts held by local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  When a capital asset is sold by a local authority it generates a capital receipt which reduces net capital expenditure and hence general government expenditure. This, in turn, reduces the public sector borrowing requirement. When the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are spent, net capital expenditure increases which increases general Government expenditure and hence the public sector borrowing requirement.

  The table sets out the latest data for local authority capital receipts and the public sector borrowing requirement.

  1991–92 £ billion

  1992–93 £ billion

  1993–94 £ billion

  Local authority capital receipts

  2·8

  2·6

  3·9

  Public sector borrowing requirement

  13·9

  36·6

  46·0

  Tax Yield
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Exchequer revenue was raised through(a) direct taxes, and (b) indirect taxes in (i) 1978–79, (ii) 1991–92 and (iii) 1993–94; and what is his estimate of the equivalent figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Total taxes and social security contributions

  1978–79

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–951

  1995–961

  (as per cent. of total taxes and social security contributions)

  Taxes on income, capital and social security contributions2

  59

  55

  53

  54

  54

  Taxes on expenditure including rates/community charge/and council tax3

  41

  45

  47

  46

  46

  1From Treasury summer economic forecast 1994.

  2includes the independent broadcasting authorities levy before 1993–94.

  3includes ITC franchise payments from 1993–94.

  School Examination Costs
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education concerning extra funding needed to pay the cost of using external examiners in the assessment of key stage 2 and key stage 3.

  Mr. Portillo
  As a matter of practice, I do not reveal what representations on spending are made to me by colleagues.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government;

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

  (3) if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory basis;

  (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 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;

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

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has responsibility for only one advisory non-departmental public body, the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, although this is not sponsored by the Treasury and is advisory only to the Royal Mint. This body, which was established before 1993, is not required to publish its advice to Government or to produce an annual report. It does not have a statutory basis. The Government are not required to consult this body
  270
  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested, set out in the terms of the national accounts classification of taxes, is shown in the table.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Bank of England is taking concerning the book entry-only accounts opened by Banque Indosuez Aval and American Express for the Central Bank of Kenya in June last year.

  Mr. Nelson
  The special investigations unit of the Bank of England has conducted inquiries and is in close touch with the governor of the Central Bank of Kenya and the relevant supervisory authorities in France and the United States. It would not be appropriate to comment further while investigations are in the progress.

  Financial Instruments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he, or the Bank of England, has received from the Swiss authorities in relation to United Kingdom financial instruments sold to Swiss and international investors in Polly Peck, Mountleigh, Maxwell Communications and Ferranti/ISC.

  Mr. Nelson
  Neither the Chancellor, nor the Bank, has received any such representations.

  Weapons, Iraq
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the documents received by HM Customs from their Customs counterparts in each European Economic Area country between 1984 and 1992 in relation to the sale of Bofors weapons to Iraq; what meetings were held with each of them and when; and what action was taken as a result on each occasion.

  Sir John Cope
  I understand that HM Customs and Excise has received no information from its Customs counterparts in any of the EEA countries in relation to the sale of Bofors weapons to Iraq and that no meetings were held with its counterparts on this subject.

  EC Finance
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the payments of £1 million or over received from European Community funds, by expenditure programme, in each year since the United Kingdom's accession.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government receive several hundred individual payments from European Community
  271
  funds each year. A list of all payments of £1 million or more since 1973 could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Information about the United Kingdom's aggregated receipts is published each year in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments' annual report —prior to 1992–93 in "The Government Expenditure Plans"—and in the annual White Paper "Statement on the Community Budget".

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the United Kingdom's(a) gross contributions to, (b) payments received from and (c) net contributions to the European Community for each year since United Kingdom accession in 1973.

  Sir John Cope
  Details of the United Kingdom's gross contribution, public sector receipts and net contribution by financial year are published in the "Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departmental Report". Prior to 1992–93 similar information was published in "The Government Expenditure Plans"; these documents contain information on a calendar year basis for earlier years. Information on the United Kingdom's contributions and receipts since 1980, by calendar year, is contained in the annual White Paper, "Statement on the Community Budget".

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he favours economic and monetary union as the appropriate aim of the European Union; and what are the reasons for his policy on this matter.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: My views on economic and monetary union were set out in my speech to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Bonn on 29 June. A copy of the speech has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

SCOTLAND

  Birds (Protection)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, columns 316–20, if he will withdraw approval for the use of alphachloralose; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides has recently reviewed those pesticide products containing 100 per cent. alphachloralose. It concluded that the approvals for these products should continue because they fulfil an important role in rodent control and are used by local authorities and professional pest control agencies. The situation will be kept under review.

  Wildlife (Illegal Killing)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what plans he has to amend legislation or procedure in order to improve the detection and conviction rate for offences involving the illegal killing of protected wildlife in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  None. I do not consider that there is any need to amend legislation or procedures in Scotland at present. All necessary powers are available.
  272
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what central record is available to the Government of the illegal killing of protected birds in Scotland, other than those killed by poisons.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally.

  Milk Marketing Schemes
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce his decision on the re-organisation schemes submitted by the milk marketing boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Agriculture Act 1993 provided for the ending of the statutory milk marketing schemes. It enabled the milk marketing boards in Scotland to submit proposals to me for their replacement by voluntary arrangements, for the transfer of their assets to specified successor bodies, and for the distribution of the value of those assets to milk producers.

  The Scottish Milk Marketing Board, the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board, and the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board all submitted proposals to me last October following which I conducted a wide-ranging consultation of the various parties with an interest. Subsequently, and in the light of the responses to that consultation, the boards submitted amendments to their reorganisation schemes and I conducted a further round of consultation. I have now concluded that the requirements of the Act have been met and that, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the considerations specified in the Act, the schemes submitted by the boards should be approved.

  The Act requires that the principles of the approved reorganisation schemes be made public. The principles of the schemes as submitted, and subsequently amended, by the milk marketing boards were set out in the two consultation documents issued by my Department in October 1993 and May 1994. Although some further detailed amendments have been made by the boards to their schemes, the principles as set out in those documents are unchanged. Copies of the documents, together with a note updating them in the light of the further detailed amendments, are available in the Library of the House and can also be obtained from the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department.

  Under the approved reorganisation schemes, the existing statutory milk marketing schemes will be revoked on 1 November 1994 (the "vesting" date). As a result producers will be free to sell their milk to whom they wish, whether to the successor co-operatives being established under the board's reorganisation schemes, to other co-operatives or marketing groups of producers, or direct to dairies or to manufacturers of milk products. The price at which untreated milk can be bought will no longer be determined by the existing joint committee arrangements and according to its ultimate end-use but by contract between the purchaser and his supplier.

  The Scottish Milk Marketing Board will be succeeded by two separate companies, a producer co-operative, Scottish Milk Ltd. and a commercial company, Scottish Pride Holdings plc. The Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board will be succeeded by a single company

  273
  co-operative, Aberdeen Milk Company, and the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board by a single co-operative, the North of Scotland Milk Co-operative.

  In view of the delay in the vesting date from 1 April 1994 to 1 November 1994, however, milk producers who have already signed a contract with one of the successor co-operatives will no longer be bound by those contracts, and the boards will be writing to them inviting them to exercise their right to withdraw within two weeks; in the case of the Aberdeen board, the board will be cancelling all existing producer contracts with Aberdeen Milk Company and offering a revised contract. I urge all producers, including those who have not yet signed a contract with anyone, to decide as soon as possible to whom they wish to sell their milk from 1 November 1994 and to enter into a contract accordingly so that the necessary arrangements can be put in place for the uplift of their milk from that date.

  I am also about to announce today that, following an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food on 16 June that she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be proposing the establishment of a milk development council for England and Wales, I have decided in the light of the separate consultation I undertook of the industry in Scotland, that Scotland should also be included in this council which will therefore cover the whole of Great Britain. The development council should be operational from 1 November or soon thereafter.

  The ending of the statutory milk marketing schemes marks a major step forward in the history of the dairy industry in this country. It will enable competition to flourish in a way not possible before, and the industry will be able to respond better and more quickly to the needs and preferences of consumers.

  Kelso Road Bridge
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to approve the necessary capital consents to enable a start to be made on the new road bridge for Kelso.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1994]: The Kelso bridge is part of a local road and any decision relating to the provision of a new bridge are matters for Borders regional council as local roads authority.

  The Government set annual block allocations for capital expenditure on roads and transport and any proposals contained in councils' financial plans will be given careful consideration, within the resources available, in setting these levels. Thereafter it is for local authorities to set their own priorities for individual projects, such as a new Kelso bridge, taking account of local needs and circumstances.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Legislation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had on heritage-related legislation with the Association of Conservation Officers on Bills which have an impact on the heritage.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department has not so far introduced any legislation on the conservation of the built heritage and 274
  there have therefore been no such consultations. We would, however, expect to consult the Association of Conservation Officers, together with other interests, in the event of such legislation—or proposals for it—being put forward. My Department is always ready to discuss with the Association any particular concerns its members may have about the effect of other legislation on the built heritage.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to co-ordinate policies and operations in relation to the Lockerbie crime involving the destruction of Pan Am 103 between the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Scottish Office, the Department of Transport, the Intelligence Services, the Attorney-General and the Crown Office; and which is the lead Department.

  The Prime Minister
  The Crown Office is the lead Department on matters relating to the prosecution of those suspected of the Lockerbie bombing.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the lead department for international aspects.

  These Departments consult others on issues for which they are responsible, as they arise.

  Mr. Gordon McNally
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since October 1991 he has met Mr. Gordon McNally.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: So far as I am aware, Mr. McNally has attended three large functions at which I was also present between October 1991 and March 1993.

  Rio Declaration
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement outlining the benefits which will accrue to the manufacturing, construction and retailing sectors of the United Kingdom economy through the acceptance of agenda 21 of the Rio declaration of June 1992;

  (2) what assessment Her Majesty's Government have undertaken of the costs (a) to date and (b) by the year 2000, of complying with the Rio declaration of June 1992;

  (3) if he will make a statement summarising the information which he has about the extent to which other signatory countries to agenda 21 of the Rio declaration of June 1992, have begun to implement measures in keeping with the agenda which affect their manufacturing, construction and retailing industries.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 July 1994]: The Rio declaration and agenda 21 clearly recognise the importance of economic development to improvement of the quality of life of present and future generations. The Government are committed to the close involvement of the wealth-creating sectors in the preparation of policies to ensure that economic development is sustainable. Acceptance of the principles of agenda 21 by a large number of the United Kingdom's trading partners will help British business to compete on a level playing field, and

  275
  will create substantial new market opportunities for suppliers of cleaner process technologies and environmental goods and services.

  The Government seek to take account of the principles of sustainable development in all policies, together with a wide range of other factors. It is often not possible to separate out the cost attributable to abiding by the principles of sustainable development. However, we aim to consider carefully the compliance cost of all new policies.

  The United Kingdom Government have been one of the principal proponents of a system of national reporting on progress in the implementation of measures in agenda 21. Our sustainable development strategy was published this January. We shall continue to urge other countries to follow suit through our membership of the Commission on Sustainable Development. We hope that in due course the commission will be able to publish information based on national reports.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of cases alleging unfair dismissal brought before industrial tribunals have disability as their ground; what the degree of success in such appeals is estimated to be; and what estimate he has made as to the extent of the practice of dismissing such employees prior to the minimum term of continuous service which would allow appeals to be brought.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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. Michael Forsyth
  The Department conducts an annual attitude survey asking staff for their opinions on internal operational issues such as staff appraisal, communications, job satisfaction, equal opportunities and staff development.

  Managers use the results to improve the internal operation of the Department. The results of the 1993 survey are encouraging and show a continuing upward trend compared with previous years.

  I have arranged to place copies in the Library of a summary already sent to staff of the responses to the Employment Department's staff attitude survey over recent years.

  Blind People (Home Workers)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement regarding the future of the home workers' scheme for blind people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Officials are considering the effectiveness of the blind home workers scheme. They are canvassing views from local authority, voluntary body and home worker interest groups on future options for the scheme, and proposals will be put forward in due course.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday playschemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department Group currently supports six workplace nurseries and 49 holiday play schemes. The cost of this support across the group as a whole was £430,000 in 1993–94. This includes net expenditure on nursery places and financial help with additional child care costs incurred through attending training courses or other work-based functions. No part of the group subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" or offers child care vouchers. All child care assistance within the group is subject to meeting value for money considerations.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what creche facilities are available through the Employment Service for single parents attending Government training centres in the area of the Derbyshire, North-East parliamentary constituency; and how they are advertised.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no creche facilities available directly through the Employment Service. Lone parents in north-east Derbyshire on Government-funded vocational training can claim 75p per hour for each child. This is paid by North Derbyshire training and enterprise council, which runs training for work programmes in the area under its "Skillsbuild" banner. The TEC plans to launch an information pack later this month, aimed at women wishing to return to work, including lone parents. It will be circulated widely and be available in our Employment Service jobcentres in the area.

  Employment Service Programmes
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to exempt foyer residents from the normal eligibility conditions for employment service programmes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have decided to give residents of pilot foyers exemption from the basic eligibility conditions for jobclub, job interview guarantee, job search seminars and work trials. This means that these foyer residents, who have particular disadvantages, can now join these programmes on or after their first day of unemployment. In addition the minimum age for joining these programmes has been lowered to 17 for residents of the pilot foyers. The exemptions for 17-year-olds will apply only after the guaranteed offer of a place on youth training has been made, and their education and training options fully and urgently explored by the local training and enterprise council. These conditions will apply from now to residents of the YMCA's foyers in Nottingham, Norwich, St. Helens, Romford and Wimbledon, and are intended to apply to the foyers being newly built in Camberwell, Birmingham and Salford. The Government will keep the effect of the changes and the extra help they give foyer participants under review.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions civil servants or former civil servants have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  No central record is maintained of cases prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1989. I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service has authorised two prosecutions under section 4 of the Act relating to civil servants.

  Development Grants
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General if he gave legal advice to the Secretary of State for Wales concerning the payment of grants from the Welsh Development Agency to the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  By convention, the Law Officers do not normally disclose whether they have been asked to advise on a particular issue or the substance of any advice that they may have given.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  It is the policy of the Law Officers' Departments to provide child care facilities for staff where there is a need and arrangements can be justified on value for money grounds. The Crown Prosecution Service provides a subsidy of up to 50 per cent. for nursery places and holiday play schemes. The service also contributes to extra child care expenses incurred by staff when attending training courses. The Treasury Solicitor's Department provides a subsidy of 50 per cent. for the Westminster holiday play scheme. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office subscribe to "Childcare Solutions". No Department makes child care vouchers available.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when British Rail's rolling stock leasing companies will be sold; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We have decided that British Rail's passenger rolling stock leasing companies should be sold during 1995.

  The three rolling stock leasing compaies were established as subsidiaries of British Rail, as part of the reorganisation of the railways introduced in April this year, to lease rolling stock to British Rail's 25 passenger train operating units. It was made clear at the time the companies were set up that they would be transferred to the private sector as soon as practicable. Detailed leases with
  278
  each of the train operating units will now be put in place in final form by the end of this year. The companies will then be offered for trade sale as early as possible in 1995.

  The privatisation of the rolling stock leasing companies will be a major step in the rail privatisation programme. Freed from the constraints of operating in the public sector, the three companies will be able to bring private sector expertise and commercial practice to the supply of rolling stock to train operators. In particular, they will be free to raise private capital for new investment. I look forward to the development of a thriving competitive market in the provision of passenger rolling stock.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Department of Transport staff have access to nursery facilities in Bristol, Hastings and Swansea. Places at holiday play schemes are available to staff in Bedford, Birmingham, Bristol, Exeter, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, and Swansea.

  The Department has discretion to provide assistance with child care where this can be justified on value for money grounds, and within overall running cost constraints. The Department's general practice is to assist with start-up or "pump-priming" costs from central funds, leaving local budgets to assist with continuing costs where that is necessary and justified on value for money grounds. Details are not held centrally. The Department does not make child care vouchers available.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in relation to the figures collected by the Royal Automobile Club in relation to carbon monoxide and other noxious car exhaust emissions and the table of different cities in the United Kingdom in order of emission gases concentrations; and if he will make a statement on the effect of noxious exhaust emissions on(a) road users, (b) pedestrians and (c) others.

  Mr. Key
  I have received no representations on this matter. The Department is liaising closely with the Department of Health on the studies and research now under way into the possible health effects of air pollutants. Future action, in addition to measures already in place or proposed, for reducing motor vehicle pollutants, will be considered in the light of these considerations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the Royal Automobile Club in relation to the position of Cardiff in the league table of car exhaust-related emissions of carbon monoxide and other noxious gases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest research which has been carried out with Government support in the reduction of emissions from motor vehicles.
  279
  Mr. Key
  The reduction of motor vehicle pollutant emissions remains a major policy objective. My Department spent £830,000 on research on this topic in 1993–94. New vehicle petrol engine pollutant emissions are much reduced and good progress is being made on future reductions for diesel engines. More research is being undertaken to understand the health hazards of particulates from motor vehicle exhausts.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what objectives he has set for Railtrack and British Rail in the current financial year; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 1 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn),Official Report, column 773.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has retained to control wage agreements entered into by Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to control Railtrack's wage agreements. As with any Government-owned body it is, however, expected to follow the Government's approach to public sector pay which was set out clearly last autumn by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Road Construction Losses
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if disciplinary action will be taken against officials in his Department responsible for the losses identified by the National Audit Office in respect of acquisition and management of land and property purchased for road construction.

  Mr. Key
  The Department and the Highways Agency are giving this report full and careful consideration, but, by convention, substantive comments on National Audit Office reports are not made before the Public Accounts Committee has had an opportunity to take evidence from the Department.

  Traffic Area Offices (Running Costs)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the running costs of the traffic area offices for the financial year 1993–94 in(a) total, (b) staffing costs, (c) accommodation, (d) consultant fees, (e) information technology purchases, (f) stationery, (g) works and maintenance and (h) other.

  Mr. Key
  The running costs of the traffic area offices for the financial year 1993–94 were as follows:

  Running costs

  £

  (a)

  Total

  12,373,007

  (b)

  Staffing costs

  6,896,695

  (c)

  Accommodation

  2,007,852

  (d)

  Consultant fees

  119,455

  (e)

  IT purchases/services

  1,147,906

  (f)

  Stationery

  114,831

  (g)

  Works and maintenance

  202,887

  (h)

  Other

  1,883,381

  Efficiency Saving Target
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department's 20 per cent. efficiency saving target applies to the DSA.

  Mr. Key
  I have nothing to add to the answer given on 14 June at columns 510–11.

  M11 Link
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory and other environmental bodies were consulted by his Department at the early stage of route development of the M11 link road; and if he will place in the Library a summary of the parts of the advice from the statutory bodies which was not accepted by his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  This information about the Al2 Hackney Wick to M11 link road is available from the inspector's report of the .1983 public inquiry, except that it will not show the instances, if any, where a body had been consulted but not responded. The hon. Gentleman received a copy of the report when it was published in 1985.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the speech of the chief executive of the DSA to the Scottish Driving Examiners Conference on 28 June in respect of the applicability of his Department's efficiency saving target to his agency represents Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  In the context of a presentation to the Scottish Driving Examiners Conference, the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency acknowledged that the Secretary of State was requiring the Department to find a 20 per cent. efficiency gain, but said that he was not yet in a position to comment on the implications for the agency. That was an accurate representation of the position.

  Traffic Generation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received a copy of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report on traffic generation; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), on 20 May 1994, at columns 596–99.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution she expects days-at-sea restrictions to make towards achieving the United Kingdom's multi-annual guidance programme target by the end of 1996; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom's days at sea measures were due to be introduced in January this year. The
  281
  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations sought judicial review of the United Kingdom legislation and the High Court has referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice as our legislation was based on Community regulations. The European Court is unlikely to respond until 1995. In those circumstances, the Government decided to suspend the days at sea restrictions pending clarification of the legal position.

  Currently we are moving towards our targets via decommissioning and licence penalties. We are also having discussions with the Commission on the possible contribution to effort reduction from technical conservation measures.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities her Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department provides racks for 20 bicycles in its Whitehall buildings, 25 in its Millbank buildings and 15 in its Albert Embankment building, all of which are under cover. There are free standing areas, too, which can be used. Visitors are welcome to use these facilities during office hours and subject to security checks.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision her Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday playschemes; if her Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 7 March 1994 to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman),Official Report, column 67, which gave details of child care provision for staff in the Department. Most places are subsidised, but the extent of the subsidy varies according to the nursery or play scheme.

  The Department does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or make child care vouchers available.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations she has received from(a) specialist consumer organisations and (b) members of the public concerning the ban on comfrey products since the ban was announced; and how many of these representations supported the ban.

  Mr. Soames
  I have received roughly 100 similar representations objecting to the trade withdrawal. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain supports greater controls on the availability of comfrey products. The National Consumer Council and Consumers Association welcomed the voluntary withdrawal.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation was held with(a) the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy and (b) specialist consumer groups before the introduction of the ban on comfrey products; what plans she has to review the ban; and if she will make a statement.
  282
  Mr. Soames
  All interested parties were informed at the same time of my intention to seek a voluntary withdrawal of comfrey products on health grounds. Any review of the situation will be based on the best scientific advice available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the World Bank and the Governments which are scheduled to send representatives to the forthcoming meeting of the consultation group on Indonesia in Paris to postpone the meeting.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have approached the president or any member Governments of the World bank, asking for a postponement of the consultative group on Indonesia meeting in Paris on 7 and 8 July, in the light of the human rights situation in Indonesia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Indonesia's human rights record over the past year has improved. We were therefore surprised and concerned to learn of the recent banning of three journals, a decision which appears inconsistent with the greater spirit of openness that has prevailed in Indonesia recently. But we do not believe the Indonesian action warrants a postponement of this week's consultative group meeting.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what has been his response to the Commonwealth Institute's relaunch plan as discussed at the board's executive committee meeting on 21 June;

  (2) what has been his response to the proposals for the relaunch plans for the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland as discussed at a meeting where his representatives were present on 21 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As Her Majesty's Government's representative indicated at the meeting of the executive committee on 21 June 1994, we hope to give our response to the various proposals by the middle of this month.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has on(a) incentives to conform with the Chinese population control programme, including access to land, better housing, reduction in taxes and extra payments and (b) the content of the eugenics laws enacted by Gansu and Liaoning provinces; and what progress has been made in enacting a national Chinese eugenics law;

  (2) what information he has on the number and nature of Chinese population control projects sponsored by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities under the memorandum of understanding between China and the UNFPA in 1979;
  283
  (3) what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Government's representatives in China concerning the population control programme and in particular the practice of killing children during or immediately after birth;

  (4) what information he has on (a) the number of United Nations Fund for Population activities staff present in China and their duties in relation to the Chinese population control programme; (b) how many Chinese personnel involved in the Chinese population control programme have received training from the UNFPA; and (c) how many UNFPA officials based in China work with the Chinese State Family Planning Commission;

  (5) what information he has on the steps taken by the United Nations Fund for Population activities to ensure that management information systems and training in programme research and evaluation provided to the Chinese State Family Planning Commission have not and are not being used to enforce birth quotas on the Chinese population;

  (6) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding the Chinese national eugenics policy and the forced sterilisation of those regarded as physically or mentally deficient or their partners;

  (7) what information he has regarding which Chinese provinces specify the legal insertion of inter-uterine devices into women; and what exemptions are made for women for whom IUDs may not be medically appropriate;

  (8) what provision is made in China for couples who are opposed in conscience to artificial contraception, sterilisation and abortion;

  (9) what information he has on the levels of fines specified in China for Chinese women in breach of provincial family planning legislation; and how they are related to average rural and urban per capita incomes;

  (10) what information he has on the practice of destroying the homes of families in breach of Chinese provincial family planning legislation;

  (11) what information he has on the methods used to persuade Chinese women to undergo sterilisation in accordance with provincial laws; and what information he has on the number of Chinese women who have been sterilised;

  (12) what information he has on the practice of fining women who refuse to be sterilised in China; and what information he has on the practice in Fuijan province, China, of taking women for forcible sterilisation;

  (13) what information he has as to which Chinese provinces do not have laws obliging (a) one member of a married couple to be sterilised or (b) women to use contraception;

  (14) what information he has on the practice of making payments to Chinese women for being sterilised;

  (15) what information he has on the reasons for the percentage change in the number of sterilisations conducted in China in 1991;

  (16) what information he has on the use of ultrasound equipment in China to detect female unborn children;

  (17) what information he has on Chinese official rules requiring expectant mothers to present birth authorisation cards before being admitted to hospital delivery rooms in Canton; and if he will make a statement;

  (18) if he will seek clarification from his Chinese opposite number about reports regarding the disappearance of female children; and if he will make a statement;
  284
  (9) what information he has on the practice of fining or sacking Chinese district and township officials if local family planning targets are not achieved;

  (20) what information he has on Chinese early birth shock brigades and their role in forcible abortions;

  (21) what information he has on the effects of the 1991 decision by the Standing Committee of the Chinese Politburo to tighten enforcement of the Chinese birth control programmes on the population of China;

  (22) if his officials consider data on the numbers of sterilisations and abortions in China before agreeing funds for his budget for the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities;

  (23) if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the information contained in the articles by Michael Weisskopf from the Washington Post on the Chinese population control programme deposited by his Department in the Library;

  (24) what information he has received on high-tides in the Chinese population programme from Her Majesty's Government's representatives in China; and if he will make a statement;

  (25) what information he has on the reasons for the prevalence of third trimester abortions in China;

  (26) what information he has on the practices of killing babies (a) during birth and (b) when they are newly born, by doctors in Hohhot, China; and if he will make a statement;

  (27) what consideration his Department gives to China's compliance with the right to freely found a family and decide the numbers of children when deciding on the allocation of aid in respect of family planning;

  (28) what information he has on the practice of awarding Chinese local officials cash bonuses if they achieve birth targets set by the authorities in Beijing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The hon. Gentleman has tabled 28 questions covering one subject area.

  The British Government are concerned about all human rights abuses, whether they occur in China or elsewhere. The Government's views are well known to the Chinese, and we have consistently urged them to conform with internationally recognised standards of behaviour.

  Questions 57, 63, 112, 118, 127, 130 refer to Chinese Government policies and their implementation. Questions 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 125, 135 refer to provincial population programmes, and the way in which they are implemented at provincial and local level. Questions 59, 119, 120, 121, 124, 126, 129, 131, 132 refer to allegations about practices which have a bearing on reproductive health and population issues, though these are not necessarily the results of central or provincial Chinese government policies.

  The issues raised in all these questions are complex. We do not have ready access to the detailed information that would be required to answer the questions raised. Assembling such information would involve a prohibitive cost.

  Questions 58, 61, 62 refer to the work in China of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to the hon. Member with the information that we have received from UNFPA. In answer to question 128, the Government take account of the efforts being made by the

  285
  International Planned Parenthood Federation and UNFPA to promote better reproductive health and children by choice throughout the world, including their efforts in China, when agreeing the level of support they are to receive from the ODA's budget. Both organisations oppose the promotion of abortion as a method of family planning and all forms of coercion in family planning programmes.

  Regarding question 134, the Government do not directly finance family planning projects in China. We continue to advocate that all men and women should be able to choose when to have children, and that women, in particular, should be in a position to exercise this choice of their own free will, without pressure of coercion. Those views are well known to the Chinese authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those communications he and his predecessors have received from the Governor of Hong Kong regarding the arms supply and related activities of the Rex Group of companies between 1981 and 1991; and what was reported to him in this matter by Mr. Layton and Mr. Pickin.

  Member state

  Number of referrals

  Number withdrawn

  Number still in motion

  Judgment for commission

  Judgment for member state

  United Kingdom

  5

  0

  3

  2

  0

  Belgium

  24

  11

  4

  9

  0

  Denmark

  3

  1

  0

  2

  0

  France

  4

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Germany

  10

  0

  7

  3

  0

  Greece

  17

  6

  3

  7

  1

  Ireland

  13

  7

  1

  5

  0

  Italy

  39

  21

  10

  7

  1

  Luxembourg

  31

  18

  11

  2

  0

  Netherlands

  17

  4

  7

  6

  0

  Portugal

  4

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Spain

  11

  1

  5

  5

  0

  It should, however, be borne in mind that, even though the Commission may bring a case against a member state based on several complaints, the Commission need only succeed on one complaint for the judgment to be recorded as being in its favour.

  Latvia and Estonia
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between Estonia and Latvia; and if he will comment on the implications for the partnership for peace agreements.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the agreements signed by Latvia and Russia on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Latvia by 31 August, which we hope will form the basis for good relations between the two countries. We are urging Russia and Estonia to conclude a similar agreement. We welcome Estonian, Latvian and Russian signature of the partnership for peace framework document. We look forward, with other NATO partners, to developing closer relations with all three countries through the Partnership for Peace programme.
  286
  Mr. Goodlad
  It would not be customary to disclose the contents of communications between the Governor and Ministers. These are conducted on a confidential basis.

  European Court
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many judgments handed down by the European Court of Justice have gone(a) in favour of and (b) against each member country.

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  Cases can be brought before the European Court of Justice by various parties under a number of treaty articles. Many cases do not involve member states at all. It would involve disproportionate cost to identify all the cases since the Community was founded which involved member states directly. If the Commission considers that a member state has failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaty, it may take action under Article 169, which can lead to proceedings before the European Court of Justice. Details of judgments issued on cases brought since 1989 under article 169 can be found in the Commission's eleventh annual report on monitoring the application of Community law. A copy of the report is available in the House. The figures for these cases are as follows:

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in the context of(a) the Council of Europe (b) the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and (c) the United Nations on the human rights implications for Latvia's Russian population of the recent laws on citizenship.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  President Ulmanis has returned to Parliament for reconsideration the draft citizenship law passed by the Latvian Parliament in June. We are urging the Latvians to incorporate into the law recommendations made by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe.

  Per Capita Income
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the latest available data on per capita income in each country; and what data are available on per capita wealth by country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Per capita income and per capita wealth are not measured separately. Both are represented by the data collected on each country's per capita gross national product. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the "World
  287
  Bank Atlas 1994", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. The atlas gives the latest GNP per capita information on 207 of the world's economies.

  Tibet
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) assistance and (b)
  guidance on human rights issues he gives to British companies considering investing in Tibet.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Neither I nor the embassy in Peking have been approached by any British companies considering investing in Tibet.

  European Council
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following meetings are planned:

  A: ECOFIN

  B: FAC

  C: Agriculture

  D: Budget

  E: ECOFIN

  F: Justice

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  A—11 July: ECOFIN

  Follow-up to Corfu European Council

  Broad economic guidelines (adoption of)

  Commission annual report on fraud and work programme

  Special report on European Court of Auditors

  Relations with CEE

  B—18–19 July: Foreign Affairs Council

  Presentation of German Presidency programme

  Implementation of White Paper

  Follow up to Corfu European Council

  Ex Yugoslavia

  Relations with the European Parliament

  EU relations with Canada and USA

  G7 Summit

  Relations with central and eastern Europe

  Relations with the Mediterranean basin

  State of contractual relations with certain former Soviet Union countries

  Public access to information

  Relations with Asia

  Relations with India

  EC/Sri Lanka agreement

  International coffee agreement (possible 'A' point)

  New import regime for China

  Textiles

  C—18–19 July: Agriculture

  Yellowfats

  Tariff quota for mountain and alpine cattle

  Agricultural Structures

  Amending Directive 64/432 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in animals

  Wine reform

  Implementation of simplificatiion of common agricultural policy reform

  List of third country establishments

  D—25 July: Budget

  First reading of draft EC budget 1995

  Supplementary budget 1994

  E—27 July: ECOFIN

  Agenda not yet available

  F—28 July: Justice

  Agenda not yet available

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday playschemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO has 10 places for the under-fives at nurseries in London, subsidised by 50 per cent., and 22 places in a workplace nursery for staff working at Hanslope Park. Staff in London may bid for holiday places for five to 12-year-olds through the Westminster holiday play scheme, also subsidised by 50 per cent.

  The ODA offers no nursery provision for staff, but provides holiday play schemes for staff working at each of its three sites. In London this is through the Westminster holiday play scheme—the other two play schemes are ODA-administered. These schemes cater for children aged between five and 14 depending on the scheme and are subsidised by up to 50 per cent.

  The provision of child care is on a value for money basis and is contained within existing running costs. The FCO does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or provide child care vouchers.

  International War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on progress being made by the international war crimes tribunal set up in 1993; and if he will list the judges, giving their countries of origin and background.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The acting deputy prosecutor, Mr. Graham Blewitt, is currently setting up the prosecutor's office. A number of investigatory and prosecutorial staff have now arrived in The Hague. Mr. Blewitt is hoping to start the first trials later this year.

  The judges of the tribunal and their nationalities are as follows:

  President of the Tribunal, H.E. Judge Antonio Cassese, Italy

  Vice-President of the Tribunal, H.E. Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito, Costa Rica

  H.E. Judge Georges M. Abi-Saab, Egypt

  H.E. Judge Jules Deschenes, Canada

  H.E. Judge Claude Jorda, France

  H.E. Judge Aldophus G. Karibi-Whyte, Nigeria

  H.E. Judge Haopei Li, China

  H.E. Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, USA

  H.E. Judge Rustam S. Sidhwa, Pakistan

  H.E. Judge Sir Ninian Stephen, Australia

  H.E. Judge Lal Chand Vohrah, Malaysia

  Copies of the judges' curricula vitae have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to introduce enabling legislation necessary for the United Kingdom's ratification of the chemical weapons convention before 18 July.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to introduce implementing legislation for ratification of the chemical
  289
  weapons convention before 18 July. The legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that the United Kingdom will ratify the chemical weapons convention by January 1995.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall ratify the chemical weapons convention as soon as the necessary implementing legislation is in place. No parliamentary time has yet been allocated for this.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) on 4 July at columns 49–50.

  Compensation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the amounts of compensation received by(a) asbestosis sufferers who have won court awards which were appealed against by firms and (b) those who received the same award which was accepted by the firm.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the annual running costs of the compensation recovery unit.

  Mr. Scott
  The costs for the financial year 1993–94 were approximately £2.4 million.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show the amounts successfully reclaimed by the compensation recovery unit in each year for the past 10 years.

  Mr. Scott
  Recoveries made under the compensation recovery scheme apply to compensation payments made on or after 3 September 1990 for an accident, injury or

  Number of children in families receiving the following benefits

  Year

  Widowed mother's allowance

  Supplementary benefit/Income support

  Family income supplement/Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Community charge benefit

  1979

  132

  955

  184

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  1,125

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  119

  1,550

  226

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  112

  1,793

  306

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  106

  1,868

  396

  n/a

  n/a

  1984

  111

  2,033

  428

  n/a

  n/a

  1985

  93

  n/a

  415

  n/a

  n/a

  1986

  86

  2,227

  412

  n/a

  n/a

  1987

  81

  2,236

  457

  n/a

  n/a

  1988

  85

  2,195

  438

  370

  n/a

  1989

  81

  2,138

  656

  335

  n/a

  1990

  80

  2,151

  669

  1,807

  2,563

  1991

  78

  2,497

  736

  1,971

  2,634

  290
  disease which occurred on or after 1 January 1989, therefore, the information requested is only available for each financial year since 1990.

  I gave the hon. Member this information on 5 July at Cols. 226–27.

  Child Support Act
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend phasing in of the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 to all those with second families.

  Mr. Burt
  The phasing arrangements apply to all absent parents with a previous court order or written maintenance agreement, who had a second family at the date the new maintenance assessment was made and whose new assessment is more than £20 a week higher than their old liability. We have no plans to extend these arrangements.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations which have made representations to him about the effect of the Child Support Act 1991 on second families.

  Mr. Burt
  Representations have been received from a number of large organisations: the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Families Need Fathers, Stepfamily, the National Council for One Parent Families, and the Campaign for Fair Maintenance.

  Representations have also been received from a range of smaller and local organisations.

  Benefit-dependent Families
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were living in families dependent on benefit in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  Families with children may be assisted by a number of social security benefits, and may receive more than one benefit at a time. Child benefit is available for all children regardless of income and is currently payable for 12·5 million children in nearly 7 million families. The number of children in families receiving the main income-related benefits for each year since 1979 are in the table. The number of children in families receiving widowed mothers allowance are also shown. For the purposes of the information in the table, children are defined as aged under 16 years or aged 16 to 19 years and in full-time education.
  291

  Year

  Widowed mother's allowance

  Supplementary benefit/Income support

  Family income supplement/Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Community charge benefit

  1992

  80

  2,874

  829

  2,477

  3,187

  1993

  80

  3,207

  993

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in thousands and are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  2. Families can be receiving more than one benefit at the same time.

  3. No information is available for widowed mother's allowance and family income supplement in 1980 due to changes in the way statistics were published.

  4. No information is available for supplementary benefit in 1985 because no annual statistical inquiry was carried out due to industrial action.

  5. The 1988 and 1989 information for housing benefit and community charge benefit relates to cases without income support.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Iain Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has received on the relationship of housing benefit and the level of pitch rent levied by mobile home site owners.

  Mr. Hague
  None. Housing benefit is available to help pay reasonable pitch rents in the same way as for the rents of other types of accommodation.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Benefits Agency to give a decision in respect of the claim for family credit submitted by Mrs. G. Foster.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 6 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question, asking about the claim to Family Credit (FC) from Mrs. G. Foster.
  You will be aware that Mrs. Foster submitted her claim to FC on 21 January 1994. I can assure you that every effort is being made to resolve this matter and Mrs. Foster will be advised of the outcome in due course. However, due to the complex nature of Mrs. Foster's case, the matter is still under consideration by the Adjudication Officer (AO). AOs are the first tier of the independent adjudicating authorities who decide all claims to Family Credit. The responsibility for interpreting the law and its application in individual cases rests solely with them. No Government Minister or Departmental Official may comment on, or intervene in, matters which are the responsibility of these independent authorities.
  The AO will make a decision on the claim as soon as the required information becomes available. However, due to the personal and confidential nature of the case, I have written to you separately and in greater detail to explain this matter.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 7 March at column 38. The extent of subsidy varies according to the
  292
  nature and location of the child care facilities. About 8,000 staff across the Department have access to the referral services provided by "Childcare Solutions". Child care vouchers are not available.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to contracting out.

  Mr. Hague
  When considering the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, this Department takes account of the considerations set out in the guidance on the implications for market testing of the regulations issued on 11 March 1993 by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and considers each case on its merits in the light of that advice.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the percentage change in(a) the state pension, (b) the pensioners price index and (c) the retail prices index since 1979; and what has been the average change in pensioner income.

  Mr. Hague
  Between November 1979 and April 1994, state retirement pension increased by 147·2 per cent. while the pensioners price index increased by 118·4 per cent. and the retail prices index by 139·4 per cent.

  Between 1979 and 1991—the latest year for which these figures are currently available—the average increase in pensioners' income was 42 per cent. above the level of inflation, as measured by the retail price index.

  Notes:

  1. Percentage figures have been corrected to one decimal place and to whole number for growth in pensioner incomes.

  2. The standard rate of basic retirement pension payable to a single person aged under 80 has been used in the calculation.

  3. The pensioners price index is a quarterly index; growth has been measured between the last quarter of 1979 and the first quarter of 1994.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the weekly bulletin on the contents of recent economics journals, produced by his Department's information and library service.
  293
  Mr. Eggar
  Following a review of internal publications, the DTI information and library services decided to cease their involvement with this publication and a notification to that effect appeared in the issue dated 3 June 1994.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office has, for many years, undertaken the majority of the printing, publication and sales work on behalf of the Department and it has decided to assume ful responsibility for this publication following the issue dated 1 July 1994. It is now operating in partnership with the universities of Luton and Warwick.

  Machine Tools Industry
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the United Kingdom machine tools industry is devoted to(a) armaments production and (b) tools capable of producing armaments; what is the total value of the machine tools industry in the United Kingdom; and what was the total value of machine tools exports from the United Kingdom in the last available year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom machine tool industry is devoted to producing machine tools, not armaments. Machine tools themselves can usually be used to make a variety of products, depending on the skill of the operator or their computer programming. It is not possible to estimate how many machine tools are used for particular purposes.

  In 1992 sales of United Kingdom-made machine tools were £853 million and exports were worth £456 million. Provisional figures for 1993 indicate that the industry ran a balance of trade surplus of £31 million, reflecting a lower level of imports and higher competitiveness. I have written to the Machine Tool Technologies Association congratulating the industry on this achievement.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is giving to the development of telecommunications in central and eastern Europe.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The DTI, through promotional events, seminars and ministerial-led trade missions, actively encourages British companies in the telecommunications sector to export to, and invest in, central and eastern Europe. The establishment of joint ventures and the transfer of know-how will encourage the development of, and spread of best practice in, the telecommunications sector in the region. The DTI has appointed an export promoter, a private sector secondee, who deals specifically with promoting trade in the telecommunications sector with central and eastern Europe.

  The EU's technical assistance programme, PHARE, has highlighted telecommunications as one of its priority sectors. The United Kingdom is a significant contributor to the PHARE programme. To date PHARE has provided 42·9 million ecu in assistance for the development of telecommunications in the region.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.
  294
  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Eggar
  None, except that the Secretary of State is required to lay before Parliament a copy of the annual report issued by the Director General of Telecommunications and this includes a report by the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for England.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Eggar
  "Public Bodies 1993", published in December 1993, lists non-departmental public bodies in existence at 1 April 1993. The following advisory non-departmental public bodies have been established by my Department since then:

  Energy Advisory Panel

  Advisory Committee for the Joint Environmental Markets Unit

  Advisory Committee on Coal Research

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory basis; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Eggar
  None, except the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for England.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Eggar
  None except the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for England.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 404, if his Department has other information on investment in increased manufacturing capacity in addition to that published by the Confederation of British Industry in its industrial trends survey.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The CBI "Industrial Trends Survey" is the only major business survey which asks respondents about the reasons for increased manufacturing investment.

  Office of Fair Trading (Recommendations)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to implement the Office of Fair Trading's recommendations on consumer credit;
  295
  when he intends to implement the Office of Fair Trading's recommendations on monetary limits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department of Trade and Industry and other interested Government Departments are considering the recommendations about monetary limits and other matters in the Director General of Fair Trading's recent report on his review of consumer credit legislation. It is my intention to make a statement in due course.

  Overseas Projects Board
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 10, if he will give details of the membership and remit of the Overseas Projects Board.

  Mr. Needham
  The Overseas Projects Board provides expert advice to DTI Ministers and their officials on issues affecting United Kingdom industry's ability to compete effectively for major projects overseas and serves as a focal point for industry to communicate its views to Government.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a current list of the names and occupations of the members.

  Parcelforce
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (i) how many casual workers are currently employed by Parcelforce; and what is that figure as a percentage of the number of the overall work force of Parcelforce;

  (2) if he will make a statement in respect of the recruitment procedures for casual employees of Parcelforce.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 30 June 1994,Official Report, column 668.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992 were answered within two months; how many have been refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 6 July 1994]: The Department does not record centrally requests received under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. However, as far as we are aware, DTI has to date answered 191 requests for information under the regulations. Of these, 184 were answered within two months; the remainder were answered as soon as either the information requested had been processed or consultations with affected parties had been completed. A total of 146 requests have been declined: 144 because the Department did not hold the information concerned; and two because the information requested did not come within the terms of the regulations.

  Rio Declaration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the precise provisions of principle 8 of agenda 21 of the Rio declaration of June 1992; what is his policy in respect of implementing those provisions; and what specific policies have been adopted by his Department in 296
  respect of those aspects of principle 8 which commit signatories to achieve sustainable development by eliminating unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 6 July 1994]: Principle 8 of the Rio declaration on environment and development provides that, to achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, states should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies. As with other Governments participating in the Rio summit, the United Kingdom accepts the broad principles enshrined in the Rio declaration.

  The Government's strategy for reducing and eliminating unsustainable patterns of production and consumption is set out in "Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy", Cm. 2426, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Chapter 20 of the strategy sets out the Government's approach to promoting sustainability in the manufacturing and services sector. Action taken by my Department in support of the strategy will continue to be reported in the Government's annual White Paper on environmental progress and in the Government's "Expenditure Plans for Trade and Industry", published most recently in March 1994, Cm. 2504.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to deal with racial attacks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are seeking new powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to deal more effectively with serious racial harassment, particularly where it is persistent. The interdepartmental racial attacks group is currently examining additional practical ways of dealing with the problem including the recommendation of the Select Committee report.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently concerning firearms licensing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply that I gave today to a question by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the penalties for unlawful possession of firearms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have done so. We have proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which will significantly increase the maximum penalties for the unlawful possession and acquisition of firearms.

  Crime Prevention Programme
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his programme to tackle crime.
  297
  Mr. Howard
  I have received many representations from a number of different quarters. The Police Federation has given my programme to tackle crime a particularly warm welcome. It described it as "first class" and said:"It will help tremendously in the fight against crime".

  Terrorism
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the legislation dealing with terrorism.

  Mr. Howard
  We will keep the legislation against terrorism in place for as long as the threat from terrorism continues. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains new police stop and search powers, creates two new offences and improves the legislation relating to the investigation of terrorism.

  Secure Training Orders
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of secure training orders otherwise than by the Crown court.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill provides that the secure training order will be available to the youth court as well as to the Crown court.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce identity cards.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The issue is kept under review. We are currently looking at the technical options for identity cards in the context of a wider study of smartcard applications in Government.

  Prison Capacity
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding prison capacity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department receives many letters from individuals, including Members of Parliament, with reference to prison capacity either in connection with particular prisons or in regard to the future plans of the Prison Service.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his response to comments on the proposals contained in the White Paper on the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's response to comments made about reforms of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, described in the White Paper, was made clear in debates in this House on 28 March, and in another place on 2 March and 16 June. There are no plans to publish any other response.

  Police (Administrative Burdens)
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding administrative burdens on the police; and if he will make a statement.
  298
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Last year we reviewed the paperwork burdens on the police and accepted 16 proposals for reducing them. The proposals are now being implemented with the co-operation of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Metropolitan Police (Specialist Squads)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made to date by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in his review of specialist squads within the Metropolitan police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that the service restructuring team began its consideration of the specialist detective squads based at New Scotland Yard at the end of May this year. An initial consultation paper, outlining the main issues, is expected to be published towards the end of the summer.

  Prison Population
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Wednesday 6 July 1994 there were 48,750 prisoners in Prison Service accommodation and 85 prisoners in police cells, giving a total of 48,835 prisoners in custody.

  Video Violence and Pornography
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to limit the accessibility of video violence and pornography to children.

  Mr. Maclean
  New provisions are contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which, together with changes already made in the Video Recordings Act 1993, will significantly strengthen the present provisions relating both to the classification of video works and their subsequent supply.

  Community Policing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about community policing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The aim of local management of policing is that the police provide the service which best meets the needs and wishes of the local community. Mutually supportive partnerships between the police and the public lead to successes in the prevention and detection of crime.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in extending the Attorney-General's right to appeal against lenient sentences.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 1 March the Attorney-General's power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal was extended so as to cover the offences of
  299
  indecent assault, making threats to kill and child cruelty. All the most serious violent and sexual offences ale now within the scope of the power. After the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill has received Royal Assent my right hon. and learned Friend intends to extend the power so that it will also apply to cases of serious fraud.

  Indecency with Children Act
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 there are in the United Kingdom;

  Number of known offenders—those found guilty or cautioned—for offences under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 19601 1990 to 1992

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  Year

  Cautions

  Convictions

  Known offenders

  Gross indecency with boys

  1990

  53

  128

  181

  1991

  41

  91

  132

  1992

  46

  99

  145

  Gross indecency with girls

  1990

  41

  148

  189

  1991

  40

  128

  168

  1992

  52

  129

  181

  1The Act does not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has on the incidence of reoffending among offenders under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.

  Mr. Maclean
  Full information on the incidence of such reoffending is not available. Some information has been extracted from two studies which use the offenders index:

  (i) In a cohort study of around 50,000 people born in England and Wales in 1953 whose convictions have been followed until the end of 1989, 14 people in the sample had at least one conviction under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Of these, four people had at least one further conviction recorded up until the end of 1989; none of these further convictions were for offences under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Two of the 10 without further convictions had been followed up for less than two years.

  (ii) In a study of all people discharged from prisons in England and Wales in 1988 whose principal offence was a sexual offence, 215 people had a conviction under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Of these, 35—or 16 per cent.—had at least one further conviction in the four years following discharge, including 12—or 6 per cent.—who were reconvicted for a further sexual offence of any type.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the guidelines issued to police on the maintenance of records of information on offenders under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.

  Mr. Maclean
  No guidelines have been issued. This is a matter for individual chief constables.

  The paedophile unit of the national criminal intelligence service maintains a national database of known paedophiles and assists investigators by developing and disseminating intelligence in respect of those involved in paedophile offences.
  300
  (2) how many people have been convicted of offences under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for England and Wales on the number of "known offenders"—those found guilty or cautioned—for offences under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 for 1990 to 1992 is given in the table. The Act does not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. 1993 data are not yet available.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Provision has been made for spending of £380,000 in the current financial year on subsidised child care for staff at various locations. This will provide 134 nursery day care places for children under five and approximately 1,000 holiday play scheme places for children from five to 12 years old. These arrangements generally involve a subsidy of about 50 per cent. of the running costs involved. Subsidised child care provision is provided only if it can be justified on value for money grounds.

  The Department does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" nor make child care vouchers available to staff.

  Immigration
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is considered a sufficient duration for a common law heterosexual relationship between a foreign national and a person settled in the United Kingdom for immigration purposes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Each application is considered on its own merits. The duration of the relationship is taken into account along with other factors.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his statement of 4 May,Official Report, columns 823–26, if (a) the absence of children, (b) the inability to have children or (c) the absence of intent to marry are considered detrimental to applications made by foreign nationals in common law heterosexual relationships with persons settled in the United Kingdom.
  301
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Not necessarily; applications for leave to remain from unmarried heterosexual couples are considered on their merits.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 11, whether the statistic provided in this reply relating to common law partners include same sex partners of persons settled in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 16 May,Official Report, column 336, whether there are any other circumstances acceptable as grounds for granting leave to remain to the foreign same sex partner of a person settled in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Each application is considered on its own merits. It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which leave to remain on the basis of a same sex relationship might be granted.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 16 May,Official Report, column 337, how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom made by foreign nationals on the basis of a same sex relationship with a person settled in the United Kingdom have been (a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not separately identified in the statistics.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 16 May,Official Report, column 336, what is considered a sufficient duration for a same-sex relationship between a foreign national and a person settled in the United Kingdom for immigration purposes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Each case is decided on its own merits and it is not possible to say what period would normally be considered sufficient.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of money owed in fines by(a) airlines and (b) cross-channel ferry companies under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As at 31 May, £19·46 million was owed by airline operators and £1·68 million by ferry operators. Action is being taken to enforce the payment of outstanding charges where necessary.

  Secure Accommodation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he estimates each place in secure accommodation will cost per annum.

  Mr. Maclean
  The cost per place per annum cannot yet be predicted because the design, build and operation of 302
  secure training centres will be subject to competitive tender. But the total costs of secure training orders are estimated to be in excess of £30 million a year. This estimate includes running, building and financing costs, as well as the cost of post-release supervision and Home Office administration costs.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate how many local authority secure places have been provided since the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and if he will provide a list of their locations.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 22 April at columns 696–97, which set out a supply plan for the provision by local authorities of an additional 170 secure places for criminal justice purposes.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been imprisoned in England and Wales in each year since 1990 for non-payment of the community charge, whose principal address was in(a) each district council area in Wales, (b) Wales as a whole, (c) England, (d) Scotland and (e) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maclean
  No information is available centrally regarding the principal address of those committed to custody. The available information is for England and Wales and is published annually in "Prison statistics, England and Wales", table 6.3 of the 1992 edition, Cm. 2581. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House. Provisional information for 1993 shows that 1,157 persons—1,04l males and 116 females—were received into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales for non-payment of the community charge. Information for Wales, which was based on the numbers sentenced from a court in Wales, by county, has already been given in my earlier reply to the hon. Gentleman on 4 July at column 41.

  Drugs
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has commissioned to estimate the street value of illicit drugs traded annually.

  Mr. Maclean
  Drug misuse is an illegal and therefore clandestine activity. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of the street value of all illicit drug purchases traded annually. No such studies have been commissioned, although the scope for fresh research on this question is kept under review.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has commissioned to ascertain what amount of crime is drug-related.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Secretary recently announced plans to commission a series of studies later this year, to build on previous work assessing the links between drug taking and acquisitive crime.
  303
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries or attempted burglaries of pharmacies there were in(a) York and (b) North Yorkshire in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from(a) York and (b) North

  North Yorkshire police force area

  Number of persons

  Year

  Supply

  Possession with intent to supply

  Possession (all drugs)

  Possession of cannabis

  1986

  18

  3

  222

  196

  1987

  16

  5

  281

  256

  1988

  6

  2

  100

  90

  1989

  17

  3

  152

  139

  1990

  16

  6

  147

  131

  1991

  13

  11

  101

  85

  1992

  15

  4

  211

  176

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the. Home Department how many residents of(a) York and (b) North Yorkshire are currently on probation for drug-related offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the North Yorkshire probation service that it is currently supervising 20 offenders under probation orders following conviction for drug related offences, of whom six are being supervised in York.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  The various agencies and business units of the Home Office are not required to notify the central personnel divisions of staff surveys they conduct. However, we are aware of the following surveys which took place in the two years ending 30 June 1994:

  Title

  Date of survey

  Passport Agency Staff Survey

  November 1992

  Immigration Service (Ports) Staff Survey

  December 1992

  Fire Service College Customer Satisfaction and Staff Attitude Survey

  June/July 1993

  Survey of Communications in the Home Office

  October 1993

  FSD (Finance and Services Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Department) Quality of Service Programme—Customer Survey

  December 1993/ January 1994

  Prison Service Staff survey

  January/February 1994

  Copies of the results of these surveys will be placed in the Library, with the exception of the FSD survey. The results of the FSD survey were intended to inform local managers and have not been published.
  304
  Yorkshire were convicted of possessing or supplying illicit drugs; and of these how many were convicted of possessing cannabis in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of persons who were found guilty or cautioned in the North Yorkshire police force area for those offences in the years 1986–92 inclusive, is given in the table. Information for earlier years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to show offenders from the city of York separately.

ENVIRONMENT

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions have so far been drawn by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution from the trials of Cemfuel at Ribblesdale, Lancashire.

  Mr. Atkins
  Preliminary results show reduced releases of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Further work to establish release levels for other pollutants is continuing. Comparative assessments of environmental impacts can be attempted only when all the relevant information is to hand.

  Vehicles (Natural Gas)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest research with Government support into the use of compressed natural gas as a vehicle fuel.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Transport Research Laboratory has recently completed its review of existing research on alternative fuels, including compressed natural gas. This work is being developed in a joint study with the Department of Trade and Industry looking at the wider implications of alternative fuels including production and use. In addition, CNG is to be included in the project referred to in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 28 June at columns 477–78.

  Housing (Defence Establishments)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities in relation to the increased demand for local authority housing tenancies from ex-military personnel following the implementation of the Government's "Options for Change" and similar policies.

  Sir George Young
  My Department has received no specific representations from local authorities on the matter.
  305
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what additional expenditure has been made available to local authorities by the Government to provide for additional demand created by reductions in the defence establishment;

  (2) what measures he has taken to assist local authorities with increased demand for their housing stock as a result of reductions in the defence establishment.

  Sir George Young
  Resources for housing capital expenditure by authorities are made available by the Government each year in the form of housing investment programme allocations. HIP allocations in the current financial year total over £1·5 billion. It is for each housing authority to assess and prioritise the housing needs of its area, and to use its resources accordingly.

  Environmental Agency
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date he expects the environmental agency to be established.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to establishing the agency as soon as parliamentary time permits the passage of the necessary legislation.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Baldry
  Cycle racks are available for the use of visitors to my Department's offices at 2 Marsham street, Romney house, Lambeth Bridge house, and Millbank Tower.

  Conservation Officers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has made of the problems of conflicting pieces of primary legislation and the training budgets in local government for maintaining the expertise of conservation officers.

  Mr. Baldry
  I see no need for such a study.

  Building Preservation Trusts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the application of the Local Government Act 1990 to building preservation trusts in respect of the regulation of companies funded by local authorities; and what account is taken of expenditure by such trusts in calculating a local authority's annual capital expenditure.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authority capital finance is regulated in England and Wales by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. We intend to make an order applying the main provisions to local authority companies but are still considering the precise extent of that order.

  Nuclear Discharges
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which signatories of the Paris Commission in 1993 have accepted recommendation 93/5 recommending 306
  international scrutiny and consultation in relation to any new or revised discharge authorisation from nuclear reprocessing plants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  At the 15th joint meeting of contracting parties to the Oslo and Paris Commissions on 14 to 19 June 1993 Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden accepted Paris Commission recommendation 93/5. The United Kingdom registered a reservation, as did France and Belgium. The EEC abstained. Belgium has since withdrawn its reservation.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday playschemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has 10 workplace nursery places in the Westminster area and four in Bristol, all of which are at interdepartmental nurseries. There are also 11 places at the Building Research Establishment's own nursery. Subsidy up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the running costs is available.

  The Department participates in interdepartmental holiday play schemes in Westminster, Birmingham, Bristol, Bedford and at the Building Research Establishment. Play schemes cater for children from five to 12 years and operate during half-term holidays and main school holidays. The Department does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or make child care vouchers available to staff.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the planned spending allocations for local community safety and crime prevention initiatives from the single regeneration budget for the financial years 1995–96;, 1996–97; 1997–98 and 1998–99;

  (2) what proportion of the single regeneration budget the estimates will be allocated to local community and crime prevention initiatives;

  (3) in which ways he proposes to fund local community safety and crime prevention initiatives (a) in Birmingham and (b) nationally through the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no fixed, centrally determined, spending allocations for categories of initiatives supported by the single regeneration budget from 1995–96 onwards. Subject to on-going commitments, and the funding requirements of the non-departmental public bodies supported by the budget, the level of spending on categories of initiatives such as local community safety and crime prevention will be determined by the success of relevant bids put forward for support by local partnerships in accordance with the bidding guidance for the Budget issued on 14 April 1994, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Ethnic Minority Grants
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures he has taken to protect existing spending commitments for current section 11-funded schemes under the single regeneration budget;

  (2) what measures he proposes to take to protect existing ethnic minority business initiative spending commitments under the single regeneration budget;

  (3) what measures he proposes to take to protect existing ethnic minority grant commitments under the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House on 4 November 1993,Official Report, column 515, that continuing commitments under the 20 programmes which have been combined in the single regeneration budget will be met. These programmes include the urban part of section 11 funding which has been transferred to the budget, the ethnic minority business initiative and ethnic minority grant.

  (a) nationally

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  EMBI

  0·600

  0·318

  0·134

  —

  —

  EMG

  5·860

  2·500

  —

  —

  —

  s11 (urban)

  60·500

  (see note)

  —

  —

  s11 (non-urban)

  49·800

  (see note)

  —

  —

  (b) for the city of Birmingham Section 11 Allocations notified to recipients within the city of Birmingham for 1994–95 are as follows:

  £ million

  Birmingham city council

  4,046,501

  George Dixon school

  81,865

  Hall Green school

  9,320

  Ninestiles school

  16,530

  Small Heath school

  50,626

  Birmingham FE colleges

  1,376,534

  Joseph Chamberlain college

  67,762

  Information is not yet available about recipients' expenditure upon which the level of commitment to current approved projects in subsequent years will depend, and local authorities will be consulted before the basis on which future allocations is determined. Within the city of Birmingham, current commitments to the city council are predominantly of five-year duration; but funding for other recipients' current projects, with the exception of George Dixon and Ninestiles schools, ends on 31 March 1995.Ethnic minority grant There are currently four approved projects funded through Birmingham TEC. Three are due to terminate at the end of March 1995 and the fourth at the end of March 1996. Grant expenditure on these four projects in the 1993–94 financial year amounted to around £52,000.Ethnic minority business initiative The estimated existing commitments for Birmingham are £59,000 in 1994–95, £18,000 in 1995–96 and £4,000 in 1996–97.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish another state of the construction industry report.

  Mr. Gummer
  A second state of the construction industry report, produced jointly by my Department and representatives of the construction industry, has just been completed. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  308
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the existing commitments for ethnic minority grant for(a) the city of Birmingham and (b) nationally in the financial years to 1998–99;

  (2) what are the existing spending commitments for section 11 funded schemes (a) nationally and (b) for the city of Birmingham for the financial years to 1998–99;

  (3) what are the existing spending commitments under the ethnic minority business initiative in the financial years up to 1998–99 for (a) the city of Birmingham and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated level of commitments under these programmes is shown in the table. These figures are provisional; they contain an estimate of the commitments for schemes due to start in 1994–95, and make assumptions about grant recipients' actual expenditure in 1994–95 and later years. Figures are not shown for section 11 for 1995–96 and later years; the basis of their calculation is to be the subject of discussions with local authorities.

WALES

  Air Quality
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the relative risks of diesel and petrol engines for air quality in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No assessment has been made specifically for Wales, but the quality of urban air review group has considered the impact of diesel vehicle emissions on urban air quality over the whole of the United Kingdom. A copy of the group's report, "Diesel Vehicle Emissions and Urban Air Quality", published in January 1994, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Recycling
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy on recycling in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have set a target of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by the year 2000.

  I will continue to promote increased recycling wherever this is the best practical environmental option.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total number of local authority homes now sold in Wales, giving the total amount of moneys raised since 1983; and if he will provide similar figures for each of the local authority housing authorities in the county of Clwyd.
  309
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the total number of former council owned homes and which are now owned by the families who live in them and the receipts from these sales from April 1983 to March 1994 is shown in the table.

  Local authority dwellings sold between April 1983 and March 1994

  Dwellings sold

  Receipts1 £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,304

  16,348

  Colwyn

  708

  7,083

  Delyn

  922

  13,767

  Glyndwr

  813

  10,295

  Rhuddlan

  727

  8,239

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,023

  36,041

  Clwyd

  7,497

  91,773

  Wales

  66,744

  799,782

  1Includes the repayment of principal on local authority mortgages.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to stimulate local authority house building; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I see a vital enabling role for local authorities in assessing housing need in their areas and facilitating the provision of new housing through housing associations and the private sector.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those schools in Wales which have grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 9 December at column 307. Since that date, I have approved the application for grant-maintained status from Mary Immaculate Roman Catholic high school in South Glamorgan.

  Ambulance Service, Powys
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average response time for ambulances in Powys in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Average mean ambulance response times are not available. The median response times—the 50th percentile—for ambulances in Powys for the last five available years are shown in the table:

  Year

  Time in minutes at 50th percentile

  1988–89

  10

  1989–90

  10

  1990–91

  9

  1991–92

  10

  1992–93

  9

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery 310
  places and holiday play schemes; if his Department (a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department provides nursery facilities and holiday play care for its staff. It uses 30 places in an 80 place nursery which is run in consortium with other Government Departments. Consortium members pay the accommodation costs and in 1993–94 the Department's contribution was £12,246. The cost to the Department of providing holiday play care during the Easter and summer holidays in 1993–94 was £4,457. The Department is committed to providing child care where it is cost-effective in assisting the retention of trained and experienced staff. The cost of support is evaluated annually. The Department does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or child care vouchers.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will produce a planning policy guidance note on sustainable development and planning policies in Wales analogous to PPG 13 in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Planning policy guidance note 13, "Highways Considerations in Development Control", remains extant in Wales. The guidance is under review and I shall be issuing revised guidance for Wales.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the proportion of health visitors to children in each health authority area in September 1992;

  (2) what was the proportion of health visitors to children in each health and personal social services board area in September 1992;

  (3) how many health visitors were employed in each health authority area in September 1988 and in September 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Reliable estimates of the numbers of nursing staff employed in specific occupational groups, such as health visitors, are not available centrally.

  Local Government Responsibilities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to transfer to Welsh local authorities responsibility for the activities and budget of each of(a) the Further Education Funding Council Wales, (b) the Curriculum and Assessment Authority Wales, (c) Cardiff Bay development corporation, (d) the urban regeneration section of the Welsh Development Agency, (e) social development section of the Development Board for Rural Wales and (f) the non-university section of the Higher Education Funding Council Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am announcing changes in the responsibilities of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency today. The functions of all non-departmental public bodies are kept under regular review and any major changes in their status and responsibilities are notified to the House.

HEALTH

  Administrative Grant
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of full-time equivalent(a) general managers, (b) administrative and (c) clerical staff in the NHS in each year since 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table.

  National Health Service General Managers and Administrative and Clerical Staff in England at 30 September 1991 and 1992

  Whole-time equivalents

  General Managers

  Administrative and Clerical

  1991

  730

  127,370

  1992

  700

  135,010

  Source: Department of Health statistical form KM49.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. It is not possible to separate administrative and clerical figures; data are collected as a total.

  3. Figures for 1992 are the latest available.

  Official Secrets Act 1989
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether employees of the new regional health authorities/management executive outposts will be bound by, or required to sign declarations relating to, the Official Secrets Act 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  Employees of the new regional health authorities are not bound by the Official Secrets Act 1989 except in so far as all members of the public with official information in their possession are affected by the Act.

  Performance-related Pay
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce performance-relaied pay into her Department and the NHS executive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All staff in the Department are now covered by performance pay arrangements, the first of which was introduced in 1992.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on performance-related
  pay;

  (2) what research she has commissioned into (a) the cost of implementing performance-related pay in the NHS and (b) the benefits of performance-related pay;

  (3) what plans she has to introduce performance-related pay into the NHS; and which employers will be affected.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General and senior managers and certain other national health service staff already benefit from performance-related pay. The freedom of trusts increasingly to determine the pay and conditions of their own staff is an important way of making services more responsive to local needs. We are therefore encouraging the introduction of local pay arrangements linked to the success of the organisation in meeting its objectives to improve the quality and quantity of patient care. Any additiional costs would be offest by increased efficiency.

  Health Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the costs of amalgamating district health authorities and family health service authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mental Health Units
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was her response to the recommendation by the Department of Health's mental health nursing review team that an urgent review of the therapeutic suitability of mental health units in district general hospitals should be undertaken.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report of the mental health nursing review team is still being disseminated throughout the national health service and a series of regional conferences are in the process of being held to consider how the recommendations may be taken forward.

  The conference dates and locations are:

  May 16—Bristol

  May 20—Leeds

  June 7—London

  September 2—Birmingham

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will carry out an inquiry into the security of local authority accommodation for children in care, including the escape of a 14-year-old Bolton boy from Thornbury house in Oxfordshire; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Responsibility for all aspects of management of secure accommodation rests with the appropriate local authority. Last year the Department issued "Guidance on Permissible Forms of Control in Children's Residential Care", copies of which are available in the Library, about control and restraint in children's residential care. The Department will also be issuing more general guidance about the provision of secure accommodation. My officials are discussing with the relevant social services departments the circumstances and issues surrounding the particular incident to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Mortality Rates
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the infant and perinatal mortality rates of each EU country at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 2 December 1993,Official Report, column 701, for the latest available information.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis she has of the infant and perinatal mortality rate by socio-economic group since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  Infant and perinatal mortality statistics, derived from death registrations, are not available by socio-economic group. Tables by social class are published each year in the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys DH3 annual reference volume "Mortality Statistics, perinatal and infant: social and biological factors", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Private Hospitals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount the national health service spent on NHS patients being treated in private hospitals in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  The extent to which national health service purchasers contract with the private sector is a matter for local decision.

  Mental Illness
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the findings of the mental illness study commissioned by the London implementation group.

  Mr. Bowis
  The London implementation group has not commissioned a study of mental illness.

  Aortic Aneurysms
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 587–88, what assessment her Department has made as to the reasons for the increase in deaths from aortic aneurysms between 1988 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The disease is found predominantly among men aged 65 to 75. The number of men in that age group increased by 31,000 between 1988 and 1992.

  Breast Self-examination Campaign
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if she will make a statement on the progress of the breast self-examination campaign.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Chief Medical Officer wrote to all doctors in England in 1991 to provide advice on ways in which women could be involved in the early detection of breast abnormalities. In addition, a leaflet entitled "Be Breast Aware", copies of which will be placed in the Library, has been produced by the national health service breast screening programme, which makes it clear to women what changes should be discussed with their doctor. The leaflet has been translated into a number of languages and has received widespread support. The Department has also recently helped fund a breast awareness video—"Being Breast Aware is for Life", produced by the charity, Womens Nationwide Cancer Control Campaign.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each NHS trust in the former south-east 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
  A total of 132 of the 186—71 per cent.—chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to national health service trusts within the former South East Thames region live within the boundaries of the district health authority in which the trust is situated. The names of those who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.
  314
  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  Lord Barney Heyhoe

  Professor C. Chantler

  Mr. T. Ford

  Mr. P. N. Clark

  Mr. C. Williams

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  Professor M. H. Lessof

  Sir Philip Harris

  Mr. R. J. Maxwell

  Mrs. G. Mallinson

  Mr. S. Bullock

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. R. R. Barkshire

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  Dr. P. Lindon

  Optimum Health Services NHS Trust

  Ms D. P. Kingsmill

  Ms P. M. Munro

  Mr. B. Huett

  West Lambeth Community Care NHS Trust

  Sir Alan Reay

  Baroness Cox of Queensbury

  Professor C. Carnall

  Mr. S. Edwards

  Mrs. R. Glanville

  Mr. M. Hanson

  Maidstone Priority Care NHS Trust

  Mr. J. W. Manaton

  South Downs Health NHS Trust

  Lady Helen Trafford

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. S. Kalms

  Professor A. L. Eddleston

  Professor Sir James Black

  Thameslink Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. R. J. March

  Mrs. C. Howarth

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  Lady Ann Jenkins

  Mr. E. M. Hollingsworth

  Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust

  Dame Audrey Emerton

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. B. L. Sharland

  Mr. J. J. Hewitson

  Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sir Raymond Rickett

  Mr. J. C. Arnold

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. B. Collins

  Mrs. C. Freshwater

  Dartford and Gravesham Acute Services NHS Trust

  Professor M. Kelly

  Mr. K. A. Maw

  Medway Health NHS Trust

  Professor K. G. Burnand

  Mr. E. J. Bradley

  Mr. W. B. Taylor

  Guy's and Lewisham Mental Health Unit NHS Trust

  Ms G. Linton

  Professor J. P. Watson

  Ms M. Rogers

  315

  Sir David Nicholas

  Mr. R. Rowden

  Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead NHS Trust

  Mrs. T. Hawksworth

  Bexley Community Services NHS Trust

  Dr. N. Singer

  Mr. R. T. Vaudry

  Ms V. C. Leach

  Ms J. Binks

  Mr. D. M. Lewis

  Ms S. P. Davis

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each national health service trust in the former North East 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 4 July 1994]: A total of 101 of the 180 chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to a national health service trust within the former North West Thames region live within the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated. The names of those who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed below.

  Barnet Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. W. Greathead

  Mr. A. Hornby

  Lady Parkinson

  Bedford Hospital NHS Trust

  Dr. S. Vyakarnam

  Bedford and Shires Health and Care NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Quenby

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic

  Services NHS Trust

  Dr. K. Robinson

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Dr. M. McNicol

  Mrs. M. Ryder

  Professor C. Normand

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sir Keith Bright

  Ms J. Hill

  Mr. A. Lue

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. A. Noble

  East Herts NHS Trust

  Mrs. D. White

  Mrs. J. Oram

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. S. Edwards

  Harefield Hospitals NHS Trust

  Sir Geoffrey Errington

  Mrs. A. Collins

  Mr. L. Koppen

  Mr. T. Lindsay

  Dr. S. Saeed

  Mr. B. Thompson McCausland

  Harrow and Hillingdon Community Health NHS Trust

  Mr. A. Woodbridge

  Mr. B. Harrison

  Mrs. B. Mouli

  Mr. D. Sen-Gupta

  Ms R. Preston

  316
  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  Professor N. Merritt

  Baroness Flather

  Mr. W. Glyn-Williams

  Mrs. J. Harper

  Mr. S. Gurney

  Horizon NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Farrell

  Mr. J. Gardner

  Mrs. P. Handley

  Mr. D. Wright

  Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Mrs. T. Golding

  Mr. S. Sharma

  Mr. A. Cooke

  Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. D. Swarbrick

  Mrs. C. Chambers

  Mr. J. Smith

  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  Mrs. P. Eccles

  Mrs. C. Warshaw

  North West London Mental Health Health Services NHS Trust

  Mr. M. Storey

  Ms A. Lapping

  Mr. E. Obeng

  Northwick Park and St. Mark's NHS Trust

  Mr. C. Grasham

  Mr. J. Jump

  Ms E. Owen

  Ms H. Rogers

  Parkside Health NHS Trust

  Mr. T. Campbell Davis

  Mr. A. Haggar

  Riverside Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Ms M. Black

  Mr. P. Farmer

  Miss J. Cornwell

  Riverside Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mrs. A. Radford

  Royal Brompton NHS Trust

  Sir Philip Otton

  Professor T. Clark

  Mr. W. Manson

  Mr. C. Perrin

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  Mrs. S. Read

  Sir Kenneth Stowe

  Mr. W. Mills

  Mrs. E. Van Cutsem

  South Bedfordshire Community NHS Trust

  Mrs. P. Campbell

  Miss A. Brown

  St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust

  Lord Glenarthur

  Mr. H. Hawkins

  Mr. P. McKenna

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  Mr. A. Orton

  Mrs. P. Czyzak-Dannenbaum

  Mrs. P. Kalms

  West Herts Community Health NHS Trust

  Mrs. D. Webster

  317
  West London Health Care NHS Trust

  Rabbi Miriam Lawrence

  Mrs. A. Richardson

  Mr. B. Churcher

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. D. Hoodless

  Mr. J. Rounce

  Health Service Commissioner
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the annual report of the health service commissioner for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The health service commissioner has made his annual report on the performance of his functions in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health, for Scotland and for Wales presented the report to the House on 6 July. It was published today—HC499—and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision her Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if her Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 7 March,Official Report, column 89.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether people absent from the United Kingdom but not visiting another country may receive NHS prescriptions;

  (2) if people sailing around the world remain eligible for NHS prescriptions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As a general rule, people travelling abroad for short periods may receive medication under the national health service, subject to the clinical judgment of their general practitioner, for a period of up to three months.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she received guidance from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens concerning Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and when the guidance will be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  The guidance was received at the end of March and is due to be published late August/early September.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 539, what guidance to date has been issued to laboratory staff who may handle materials contaminated with the agents causing (a) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and (b) bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following guidance has been issued to date:318
  'Code of Practice for the Prevention of Infection in Clinical Laboratories and Post-Mortem Rooms' (1978); DA(81)22; DA(84)16; 'Categorisation of Pathogens According to Hazard and Categories of Containment' (1st edition, 1984, extended 2nd edition, 1990) from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens; and PL(92)CO/4 from the Deputy Chief Medical Officer.

  Copies of the documents will be placed in the Library.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to monitor the spending of funds by GP fundholders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Family health services authorities have statutory responsibility for monitoring expenditure by general practitioner fundholders.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by health authority and region the underspend or surplus carried forward by GP fundholders in the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Final audited figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will define patient care in relation to items upon which GP fundholders may spend their financial allocation; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) Regulations 1993 define the range of services general practitioner fundholders may purchase on behalf of their patients. Copies of the regulations are available in the Library.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to raise the proportion of the cost of dental treatment paid by patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service dental charges are kept under review, and decisions are made in the light of the Government's priorities for expenditure on the NHS.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the proportion of the population who visit a dentist every six months; and what assessment she has made of the effect of an increase in dental charges on attendance at dentists' surgeries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No such estimate can be made from the information available centrally. There is no evidence to suggest that increases in national health service dental charges have any significant long-term effect on attendance.

EDUCATION

  Special Needs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what percentage of disabled children with special educational needs were in mainstream schools in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The total of all pupils who, at some time in their school career, have special educational needs is not
  319
  collected centrally. The numbers of pupils with statements of special educational needs—including those who are disabled—in primary, middle and secondary maintained schools in England are not available pre-1985 but are set out below as at January of each year 1985–1993. They are also shown as a percentage of all pupils with statements in maintained' schools including special schools.

  Year

  Pupils with statements in mainstream schools

  As percentage of ail pupils with statements in maintained sector

  1985

  26,800

  19

  1986

  30,000

  21

  1987

  33,300

  23

  1988

  40,900

  28

  1989

  47,300

  32

  1990

  54,300

  35

  1991

  62,000

  42

  1992

  71,200

  46

  1993

  85,000

  49

  1Includes non-maintained special schools.

  National Testing
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what help he intends to provide for teachers assessing key stage 1.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has recently announced that he proposes, for 1995, to fund supply cover for teachers of seven-year-olds engaged on administering tests. This is in addition to the considerable amount of expenditure in support of the implementation of the assessment arrangements in schools—some £180 million —through the grants for education support and training programme over the last four years. A large proportion of this expenditure has been in primary schools.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to secure extra funding needed to pay the cost of using external examiners in the asessment of key stage 2 and key stage 3.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It has not been the practice of this or previous Administrations to disclose details of discussions between Ministers. My right hon. Friend has found the necessary resources from within his Department's £7·5 billion vote programme.

  Multi-cultural Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on changes in section 11 funding and their effect on multi-cultural education; and what action he is taking in response.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received many representations from hon. Members, local authorities and associations, teacher unions, minority ethnic communities and other interested parties about changes in section 11 funding.

  My right hon. Friend will continue to monitor, through OFSTED, the standard of educational provision in all maintained schools, including provision for those pupils for whom English is not their first language. Additional support for the latter category through section 11 grants is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  School Sports
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which code of rugby is included within the required school sports contained within the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the present national curriculum order for physical education, games are mandatory for all pupils from age five to 14. My right hon. Friend has recently published proposals that would extend this requirement to all pupils of compulsory school age. However, individual sports are not prescribed.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  London-based staff are able to use the Westminster holiday play scheme which is organised by the Office of Public Service and Science. The cost of places is shared equally by parents and the Department. In the year ending 31 March 1994, six members of staff used the scheme for their children on one or more occasions.

  Darlington-based staff have access to a play scheme which was set up at the instigation of the Department for Education. Places are shared with other civil servants working in the Darlington area. In the financial year ending 31 March 1994, 105 children have used the scheme. The costs are borne largely on a pro rata basis by the participating Departments, with parents making a small daily contribution.

  The Department does not currently subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or make child care vouchers available.

  Colleges (Minor Works Funds)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to monitor the use of minor works funds in colleges; and what records are available to show the purposes for allocation of these funds in each college.

  Mr. Boswell
  The monitoring of the use of allocations from the Further Education Funding Council for England for minor works in colleges is a matter for the FEFC.

  Minor works funds are paid to colleges by FEFC on production of contractors' invoices and architects' certificates. These are checked against a detailed schedule of works required at each college, prepared for FEFC by Hunter and Partners, chartered surveyors. The FEFC will also be conducting spot-checks of minor works at colleges in the coming months. Colleges are required as a condition of funding to have adequate systems of accounting, audit and internal control, and are thus in a position to demonstrate from their own records how their funds have been used.

  Colleges are permitted to transfer recurrent funding received from FEFC to capital purposes, subject to any limits which FEFC may choose to impose. Colleges'

  321
  governing bodies have operational autonomy, and are free to decide how to spend such funding in the best interests of their college.

  The FEFC must be consulted about transactions affecting land or buildings which involve capital sums in excess of £100,000, and where FEFC funds are likely to be required for maintenance of the property. Its consent is required where its funding is applied to developments significantly affecting the value of property, or where material disposals of publicly funded assets are envisaged.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Motor Vehicles (Explosives)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions since 1990 motor cars have been found to contain explosives, or had explosives placed underneath them, in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The available information is for all motor vehicles, including motor cars, and is as follows:

  Number of incidents

  Vehicle Bombs

  116

  Under car booby traps

  97

  Figures for "finds" recovered specifically from motor vehicles are not available.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions bicycles containing illegal explosive devices have been used by terrorists in incidents in Northern Ireland since 1990.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Once, on 30 March 1990.

  Fire Safety
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the views of the fire service branch, Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), will be sought and taken into account during the present cross-Department review of fire safety legislation and its enforcement within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Copies of the report of the scrutiny of fire safety legislation and enforcement have been sent to the Department for comment and for circulation to other interested bodies. Any comments submitted to the review team will be considered by Ministers when the consultation period has ended.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the final decision on changes to fire safety legislation and its enforcement in Northern Ireland, following the current cross-Department review, will rest with Parliament.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Full implementation of the recommendations in the report of the scrutiny of fire safety legislation and enforcement would require changes to both primary and subordinate legislation. Changes to primary legislation would require an Order-in-Council. Changes to subordinate legislation while subject to consultation, could be introduced without debate. However, no decisions on implementation will be made before consultation on the report ends on 31 October 1994.

  Drug Offences
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) men and (b) women were convicted of drug offences in Northern Ireland during (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Persons convicted of drug offences in Northern Ireland:at all courts

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1992

  262

  12

  1993

  401

  22

  Homelessness
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were accepted as statutorily homeless in Northern Ireland during the last three years; and how many are(a) over 21 years old and (b) under 21 years old.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, I am advised by its chief executive that the numbers of applicants accepted as being either homeless or threatened with homelessness in the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of applicants

  1991–92

  7,494

  1992–93

  7,549

  1993–94

  7,216

  Information is not recorded on the number of applicants over and under 21 years of age.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff: what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In the Northern Ireland civil service departments staff may contribute to staff child care costs where this is justified on value-for-money grounds. There are currently 36 subsidised places provided in registered nurseries. The Child Support Agency Northern Ireland subsidises 50 per cent. of the weekly cost up to a maximum of £30 and the Department of the Environment (NI) subsidises 35 per cent. of the weekly cost up to a maximum of £28. In addition eight holiday play schemes are assisted. The holiday play schemes which are located throughout Northern Ireland are deficit funded in their first year and thereafter 50 per cent. of accommodation and 40 per cent. of staff costs are funded. The Northern Ireland civil service does not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or provide child care vouchers to staff.

  The London Office currently subsidises four places in a registered nursery. The amount of the subsidy is 50 per cent. of the full cost each week.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday playschemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This answer covers the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies, the Central Office of Information, arid Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Workplace nurseries are available to staff at the Civil Service college and the Chessington computer centre. Holiday play schemes are available to staff working in departmental buildings in London and at CCTA in Norwich.
  324
  The Civil Service college contributed £11,819 to staff places at its nursery in 1993–94. Chessington computer centre contributed £39,493 to staff places at its nursery in 1993–94.

  The Westminster holiday play scheme is available to all staff in London and is subsidised by reimbursing staff 50 per cent. of the cost incurred. The holiday play scheme available to staff at CCTA in Norwich is subsidised at a rate of £850 per annum.

  The Westminster holiday play scheme is also available to COI staff in London and is subsidised by reimbursing staff 50 per cent. of the cost incurred.

  A workplace nursery and holiday play scheme is available to HMSO staff in Norwich. In 1993–94, HMSO contributed £81,370 to the nursery and £1,757 to the holiday play scheme.

  The Cabinet Office, the OPSS and its agencies, the COI and HMSO do not subscribe to "Childcare Solutions" or make child care vouchers available.

  When determining what child care assistance to provide, the Cabinet Office, the OPSS and its agencies, the COI and HMSO, in common with all other Departments, ensure that it is justified on value for money grounds.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Film Industry: Assistance
Lord Goold Lord Goold asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the decision by Paramount Communications Inc. to move the filming of its £45 million movie "Brave Heart" from Scotland to Ireland, what progress has been made in developing a new films policy which will attract investment into the United Kingdom.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, of course we regret this decision by Paramount. However, British production studios have busy schedules during 1994, with several foreign productions having been attracted here. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering what can be done to improve the level of investment in British film production still further and will make an announcement in due course.
Lord Goold: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Is she aware that since the Irish Government introduced a favourable tax regime for film production in May 1993 an estimated £100 million has been attracted into Ireland? Bearing in mind the Irish experience, have the Government made any assessment of what might be attracted into this country by way of investment if the UK had a similar tax policy?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the tax measures introduced in Ireland last year. It remains our view that low tax rates and a broad tax base with few special reliefs provide the best framework for sustainable long-term economic growth. We have, however, introduced a number of measures to assist the film industry.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we can all understand anyone being attracted into going to Ireland but Britain and the British film industry have unsurpassed creative and technical skills. Does the Minister agree that what we lack is a positive investment environment in which the British film industry and film production can flourish? The industry, through the Impact Report, has made a number of specific proposals to achieve that. When will the Government respond to those specific proposals and when will we have a White Paper on this important question?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage held a series of consultations with all sectors of the film industry. He heard their views on what can be done to encourage greater activity in the British film production sector. He will take account of
1378
all the proposals put to him at that time and through the Impact campaign and make an announcement in due course. The Government certainly realise the cultural significance and export earning potential of British films. That is why my right honourable friend has been engaged in the conversations. The noble Lord will appreciate that it is a matter of horses for courses.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although in Britain we have a very strong entrepreneurial film industry raising investment in tough international markets, it is still disadvantaged because many of its leading competitors benefit from much more favourable tax regimes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the leading competitor is the US film industry from where most of the international investment in the British industry comes. There are no tax incentives for the film industry in the US.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is not desirable to enter the complicated field of film finance in question and answer? One welcomes the fact that the Government are about to introduce a proposal whereby they will give the kind of financial support to the industry which is enjoyed in many other countries. In advance of seeing that proposal and discovering whether it is worthy of approval, one welcomes the idea.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. Sometimes to my horror, and sometimes to my pleasure, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State reads everything that goes on in this House. I feel sure that he will read the noble Lord's remarks with pleasure.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, are the Government aware that not only Ireland but many other countries make special efforts through subsidies and tax concessions to attract film investment? Does the noble Baroness agree that the loss of an investment of the kind mentioned in the Question is not only damaging to the film industry but also to the economy of this country in general?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, other countries provide a range of support schemes, as the noble Lord implies. Many are based on levies which recycle industry money into the production sector but those schemes are subject to change. I fear that comprehen-sive details are not held centrally but, as I have said several times, my right honourable friend is looking into all these matters and will be reporting.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication about the tax treatment of individual entertainers, which is a little different from the investment and corporation tax treatment referred to by my noble friend, especially with regard to withholding tax? I believe that the United Kingdom tax regime is pretty well unique.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is a well established internationally agreed principle that income derived from a performance should be taxed in the

1379
country where the performance occurs. As in many other countries, the UK system of withholding tax is no more than a collection mechanism to secure at least some of the tax rightfully due. Any tax paid may normally be set against home liability under a double taxation agreement.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable interest in making a film of the book of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, The Downing Street Years? Would the Government be prepared to subsidise the production of such a film; and if they were, what certificate would they give it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wonder whether the Irish Government would be prepared to lend 1,600 soldiers.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if special fiscal incentives were given to the film industry, other equally deserving industries, particularly those in the export field, would feel that they had been badly treated and would press the Government for tax concessions for their industries?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, whenever there is any question of one industry benefiting in any tax field one can well imagine that every other industry is watching like a hawk to see what is going on.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, can my noble friend say how it is that Ireland, which is a member of the European Community, is able to give extra incentives to its film industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, European countries are still allowed to make their own laws.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Some of them are.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Read the Maastricht Treaty!
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it perhaps the case that labour costs are more favourable in Ireland? Can the Minister say how far restrictive practices in our country are responsible for this change of policy?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is not for me to answer for the Irish tax situation. British film production costs are deemed to be of a revenue nature. Tax relief is available either through the income matching or cost recovery method. Further relief may be available through the capital allowances system or through the special rules introduced in 1992.

VE Day: Commemoration Plans
3.10 pm.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to celebrate VE Day and the end of the war in Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My
1380
Lords, events to commemorate the anniversary next year of the end of the war in Europe will be held over the Bank Holiday weekend between 6th and 8th May. Although our plans are at an early stage, we expect these to include a service in St. Paul's Cathedral, a luncheon at Buckingham Palace for visiting heads of state and a parade in central London.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply which I find very encouraging. I can assure the Minister that it will also be appreciated by our ex-servicemen and women's associations. Does the Minister agree that in our democracy the views of those who oppose any form of celebration are to be heeded too? Does he further agree that it should also be understood that the celebration is really about a great allied victory which rescued Europe and, incidentally, Italy and Germany as well? It is right for us to honour our ex-servicemen and women, particularly those who were slain or maimed, and also the victims of racism. Does the Minister agree that it was a magnificent victory which saved decent humanity and democracy?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is well known for the assiduity with which he represents the views of former servicemen. Indeed, his position as an honorary official of the Royal British Legion is much appreciated in your Lordships' House. I believe that I can reassure him by saying that I am already in close and regular contact with the representatives of veterans' organisations, particularly those of the Royal British Legion as I am sure the noble Lord knows. We hope that there will be a separate commemoration in August next year which will specifically focus on the contribution not only of servicemen and former servicemen but also civilian services—and civilian women, as I am reminded. The commemoration will focus not only on this nation but also on the Commonwealth countries. It will be a great family occasion.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while the arrangements by the Ministry of Defence for the recent commemorations in Normandy and in the Portsmouth area were admirable and much appreciated when they took place last month, will the Government ensure that any proposals for celebrations by the general public on VE Day are discussed with veterans' organisations before they are announced?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I shall make sure that they are drawn to the attention of the people who really did the work for this year's commemora-tions. As far as the second part of my noble friend's question is concerned, the short answer is certainly yes.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many of us with very cruel memories of what happened to the Forgotten Army in the Far East? Does he agree that by emphasising VE Day there will be many men and women who served in the Far East who will feel some neglect and lack of appreciation? How can the Minister put that right?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising what I believe to be an extremely important question. The best way I can answer her is to say that I have already asked the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who is a respected Member of your Lordships' House, to join my steering group to make sure that the very eventuality she fears does not take place.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that an important feature of this event is to remind the French and the Germans that if we had not stood alone against the Germans in Western Europe between May 1940 and December 1941 they would not now be able to bully us in the European Union?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that in the wake of recent events in Corfu the word "bully" in that context is perhaps a little inappropriate. I hope that he will reflect on the timing of that part of his question. I am happy to say to the noble Lord that all of us are well aware of the unique role which our country proudly played—before my birth but not his—in the saving of liberty in Western Europe. We shall make sure that that element is firmly recognised next year.
Lord Alport: My Lords, following the supplemen-tary question of the noble Baroness, does my noble friend agree that it would be more important to call this a celebration not of VE Day but of the end of the Second World War? Does he further agree that that would cover all the fronts on which British servicemen and women were serving during the whole of that time? I believe that there is a great danger that those who served in the Far East will perhaps be looking forward to a VJ Day which, I believe is too much to expect. Does my noble friend agree that the whole celebration should be concerned with the end of the Second World War and not with VE Day alone?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wholly agree with my noble friend in what he says. I am sorry that I did not make our outline plans—and I emphasise that so far they are outline plans—entirely clear. The theme of the VE Day commemorations and celebrations—and I use both words advisedly, particularly in the light of certain events and strictures which were made of Her Majesty's Government a little earlier this year —will be to celebrate 50 years of peace in Western Europe. With the help of the Royal British Legion it will also bear the stamp of the two words "tribute" and "promise" so we shall look forward to the contribution of youth. On top of that we are well aware that VE Day was not the end of the war. It is for that reason that I emphasise the fact that we shall be looking to the anniversary of VJ Day to be a great national and Commonwealth event to commemorate the matters to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we associate ourselves entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has just said? Will the noble Viscount give the House an assurance that the Ministry of Defence, which I understand is to be in
1382
charge of these operations—and perhaps the noble Viscount himself; who knows what will happen in the future?—will not hire expensive public relations firms at enormous cost to invent spam fritter parties and other things which are wholly irrelevant? Does the Minister agree that this is a very serious occasion?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may say with a certain degree of pride that the Ministry of Defence, in the context of D-Day, did not hire any public relations consultants. I can confirm to the noble Lord that the department has been given the honour and responsibility of taking the lead in arranging the VE Day and VJ Day commemorations and that other government departments will have their part to play in what I hope will be, if I am allowed to use the phrase, a collegiate effort in that matter. I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to hire public relations firms for that purpose. If we have to change our minds in that regard I certainly undertake that the noble Lord and your Lordships' House will be among the first to know that we have done so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I have one small question to ask. Given that in 1945 there was the arrival of a Labour Government, will the MoD and the Government ask the Opposition to join with them in planning these events? These are national events and it is only right that the Opposition should be invited to participate.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his offer. I hope that the events will indeed be national events, not party political events, and that those who help us to plan the events will be chosen on their merits rather than for their party political allegiance. I am sure that many members of the Labour Party and of the other Opposition parties will help us in that.

Klondykers: Safety Inspection
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether special arrangements are being made to screen or inspect foreign factory ships proposing to visit Ullapool or Shetland to check adequacy in safety, insurance and resources.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, following last year's inspections, and in the light of the recommendations concerning klondykers in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, Safer ships, Cleaner Seas, the Marine Safety Agency is putting in hand arrangements for inspections of klondykers as they arrive for the herring season.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Although those vessels greatly assist Scottish fishermen by buying their mackerel and herring, has not the report of the noble and

1383
learned Lord revealed serious inadequacies in ships coming from countries which were formerly part of the Soviet Union? Is it possible for us to help those countries to improve their vessels through some of the schemes that are now in operation which help with technical assistance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's report rightly drew attention to the problem of the klondykers, as did the inspections last year by inspectors from the Marine Safety Agency. We intend to do this year what we did last year. We have produced guidelines for klondykers covering especially the safety of vessels at anchor—the vessels spend virtually all of their time at anchor—which have been translated into Russian and will be given to all klondykers on arrival. In addition, Lerwick Harbour Trust produced an updated multi-lingual information pack also for distribution to the klondykers through their agents. I hope that by those methods we shall be able to communicate to the klondykers the kind of safety arrangements that we wish them to have in place when they come to our waters.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, have the Government investigated and made an analysis of the possible impact on the pollution of the waters of places such as Loch Broom, where the klondykers are at anchor just outside Ullapool? Is it possible that the pollution that is created through discharges from the klondykers is responsible for the reduction in fish stocks in places such as Ullapool?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that there is any evidence at all on the latter part of the noble Baroness's question. This is the first time that I have heard that suggested and I cannot think that there is a link between any decline in the fish stocks of, for example, salmon and sea trout in coastal waters and any pollution that is caused by those ships. When they board such ships, the inspectors are careful to ensure that the klondykers are dealing properly with the effluent. However, it is also fair to point out that the klondykers play a very important part in the fishing economy. Some 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom's mackerel catch and some 75 per cent. of our herring catch are sold via the klondykers. Therefore, while one must ensure that they enter our waters safely and efficiently, we must also remember their vital importance to the UK fishing industry.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Government please make sure that the guidelines apply not only to klondykers visiting Ullapool and Lerwick on Shetland but also other ports in Scotland and the United Kingdom?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can give the noble Lady that assurance. In particular, I can give her an assurance about Fraserburgh, with which she has a particular relationship. The klondykers are situated principally at Lerwick throughout the season but, as she
1384
knows, a fair number of them are moored off Fraserburgh and Peterhead, and the inspection will include klondykers off those two ports.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we fully support and commend the action that is being taken by the Marine Safety Agency? Can he indicate under what powers the inspectors are acting? Is it under the Paris memorandum of understanding or is it under any other powers? Will the Minister be kind enough to address himself to the second question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about whether any international funds are available, par-ticularly through the European Union, to enable the deteriorating standards of vessels to be dealt with at an international level?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know that some Community funds are available to help in marketing food in Eastern Europe. Equally, I know from previous experience that those funds are extremely difficult to unlock. I do not know whether the herring and mackerel industries in the United Kingdom have managed to unlock them yet. I shall have to look a bit more carefully into the question of know-how. However, I can advise the noble Lord that the powers vary a bit. If the vessel is in port, as is defined by statute, we can inspect it and detain it if it is unseaworthy. However, vessels which are not in port but which are in our territorial waters—and most of the vessels that we are talking about do not come right into port at, for example, Lerwick, but moor outside the port—can be inspected but not detained.

Tateos Michaelian and Mehdi Dibaj
3.25 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make representations to Iran about the murder of the Rev. Tateos Michaelian and the disappearance of the Rev. Mehdi Dibaj.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we utterly deplore the murders of the Rev. Tateos Michaelian and the Rev. Mehdi Dibaj in Tehran. The German Presidency of the European Union is today preparing a European Union démarche. Subsequent action will depend on further information and responses from Tehran.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and for pointing out that the person in the Question who was named as missing has now been found murdered. Does she consider it appropriate to press Iran for the rapporteur to pay another visit there? I believe that that has been resisted by the Iranian Government. The Iranian Government have signed Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but are not abiding by it. I am glad that the European Union will apply pressure to Iran in order to stop the murders.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are only too willing to press the Government of Iran to allow Mr. Galindo-Pohl, the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, to have access again to Iran. He has been denied access since 1991, having first gone there in 1989. With our European Union partners we called on the Iranian Government in March this year to co-operate fully with Mr. Galindo-Pohl. They have not so responded.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Church's tremendous concern over this matter, which is so great that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury would have been here himself to express his support if he had not been out of London? Is the Minister further aware that that concern is amplified particularly at a time when the religious education syllabus has set an example of how we in this country can maintain the priority of our faith and yet respect other faiths? In the light of that, is the Minister aware that the Church very much hopes that the leaders of other faiths will unequivocally condemn the kind of murderous fundamentalism which the latest outrages embody?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with every word that the right reverend Prelate has said. In addition to the murders of which I have spoken, we are urgently looking into the disappearance of at least two other Christian pastors. We know that the Iranian Church leader Banipal Natanael has been detained in Ahwaz and that Hassan Shahjamali has been detained in Shiraz. One other Christian has been released. They are part of a long line of people who have been taken into detention mainly because either they have reverted from Islam to Christianity or they belong to a community such as the Bahai community which is particularly targeted by Iran. We shall do all that we can to help to ensure that other faiths join us in making such representations.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we on these Benches share the concern of the Government and our other European Union partners. In the light of Iran's deplorable human rights record not just in relation to Church leaders but also in relation to minorities, women and political opponents of the regime, I wonder whether the Government, with our European Union partners, would request the Iranian Government to allow a delegation from Amnesty International to visit Iran to investigate the murders and, indeed, to hold discussions on other human rights matters there.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one is always willing to request that Iran receive such a delegation from Amnesty International or receive the Secretary-General's special representative. I honestly cannot say with any confidence that such a request would even be listened to. The critical thing is to find a way of changing the minds of the leaders of Iran. That will take some time for all of us who are committed to doing that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the leading article in The Times that there is blood
1386
on the hands of the mullahs in Tehran? Although it will not be possible conclusively to establish their responsibility for those murders to the standard required in a court of law—any more than we can for the deaths of the 26 people who were killed at the shrine of the Imam Reza in Mashad a few weeks ago—is it not a fact that the state, and no other body, has exhibited hostility to the minority religions in Iran; that it is the state which has detained and tortured Medhi Dibaj for 11 years; and that it is the state which has perpetrated over 100 assassinations of its opponents overseas? Is the Minister aware that the mullahs' regime is now compounding its villainy by accusing others of the murders that they have themselves committed? If the special rapporteur, Professor Galindo-Pohl, is not to be admitted to Iran he should nevertheless be asked by the European Union to conduct an inquiry into those atrocious murders from outside the country, requesting through the radio, or whatever other means he can use, evidence from those who have knowledge of the murders.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not just the state but some extreme groups which are equally guilty of detaining and murdering. We will do all that we can to put that right.

Business of the House: Summer Recess
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Tuesday 26th July. It is expected that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is expected that the House will return on Monday 10th October.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 32 [Effect of accused's failure to mention facts when questioned or charged]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 21, line 9, at beginning insert:
("( ) Subsections (1) and (2) below do not apply unless prior to the questioning mentioned in subsection (1) the constable told the accused in ordinary language—

(a) the substance of the purpose and nature of the questions to be asked, and

(b) the effect of the section if at trial any fact not mentioned when questioned were to be relied upon by way of defence, and of his right to remain silent,

and unless a record of the questioning made by a constable at the time (or as soon as reasonably practical thereafter) is tendered in evidence at the trial.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32, for which I put down a marker on

1387
Second Reading in the hope that Clause 32 would stand part, I shall speak also, if I may, to the other amendments in the group.
The substance of the argument in support of Amendment No. 32 and the substance of the argument in opposition to Amendment No. 37 were deployed fully in Committee by myself in moving Amendment No. 25 and by other noble Lords. I therefore propose to be brief.
The two main questions arising are, first, whether it is Amendment No. 32 or Amendment No. 37 which affords fair, reasonable and requisite safeguards before Clause 32 can bite. The second question is whether government Amendment No. 34 can be accepted without a large measure of assurance —assurance along the lines of that provided by Amendment No. 32—and whether at the end of the day such assurance as may be given would render it, in your Lordships' opinion, inappropriate to divide on Amendment No. 32.
No political considerations are involved. As my noble friend the Minister said on a previous group of amendments, the cookie crumbles across party lines. That is a fortunate way, I hope, of describing the situation with which we are faced today. As your Lordships know, Amendments Nos. 32 and 37 afford safeguards before Clause 32 can bite so that some adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of the right to silence.
Amendment No. 32 provides a fourfold safeguard. The constable must tell the accused in ordinary language not just the substance, the purpose and nature of the questions, but also the effect of the section and his right to maintain silence. In the tailpiece, the amendment states that some record should be made and tendered in evidence.
The suggestion is that those safeguards are fair, reasonable and requisite in our disordered state of society: fair to the accused, whether he be innocent or guilty; fair to the Crown; and fair to that mass of law-abiding people—the victims. Those considerations apply to Amendment No. 38 to Clause 34 and to Amendment No. 40 to Clause 35. As for Amendment No. 37, your Lordships may well think that it tips the scales of justice far too far in favour of criminals. It runs counter to the overall purpose of Clause 32. It excludes questioning on the doorstep, in the street, in the police car, or indeed, in any place whatever other than at a police station, with a lawyer in attendance, if requested, who can authenticate the tape of the interview.
The considerations apply also to Amendment No. 39 to Clause 34 and Amendment No. 41 to Clause 35. Just a few days ago, the Government tabled Amendment No. 34. The amendment disposes of Amendment No. 33 in my name because on arrest a caution is given. That was a matter of particular concern to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whom we are delighted to see in his place, in Committee. Therefore, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 33.
The Government's Amendment No. 34 does not dispose of Amendment No. 32. That amendment
1388
envisages some new form of caution as reflected in subsections (a) and (b), to which I have referred, and as adopted in subsection (a) of Amendment No. 37.
Assuredly, come what may a new form of caution must be devised. What is the position of the Government? What assurances can be given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers? This morning in chambers I received by fax—I was little late in but it was not long ago—proposals as to a new form of caution by amendment to the PACE code—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. He said that, in view of the Government's Amendment No. 34, he proposes not to proceed with Amendment No. 33. Is not the position that in many cases the caution can be given substantially before the moment of arrest? In that case, does not the noble Lord's Amendment No. 33 provide an additional protection which is not provided by the Government's amendment?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. Subject to the opinion of the House, I thought that it provided a sufficient safeguard. However, if it were the wish of the House I should move the amendment for the purpose of discussion. As at present advised, I am not disposed to press it. One must take a broad, common sense view. I am seeking not to be over finicky, technical or lawyer-like about this affair. I am doing my best.
This morning I received proposals as to the new form of caution by amendment to the PACE code. I shall leave my noble friend the Minister to deal with them because I have not had the opportunity to assimilate their full effect in detail.
In the tailpiece of Amendment No. 32 there is a statutory provision as to a record of the questioning being tendered in evidence. What is to be done about that? Together with the fax that I received this morning, I received notice of the intention to introduce by amendment to the PACE code some validating procedure at the police station. It goes back over everything that was said in the police car, on the door step, in the street and where have you—or what was not said—up to that point. Will this procedure be along the lines proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in subsections (b) and (c) of Amendment No. 37? What assurances will be given by my noble friend the Minister? It is a matter for your Lordships, but will such assurances as to the new form of caution and the validating procedures render it unnecessary to seek the opinion of your Lordships' House on Amendment No. 32?
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 appear to be subsumed by my Amendment No. 42. Subject to what is said on this issue, it is the intention to move that in due course. The Government's Amendment No. 41A to Clause 36 is wholly acceptable but it in no way disposes of Amendment No. 42 as a requisite safeguard. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in most contentious issues of major importance—and this is certainly one—it is often helpful, first, to identify and to isolate those matters which are common ground. As I see it, there are seven. First:
"allowing inferences to be drawn from a person's silence under police questioning … is an important change".—[Official Report, 23/5/94; col. 494.]
So said the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on the third day of the Committee stage. The noble Earl is not given to overstatements when making admissions on behalf of the Government.
Secondly, the justification for characterising such a change as an important change is well-known to your Lordships. For nearly 100 years, by reason of Section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, the prosecution has been prohibited from commenting on the accused's silence. As a result of judicial decisions during the past few decades judges are not permitted to invite juries to draw adverse inferences from the accused's silence.
Thirdly, and once more I quote the words of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which are to be found in the same column of Hansard:
"such a change must be accompanied by proper safeguards".
Fourthly, your Lordships are fully aware of the need for such safeguards. I quote from the Work on Evidence of the late, much-respected Professor Sir Rupert Cross. At page 31 he stated:
"People react to charges in very different ways and this means that all inferences from silence must be made with caution. A silent party may have been confused or taken by surprise; he may have considered the allegation unworthy of an answer; he may have wished to conceal matters concerning himself or others which are irrelevant to the case before the court. Reflections of this nature suggest that before a person's silence is allowed to count against him the circumstances must have been such that an explanation was called for and there must have been no apparent reason, apart from consciousness of guilt, for its absence".
In the debate on Second Reading to which I have referred, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, identified certain classes of particularly vulnerable subjects. That is to be found at col. 490 of Hansard.
Fifthly, in the past 12 years—that is, from 1981 to 1993 —two Royal Commissions (the Philips and the Runciman) by a majority concluded that no change be made in the present position. The result was that neither the prosecution nor the judge should be entitled to invite the jury to consider using an accused's silence as evidence of his guilt. However, in each report the minority expressed the view that, subject to certain precautions, adverse comment on an accused's silence should be permitted.
The minority on the most recent Royal Commission stated at paragraph 10 on page 51:
"Only relevant questions asked in a room with audio or visual recording, preferably with a legal representative present, but at least after the suspect had been offered the opportunity of taking legal advice, would qualify for later comment at trial".
The minority in the Philips Commission reached substantially the same view. Neither of those two minorities would have accepted the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, or the Government.
Sixthly, between the reports of the two Royal Commissions—that is, in May 1989—Mr. Douglas
1390
Hurd, the then Home Secretary, set up a working group chaired by a senior civil servant, one of the Home Secretary's own advisers. It reported in July 1989. It is clear from that report that proper safeguards not only involved being cautioned about the consequences of silence but included access to legal advice being obtained before the suspect insisted on remaining silent.
Seventhly and last, the purpose and function of the precautions are to ensure that an affirmative answer can be given to the vital question raised by Lord Reid when this matter was debated over 20-odd years ago when the 1lth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, upon which the Government's proposals were based, were so badly savaged in this House. The question which the noble Lord raised was: are you being; fair to the accused?
Perhaps I may now briefly deal with the amendments to Clause 32 in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. We propose four safeguards before silence under police questioning could be used against an accused person. First, the purpose and the nature of the questions must be made clear. That is totally lacking from the Government's proposal and we submit that, without such knowledge, an innocent suspect may fear that anything that he says may have implications well beyond those which he can envisage.
Secondly, a caution must be given warning of the possible effects of failing to mention any fact which may later be relied upon. I pause to say only that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, refers to "any fact", whereas there is a proviso in Clause 32(1) which states:
"being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned".
Thirdly, a lawyer should be present and consulted or the suspect should have stated in writing that he does not require a lawyer. That precaution is missing from both the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the Government.
Fourthly, questions must be tape recorded or some other contemporaneous record of the interview must be authenticated by the suspect's lawyer. Although some form of record is provided for in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, there is no obligation to have any authentication at all, with all the problems which we know that that can give rise to. Nor is that so on the part of the Government in relation to what took place at the scene, because ex hypothesi, a lawyer is not present.
As I sought to indicate by reference to two previous Royal Commissions and the report of the Home Office working party, there is nothing radical or novel about our proposals. They are wholly consistent with the minority reports of those two commissions and the recommendations of the working party.
What is startling and surprising here is that the Home Secretary has set out to ignore not only the majority views of those two Royal Commissions but even the minority views, which were far less stringent, and the report of his own working party. Bearing in mind that

1391
the last Royal Commission was designed principally to ensure the avoidance of miscarriages of justice, one would have thought that, if anything, he would have abided by the majority decision of the Royal Commission or, at the very least, by the minority view. One would not have expected him to downgrade it further. We have the odd situation that there is missing from this legislation the very safeguards for which we all look—namely, a method of reconsidering, outside the courts, allegations of miscarriages of justice; and, secondly, reducing their possibility in relation to police interrogation.
Your Lordships are aware that regrettably there are a few, although I respectfully submit not many, cases where police officers are so frustrated by the current right of silence, as it is inaccurately called, that they have invented admissions made by the accused. They have "verballed him", as it is known. I ask where the protection is to be found in future for the accused against the police inventing his very silence in such language as may be euphemistically imagined as, "Get lost", "Mind your own business", or words to that effect. Where are the safeguards to protect an innocent suspect whose reasons for remaining silent may include protection of his family or friends, a sense of bewilderment, embarrassment or outrage or a reasoned decision to wait until the allegation against him has been set out in detail and he has had the benefit of legal advice?
As was pointed out by the Royal Commission in its recent report at paragraph 13:
"Members of ethnic or other minority groups may have particular reasons of their own for fearing that any answers they give will be unfairly used against them … It is now well established that certain people, including some who are not mentally ill or handicapped, will confess to offences that they did not commit whether or not there has been impropriety on the part of the police. The threat of adverse comment at trial may increase the risk of confused or vulnerable suspects making false confessions".
Perhaps I may now refer to the caution proposed by the Government and its relevance. As advised by the Law Revision Committee, the caution should be:
"If there is any fact on which you intend to rely in your defence in court, you are advised to mention it now. If you hold it back until you go to court, your evidence may be less likely to be believed and this may have a bad effect on your case in general. If you wish to mention any fact now and you would like it written down, this will be done".
That was the conclusion reached by a committee consisting of about seven judges, the DPP and other distinguished professors.
What is now proposed is something a little shorter. I managed to winkle it out of the noble Earl by teasing him that, since he said there is to be a caution, we should know what it is. The present proposal, without prejudice because it may be changed, reads as follows:
"You do not have to answer any question, but if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trail".
During the debate some 20 or so years ago when the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee was
1392
considered, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, accepted the following observation by the Bar Council in its committee's report:
"The great majority of people who fall foul of the criminal law, or who are suspected of doing so, are inarticulate or weak or fearful or inadequate or deprived".
I ask: what are they going to make of that sort of caution? There was a certain degree of investigation made in regard to the caution given in Ireland which is, I believe, in between the two that I have just mentioned. According to the report of Justice on that subject, the evidence showed that it was widely misinterpreted by suspects who believed that it meant that there was an obligation to answer any accusation put.
Research carried out by the Royal Commission looked at the ability of suspects to take in information at the police station. It found that the present caution, which is well known to your Lordships, was only fully understood by 42 per cent. of suspects, although a higher percentage—52 per cent.—understood what is arguably the most important part; the right to remain silent.
The caution clearly says, "Here is a right, a right to remain silent, but you would be foolish to exercise it". Or, put another way, "It would be better for you if you talked". That is just the sort of situation in which a wise person would say, "Very well, I should like some advice in those circumstances as to whether I should exercise my right to remain silent or whether I should talk. I can't do that at the scene of the crime without some assistance". I respectfully submit that the amendment we have put forward represents the minimum safeguards if we are to maintain the standard of fairness which is an essential part of our administration of justice.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak now in order to put forward the Government's view on the amendments tabled in my name to enable all of us to know exactly where we stand as regards the different amendments. I hope that that will prove to be to your Lordships' convenience.
The government amendments are Amendments Nos. 34, 41A and 187. The whole group of amendments affect Clauses 32 to 36 which deal with the inferences that may be drawn from a person's silence. The issue is whether additional safeguards should be added to those clauses and, if so, what form they should take.
As your Lordships know only too well, the effect of the clauses is to allow proper inferences to be drawn from a person's silence when questioned by the police or at his trial. The changes we are making in those clauses are not, I believe, a matter of such profound constitutional significance as some people would have us believe. But they are important; indeed, they are most important. Any change in the rules of criminal evidence is likely to be a delicate and sensitive matter and it is right that this House should take care in trying to get the answer right. It is a matter on which many of your

1393
Lordships can speak with far more learning, personal experience and erudition than ever I could hope to attain.
When considering the government amendments, we reflected carefully on what was said in Committee about the need for additional safeguards, especially in relation to Clause 32. A number of different views were expressed in that debate about how the clause should operate. There are those, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who argue that no inferences should be able to be drawn from the silence of a person unless he has, first, had access, or at least the opportunity of access, to legal advice. Others, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, agree with the Government in saying that it should be possible to draw inferences from a person's silence under less formal conditions; for example, when he is questioned at or near the scene of a crime. But they would make it a condition for drawing such inferences that the person must have been warned about the possible consequences of his silence. That view the Government feel is the correct one: it is embodied in government Amendment No. 34 and the others tabled in my name. Amendment No. 187 makes the same sort of amendment to the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
Amendment No. 34 has one great virtue. As a matter of fact it has a great many virtues. But there is one particular virtue. It is short. Some may even say that it is very short. It consists of only two words. That should appeal to those noble Lords who are always demanding brevity, especially brevity in drafting. However, those two words carry great significance. Their effect is that no inference could be drawn from a person's silence under police questioning unless he or she had been warned—by being cautioned—of the possible adverse consequences if he or she were to remain silent.
Your Lordships may wonder what is the precise legal effect of the words "under caution". The terms of the caution are laid down in the codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The present caution does not, of course, contain a warning about the possible adverse effect of silence. But we intend that a new form of caution should be introduced after statutory consultation and before the clauses on inferences from silence are brought into force.
The new caution will contain two essential elements, as has been the case in Northern Ireland for the past five years. The first is a reminder to the suspect that he is not obliged to answer questions and that any answers which he may give may be given in evidence. The second is a warning about the potential dangers of his remaining silent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, tweaked me because the words are not available to the House. He may feel that the wording of the caution should be settled now and not left until after Royal Assent. However, I must tell the noble and learned Lord that I understand the view that when Parliament is asked to agree to new legislation it should be informed how that legislation will work in practice. I acknowledge that the wording of the caution will be a very important element in the implementation of Clause 32. That is why my
1394
right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an indication of the possible wording of the new caution last December when the Bill was introduced.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, told the House the possible wording. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating it. I have no doubt that, by now, noble Lords will have remembered it perfectly. I shall only emphasise that we are not committed to any exact wording at this stage. My right honourable friend is bound by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to consult on any changes to the codes of practice. We cannot anticipate the statutory consultation process which requires that any proposal for a change in the codes of practice must be published; that any comments on the proposals must be considered; and that the draft of a revised code must be laid before both Houses for affirmative resolution.
On a matter as important as this it would be all the more undesirable to attempt to short-circuit the consultation process with the police, the judiciary and others who can comment from experience. I hope that your Lordships will therefore rest content with what I have been able to tell your Lordships about the wording of the new caution.
The Government have a further proposal to make which is relevant to Clause 32. We intend to introduce a new procedure at police stations for putting on the record any important exchange between a police officer and a suspect which has occurred before the beginning of the formal interview. The procedure is essentially one which was recommended by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. It proposed that this procedure should apply to confessions which are made outside the police station. We propose that it should also apply to silence.
The procedure will be that a police officer who is interviewing a suspect at a police station must caution the suspect first and then put to him any significant admission, or failure to answer a question satisfactorily, which may have occurred before the beginning of the formal interview, probably outside the police station. The police officer will ask the suspect whether he wishes to confirm, to deny or to modify that earlier statement or silence. Failure to follow this procedure would not automatically make the previous exchange inadmissible, but it would be a matter to which the court would no doubt have regard in deciding whether it should be admitted. The new procedure will be embodied in the codes of practice, in the same way as the new caution to which I referred.
Those are the Government's proposals. After having listened carefully to the views which were expressed in Committee by your Lordships we have reached the best conclusion we could on which of the various proposals represented the best way forward. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have arrived at a reasonable conclusion that will meet with the approval of your Lordships and that it will address the majority of the apprehensions that were expressed at Committee. It would, I suppose, be too much to expect total unanimity of acceptance by your Lordships—that would be a novel experience probably in the past 700 years and certainly in the past 12 months.

1395
The proposals clarify the circumstances in which these new arrangements will operate. They will help to avoid needless disputes. Silence will be able to be taken into account, but only after a caution has been given and, at a formal interview, the police will be required to put the matter again to the suspect.
In the other corner of the ring, if one may so describe it, stands the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with his amendment. He is the only one of the four signatories to this amendment who voted in favour of Clause 32 standing part of the Bill. He has made it clear that he strongly supports the main principles of the Government's proposals on inferences from silence. I am grateful to him for that support. We disagree with him, though, on his amendment; but I hope that this is no more than a friendly disagreement on issues which many might consider to be, relatively speaking, matters of detail.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment has a number of elements. One is that a person should be warned about the possible effect of his silence before being questioned. I, of course, have nothing to say against that, because it is what the Government themselves are proposing to do through the amendments which I shall move and to which I have spoken. Where we part company, however, is over the next part of his amendment, which would require the police to inform a suspect of the purpose and the nature of the questions which he is to be asked before interviewing him.
The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice welcomed the progress which has been made through the new national training package for basic interviewing skills launched by the Home Office in January last year. This, quite properly, encourages the police to use interviews as a way of seeking after truth, rather than as a way of merely putting pressure on a suspect to admit something which the police officer believes that he has done. But the amendment of the noble and learned Lord would oblige the police to put a good many of their cards on the table at the beginning of every interview. I doubt whether that would be sensible.
Clause 32 as it stands allows the court or the jury to draw an inference if a suspect failed to give information which he could reasonably be expected to mention in the circumstances at the time. If the suspect failed to grasp what the police were driving at, and that is why he did not mention a point, he can of course make this perfectly clear at the trial. I think that that should be a sufficient safeguard.
The most important feature, though, is that the amendment would prevent a court or a jury from drawing any inference from a person's silence unless he was interviewed in the presence of his lawyer, or had declined the services of a lawyer. We disagree with that for three reasons. First, it would confine the effect of Clause 32 to interviews which are carried out in police stations. It would remove the ability to take any account of what had happened at the scene. Secondly, as regards its effects on interviews at police stations, it is on the whole unnecessary. Thirdly, it would make no allowance for those exceptional cases in which access to a lawyer is delayed.
1396
If I might take the first objection—
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is kind of the noble Earl to give way. It would have no effect at all on any admissions made at the scene. It would only have an effect on silence at the scene.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord pre-empts that which I was just about to come to. As I said, if I might take the first of my three objections, our disagreement is, I hope, clear. The Government share the view of, among others, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that a court or jury should be able to take into account a person's failure to give relevant information when questioned under caution at or near the scene of a crime.
When I say relevant information I mean, of course, information on which the person later relies for his defence and which he could reasonably have been expected to mention in the circumstances at the time. It is a bit of a mouthful to keep repeating those words, but we need to keep reminding ourselves how carefully Clause 32 is framed. It is framed on the work of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1972 which many eminent lawyers—in which happy company I would be unable to include myself—have praised.
One can easily imagine the circumstances. A police officer goes to the scene of a riot where looting is in progress. He sees a man carrying several bottles of whisky in a bag. He says, if noble Lords can imagine it, "Excuse me sir, would you mind telling me whether this whisky belongs to you?" The man declines to answer this question and the officer then cautions him and repeats the question. Again, the man makes no reply. When he is interviewed at the police station some hours later, after being cautioned afresh, he is asked the same question again, after being reminded that he has failed to answer the question so far. He then claims that he had bought the whisky some time ago —he cannot remember where—and that he was taking it to a party when he found himself caught up in the riot. The police do not believe him, and he is prosecuted.
What is there unfair about allowing the prosecution to make adverse comment at trial on his silence after he had been warned about the risk of staying silent? If when asked at the scene the man had said "No it's not my whisky. I admit that I stole it" that fact could be put before the court. But if he says nothing that fact, at present, cannot be. I suggest that there is no reason why silence should not be treated in the same way as a confession, subject only to the additional safeguard of cautioning—which we have accepted.
The second objection to the noble and learned Lord's amendment arises when we come to questioning at a police station. Here the safeguards, which are established by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and by the associated codes of practice, apply in full. Those safeguards are substantial. A suspect, arriving at a police station, must be reminded of his right to receive legal advice and must be given the opportunity to consult a lawyer. If he wishes, he will be interviewed in the presence of a lawyer. The interview will be tape

1397
recorded, unless it is a summary offence. If it is not tape recorded, an interview record will be made and will be shown to the suspect.
Against that background I suggest that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is unnecessary. It provides for safeguards that already exist, under separate primary legislation and under statutory codes of practice, which are daily taken into account by the courts and which will apply to those clauses just as they at present apply to admissions. Those safeguards are not set in concrete: they can, if necessary, be improved and updated by changing the codes of practice. We are, in fact, preparing some amendments to the codes of practice in order to implement the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.
My third objection to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which is a serious one, is that it makes no allowance for those exceptional circumstances where access to legal advice is delayed for a limited period. That is not a frequent occurrence, but it is one which the Government and Parliament have recognised in primary legislation. It is for the courts to judge whether a confession which is made in those circumstances is admissible in any particular case. So it should be with any failure to mention a significant fact. I would find great difficulty in advising your Lordships to accept any amendment which automatically excluded the evidence from an interview which had been carried out in those exceptional circumstances.
I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord's amendment has been modified since Committee, so that an interview from which inferences could be drawn would not invariably have to be tape-recorded. The amendment now allows the alternative of a "contem-poraneous record", which is what the police would undertake whenever practicable. But it requires that record to be authenticated by a lawyer. That, of course, means that a lawyer would have to be present throughout the interview. I have already explained why I believe that that is undesirable. That is why I could not advise your Lordships to accept the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and why I believe that the amendment which is tabled in my name is better.
Perhaps I may refer to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am very grateful for my noble friend's support for the Government's policy on inferences from silence. The purpose of the government amendment is to address in a slightly different way the concern which he and others expressed in Committee about Clause 32. My noble friend referred to the new form of caution which is to be used in relation to this clause. I am sure that he will accept the assurance which I have already given that the caution will be revised and that it will contain the two basic elements I mentioned earlier. I have explained that it would not be possible to by-pass the statutory consultation process for changes to the codes of practice.
My noble friend's amendments to Clauses 34 and 35 would require a police officer or customs officer to advise a suspect of his right to remain silent. Those clauses refer to persons being questioned by the police
1398
after being arrested. The police must caution a person if they interview him after arresting him. As I have already explained, the new form of caution will say that a person questioned by the police is not obliged to answer questions. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary.
My noble friend's amendment to Clause 36 would require that no inferences may be drawn by the court unless by reasoned finding and decision. I believe that the safeguards already contained in the clauses are sufficient: a court may draw such inferences, as appear proper. Judges will direct juries as necessary, and I am sure that they will do so with scrupulous care.
There are one or two other technical amendments, but the substance of the matter is contained in Amendment No. 34.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I desire to speak in relation to this group of amendments, and in particular in support of the amendments to which I have added my name, Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 41.
The proposition that a caution of a suspect by a police officer before he is questioned amounts to a sufficient protection against a court relying on inferences from his silence or relying upon what may be a false or unreliable confession staggers me. But that is the proposition behind Amendment No. 34 in the name of the noble Earl. It is the only amendment in this group which the Government have brought forward. I will study with care in Hansard tomorrow what the noble Earl has just said, but I gained the distinct impression that he said at one point that the invocation of the right to silence was for all practical purposes to be regarded as equivalent to an admission.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. That is not a correct interpretation of my remarks. If I gave that impression, I am sorry. It was certainly not the impression that I intended to give.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, very well. We shall look at the text tomorrow. How could a caution conceivably amount to sufficient protection against adverse inferences from silence or against false or unreliable confessions? IF there is a suggestion that it could, then that staggers me. A caution does no more than warn a suspect that what he says may be evidence against him. The caution may be of greater or lesser particularity, particularly in relation to reasons associated with silence.
A caution is surely irrelevant to the precautions external to the suspect who is the subject of the questioning envisaged in Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 41. Those precautions would ensure that there is objective verification of any confessions that may come forward from questioning which could be disputed.
I look forward to the contribution to this debate from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who I am pleased to see is in his place. I look forward to it on the basis that I am about to suggest. His concern is recorded in today's press that we may not have in the next Session legislation to set up an independent body to deal with miscarriages of justice (an expectation which caused these Benches to abstain from putting

1399
down amendments to this Bill to establish such a body here and now). That concern would surely run counter to any support for Amendment No. 34 in the name of the noble Earl.
I invite the noble Earl to say when he replies to the debate whether it is now the position that we shall not have in the next Session legislation to set up a body to deal with miscarriages of justice. I ask that question because I submit to the House that we should have means external to the suspect who is the subject of the questioning to verify disputed confessions. That is all the more important if an independent body to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice is not promptly to be brought forward.
The primary point that I make is this. We should have procedures in place which are calculated to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring, in particular the availability of procedures which must apply before any inferences from silence can arise which are external to the suspect. Those are procedures which would provide for the external verification of disputed confessions. Secondly, we should have procedures for dealing with miscarriages of justice if, sadly, they happen.
From what we have read in the press, an independent body to deal with miscarriages of justice appears likely to be postponed to an uncertain date. I invite the noble Earl to assist the House in assuring us otherwise if he feels able to do so.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, the principle that a jury should, in appropriate cases, and subject to a judge's direction—and I stress that very important point —be entitled to draw proper inferences from the silence of an accused person, either in the face of police questioning or at his trial, is now accepted. But, as I said in Committee, the proposal needs to be accompanied by proper safeguards for the suspect. In this I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken thus far. The question is: how far should the safeguards go?
In my view there are three reasons why the form of the clause which we considered in Committee was unsatisfactory. First, we are making a very significant change. The words of the current police caution are as well known as any formula in the language. It is therefore vital, if justice is to be done, for all suspects in future to be put on the clearest possible notice that it is not only their statements to police officers which may be used against them at their trial but also their unreasonable failure to mention when questioned any fact that they will rely upon at trial.
Secondly, the clause in its previous form was very widely drawn. It would have allowed comment at trial not only on the silence of a suspect but also of someone who at the time of the questioning was regarded only as a potential witness —for example, during routine house-to-house inquiries. That would have been oppressive.
Thirdly, the original clause would greatly have widened the scope for allegations to be made, whether true or not, of police malpractice. We have over the years unfortunately become accustomed to complaints
1400
about so-called "verballing" of suspects by police officers. The dangers posed by Clause 32 have been described vividly in the other place as "non-verballing". In simple terms, a defendant against whom unreason-able silence was alleged could insist at trial that he did provide answers to all the questions the police asked at the scene or on the way to the police station but that the police found the answers inconvenient and so ignored them. The ambush defence, which we seek to abolish, would thus have risen phoenix-like from the ashes.
I do not propose to deal in detail with all the various proposals in the amendments before us. Following the Committee stage, I made a number of suggestions to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and to the Home Secretary as a result of which Amendment No. 34 was framed, together with the very important parallel changes which the noble Earl has outlined in the form of the police caution and in the PACE codes. I believe that those changes will remedy the original defects in the form of Clause 32 by requiring a caution to have been administered—a new form of caution—before a suspect's silence can feature in the evidence against him.
The amendment addresses the first two of my concerns. As to the first, the new caution will make clear to the suspect that the law has changed and that he may no longer be safe in refusing to give any account of himself. As to the second, the very fact that the caution has to be administered ensures that the clause applies only to someone under active suspicion of being involved in criminal activity.
There is—and this is the crucial matter—the third problem of "non-verballing". I appreciate the anxieties expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, and by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in arguing for Amendment No. 37. However, the effect of that amendment would be to remove the possibility of any inference being drawn from silence until the suspect had reached the police station. They are content with that. I think that it goes too far. It would create an imbalance, an illogical imbalance, in the law because comment could be made—as it can now—on statements or admissions made at the scene of the crime but comment could not be made on silence at that stage which might in some circumstances be just as eloquent.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, suggests that there is no equivalent to be found between admissions and silence. I agree. But if his logic is to be followed through, why is there not proposed an amendment which says that admissions and statements made before the police station should not be admissible unless all the panoply of tape recorders, defence lawyers, and so on, are present? If we are content to admit evidence which is incriminating when it amounts to admissions at that stage, before the police station is reached, why are we so chary of allowing comment to be made on silence, especially when it is, I remind the House, always open to the court on the direction of the judge to consider that it was not reasonable to expect the person to have mentioned the particular fact at the time?
Perhaps I may remind the House that the clause would only bite if the court or jury considered that the fact relied upon at trial and not mentioned at the scene

1401
of the crime could reasonably have been expected to have been made at the time. If there is some good reason why it could not have been made, or was not made, or if the person in question is peculiarly vulnerable and therefore it would have been unreasonable to expect him to come up with the fact there and then, that is a matter which the court can take into account.
The new requirement which would be put into the PACE code, referred to by the noble Earl—the requirement for a validation interview—builds on a recommendation of the Royal Commission. Inferences will be susceptible of being drawn from silence at the scene of the crime but only after compliance with a requirement to validate what was said or not said at the first formal interview in the police station. If there is a conflict of evidence, or allegation of malpractice, then this will be identified as a material issue at that very early stage in accordance with one of the Royal Commission's key objectives: that the issues should be highlighted as early as possible. The validation requirement would enhance the reliability of evidence not only as to silence but as to any significant statement made before arrival at the police station upon which the prosecution seek to rely. In my view it will represent a very significant improvement in our criminal procedure and one which it is both proper and desirable to achieve through amendment to the codes of practice under PACE rather than in primary legislation.
Given the undertaking of the Government to amend the caution, and to revise the codes accordingly, I would urge support for Amendment No. 34 standing in the name of the noble Earl.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I use this process because, as he will know, it being Report stage he will have no further opportunity of addressing us in the course of this debate—perhaps he can help us, his assistance being very much valued, by saying whether he still adheres to the view he expressed on 23rd May in Committee when he said:
"I hope that further thought may be given to the matter before Report stage. At present I would point out that there is an inconsistency between Clause 32 on the one hand and Clauses 34 and 35 on the other. The latter two clauses bite only on arrest, when a caution will have been given. Clause 32 bites at any time, 'on being questioned by a constable'. At the least, I suggest that Clause 32 should be brought in line with the other two clauses". —[Official Report, 23/5/94; col. 523.]
Is the noble and learned Lord of the view still that Clause 32 should bite not simply on caution but on arrest? May there not be a substantial difference in time between the two?
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I was concerned that there should be a caution in all three cases. The caution is not mentioned in Clauses 34 and 35. It does not have to be because it is implicit that if one is considering the point of arrest there will have to be a caution. What I meant was that the absence of any requirement of caution in Clause 32 did not lie well with the implicit requirement of a caution in Clauses 34 and 35. But Amendment No. 34 brings the three into line in that respect.
1402
Perhaps, as I am on my feet again, I may say that while I welcome the somewhat peripheral matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as to whether the review authority will very shortly figure in legislation, I do not consider that it is relevant to this particular amendment. However, as the noble Lord mentioned the matter, I should like to support the very great urgency of having that provision in legislation at an early stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask for clarification before the noble and learned Lord sits down? Am I right then in assuming, as I did, that my Amendment No. 33 is in fact subsumed by Amendment No. 34 because of the caution? The noble and learned Lord may remember that he was concerned in Committee that Clause 32 did not bite on arrest and that there was therefore a disparity between Clauses 32, 34 and 35. Am I right in assuming that Clause 34 frankly disposes of any need for my Amendment No. 33, which seeks to give effect to the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I hoped a moment or two ago, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that I had made it clear as to the respects in which I wished to see the three clauses brought into line; namely, that none of them should bite unless there was a caution. I hope that that is clear.
So far as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are concerned, I understood he was pursuing them because he was not satisfied as to the nature of the change to be made in the PACE code. I adopt the stance I have on the faith of the undertaking, which I understand to be a firm undertaking on the part of the Government, that the PACE code will be amended to require the validation procedure. That being so, with great respect, I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, might have withdrawn his amendment.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I believe that that completes the cross-examination of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: He can. exercise his right of silence now.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am one of those who was and is still against tampering with what for convenience's sake we have all referred to as the right of silence. But I accept that I am clearly not in a majority in this House. I accept that times have moved on, and that we have discussed today not the general principles but the way in which the right: of silence should now be changed.
Perhaps I may say at once that I entirely support in that position the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and his colleagues. It seems to me that Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 41 provide a clear, positively identifiable, precise situation under which rules can be made clear both to the prosecution and the defence. It seems to me that they set up a position which eliminates, so far as human beings can, the possibility of confusion or misunderstanding or even

1403
of deliberate manipulation. I say no more about those amendments because I have no doubt that other noble Lords, particularly those whose names are on the Marshalled List, will want to speak in support of them.
Perhaps I may confine my attention to the proposed Amendment No. 34 to be moved on behalf of the Government by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I find it an unhappy amendment. I believe that the results are potentially disastrous if it is made part of our law. To me it has all the indications of how very ill thought out the whole of the Government's proposals have been in this area ever since this debate began.
It must have been obvious to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at a very early stage that in order to persuade your Lordships of the validity of his position it was essential that he should place before the House a simple, clear scenario, a situation, an example of a defendant remaining silent when common sense screamed out that some comment was called for. I have no doubt at all that the best brains in the Home Office were called together in order to produce the scenario.
It was produced at Committee stage. The scenario produced to persuade your Lordships to interfere with the right of silence—these are the words of the noble Earl—was:
"Two ramraiders attack a jeweller's shop. They are disturbed by the arrival of a police car and escape on foot to a nearby block of flats. The police give chase. They do not see the two men's facial features but they see their height, build and clothing. The police make door-to-door inquiries at the block of flats and enter one flat, where they find the tenants, a middle-aged couple, as well as two young men whose height, build and clothing happen to match those of the men for whom they are looking. The middle-aged couple seem agitated and upset. The police ask the young men what they are doing in the flat and one of them says that they have come along for a cup of tea. The middle-aged couple are too frightened to contradict the young men's story and are not prepared to give evidence against the two young men at a trial. Inquiries later reveal that there is no link between the middle-aged couple and the men. After being arrested and consulting their solicitor, the men claim that they were looking for a friend and had stopped at the flat to ask for directions. They later put that forward at the trial".
That is the scenario. The comment made by the noble Earl was entirely accurate. He said:
"Under the law as it now stands, the inconsistency between what those men said to the police officer before they were arrested and cautioned and what they said at their trial could be the subject of very effective cross-examination and could be the subject of an inference by the jury who might think that the men were not to be believed. Equally, if the two men had said, 'We have just raided the jeweller's shop', that would be a confession and would be admissible evidence at the trial. It could form a basis— possibly the main basis—of a conviction. But if—
this is the relevant part—
"instead of saying they had come for a cup of tea, the two men had said nothing at all to the police officer or if they had asked him to mind his own business—perhaps using more colourful language—under the existing rules the prosecuting counsel could say nothing about that. Questions such as, 'Why didn't you tell the police what you are now telling the court?', would not be allowed.
That is a simple scene which Clause 32 seeks to address". —[Official Report, 23/5/94; col. 532.]
That was the way in which the Government had thought out the position. They are now putting forward an amendment to Clause 32 under which that scene is not addressed in the slightest. The situation under Clause 32 is that there was no caution in the flat originally. There
1404
could have been no caution properly administered in the flat because the police at that time could have had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the defendants, the young men, were guilty of an offence. In those circumstances, if the Government's own amendment is carried, on the scenario as they put it forward in their model scene at the last hearing the proposals now being brought forward by the Government would have had absolutely no effect on the proceedings at the trial. I find that an extraordinary state of affairs. And it demonstrates, I believe, the disastrous consequences of the Government's own proposals.
The present temptation is for the police to leave their caution as late as possible in case the effect of the caution is to discourage a suspect from talking. The effect of the Government's proposals is that the police will be tempted to bring forward the caution as early as possible in the hope either of inducing a helpless suspect to say something or of it resulting in a silence which would then be admissible as the possible subject of comment during the trial.
The idea of the police shouting out the caution at the earliest possible moment for that purpose perhaps gives rise to rather ludicrous results. I have in mind the cartoon in Punch many years ago which showed a bank robber standing on the roof of a bank with the booty in one hand and a machine gun in the other, spraying with bullets the assembled ranks of the police in front of the bank; one brave police officer is shouting out through a loud nailer, "Jones, we'd like you to come to the police station to help us with our inquiries". A similar nonsense is liable to happen if the police are to shout out a caution at the earliest possible moment when they are taking a suspect in order to trigger off the procedures about the comments on silence.
There are further results that will cause trouble. In the circumstances the police may be tempted to say that there was a caution when there was not a caution. There will be controversy at the trial over that. There will be arguments by ingenious counsel that, even if there were a caution, which the defendant will no doubt deny, it was improperly given because it was not appropriate at that stage in the proceedings as the police could not reasonably have suspected that the defendant was guilty of an offence.
There is the situation referred to several times this afternoon already when the question is asked: was the defendant in fact silent? There will be cases in which the police officer will say, "Oh, yes, he was silent", and the defendant says, "No, on the contrary, I said 'Rubbish', but I did not say it very loudly and it may well be that the police officer never heard it". What an absurd situation that is. If the defendant said "Rubbish", then the silence provisions are not triggered off; but if the police officer did not hear him, they are triggered.
There is also the situation in which the police will be tempted, instead of having to make up some confession, simply to say, "The defendant said nothing". That is a perfectly simple deception for the police to carry out. It is not capable of the scientific examination of notebooks and so forth that is now so prominent. The result of that situation is that, unhappily, there will be a resumption of the "battle of the verbals" that has marred our criminal

1405
trials certainly for half a century to my knowledge and no doubt for many years earlier, such as "He said this" —"No, I didn't"; "He said that"—"No, I didn't"; the officer: "You are lying"—"No, I am not"; the defendant: "You are lying"—"No, I'm not". On and on and round and round we go, to the excessive tedium of all and with no encouragement to the administration of justice.
All those consequences will be the result of the Government's amendment. I believe that they can be avoided by a clear, lucid statement of the controlled conditions in which the interview is admissible and the silence, if it happens, is admissible and easily confirmed.
For those reasons I very much prefer the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I add only that I am sad that the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, appears at this stage to some extent to resile from what he said at Committee stage. As I read his comments, he quite clearly said at Committee stage that Clauses 34 and 35:
"bite only on arrest, when a caution will have been given … At the least, I suggest that Clause 32 should be brought in line with the other two clauses".—[Official Report, 23/5/94; col 523.]
I respectfully suggest that on reflection the noble and learned Lord will agree that the words "at the least" and "on arrest" indicate that he had in mind at that time something a little more advanced than the Government now propose. There can be an enormous gap in time between the first caution, given when there are grounds for suspicion, and an arrest, which cannot take place simply on the grounds of suspicion. In those circumstances I ask noble Lords to support in the Lobbies in due course the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, up to this point I have listened with a great deal of interest to every word that has fallen from the numerous and highly qualified speakers. But all along I have been puzzled about what the ordinary Member of this House is making of the debate and how much of it has sunk in. I myself cannot pretend to be completely innocent of legal qualification at all. However, I was interested in the subject long before I had any legal qualification. I was interested from the time when my father was Attorney-General and my brother wrote a book about the life of Sir Edward Marshall-Hall.
There are conclusions which I venture to put before my noble friends and Members of your Lordships' House which I have formed in the course of a rather long lifetime. There are certain basics that we want to preserve at almost any cost. First, we want to do nothing which, at the end of the day, would undermine the burden of proof that lies on the prosecution to prove its case and the standard of proof, which is to prove the case as we used to say "beyond reasonable doubt". That is the formula that I prefer to any other. Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached to evidence after it has been admitted by the tribunal of fact.
So far as concerns the admissibility of evidence, I should like to see as few as possible—I repeat, as few as
1406
possible—technicalities, or ritual dances as I sometimes think of them, taking place. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to certain words said in an earlier debate in this House which he attributed correctly to Lord Reid; namely, that it is vital that we should be fair to the accused at all stages—but not, I submit, to believe that one is necessarily being fair to an accused by introducing formulae and putting them in an Act of Parliament.
Let me say in parenthesis that when the Bill was sent to this House it contained 122 clauses and was 179 pages long. That is not a short Bill. After Committee stage we have ended up with a Bill which contains 159 clauses and is 192 pages long. We are being swamped in a sea of words. I rather wish that there were fewer of them. We call ourselves a revising Chamber, but we are rather apt to feel that by adding words to a Bill we improve the clarity with which the Act of Parliament will come to be interpreted by the courts. I do not believe that to be true.
Having heard the speeches which have been delivered—no doubt I shall listen to all the speeches that will be delivered hereafter—I must say that I was completely convinced by the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. So far as admissibility is concerned, it is vital to stop anything being advanced which has not been fairly obtained. That is done by preventing confessions or records of any kind which have been subject to oppressive treatment by those in a position of authority, including the police. I do not believe that any particular formulae or ritual dances which have to be performed will assist the matter very much. What has to be ensured is that in the infinitely varied circumstances of every case fairness is preserved. If a case is being tried in the Crown Court before a jury, the trial judge ought to protect the accused from unfair treatment, but it is not possible to reduce "unfair treatment" to formulae very easily.
I prefer the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice to some of the others that have been put forward. I believe that he gets it right when he says that there must be some kind of code of practice in the context of PACE rather than that it should be set in tablets of stone and handed down from Sinai in the form of a statute. That was a proposition that he put very clearly, with which I wholly agree.
When one has admitted facts or silences, or evidence of any kind, whether it is evidence of speak or non-speak or do or non-do, let us remember that it is first for the tribunal of fact to come to a conclusion on the basis of the evidence whether guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the person under suspicion or charge. In respect of that question one has to admit that the facts of individual cases are almost infinitely different one from another.
I believe that as legislators we in this House must not try to interfere with the very wide degree of discretion that the trial judge has. He is the person who admits the evidence or not and has to sum up to the jury the kinds of considerations that are relevant to the particular case. I would rather that the trial judge was pretty well free, as he has always been in the true tradition of our common law, but always subject to the paternal

1407
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to lay down general rules of guidance for him and to decide in particular cases whether, in the light of the trial judge's behaviour, the conviction, if there be one, is unsafe or unsatisfactory.
I believe that the weakness of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and those in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and his associates, is that, instead of adopting this rule that I regard to be a matter of common sense and logic, there is an attempt to introduce formulae and rigid safeguards of a kind which I believe invariably lead to injustice. It is for those reasons that I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but with greater emphasis than I would otherwise have because it happens to be the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, for whom I have at least in this context as much respect as the Home Office Minister, who does his work so well and, I hope, has the affection and admiration of all of us for the way he does it.
5 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, under the existing law, in particular the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, anyone who is stopped, searched, arrested and taken to a police station to be questioned is protected in a number of important respects from questioning which would otherwise be unfair or oppressive. When he is arrested, the suspect is told that he need say nothing. At the police station he is entitled to legal advice before he is questioned. Before he is questioned a range of provisions comes into force which has been designed to protect in particular the vulnerable suspect from unfairness.
The 1984 Act and the codes of practice which went with it introduced special provisions for those who were mentally disordered, mentally handicapped or mentally incapable of understanding the significance of questions put to them or of making a proper reply. It introduced special provisions for young people and physically handicapped people who were unable to speak, read or hear and those with speech impediments. It introduced special provisions for those with language difficulties who might need an interpreter. It also even contained provisions for those who were unwell or even drunk.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I cannot accept that this Bill, together with the proposed changes in the codes, contains satisfactory provisions for those people before they reach the police station and can seek legal advice. Under the Bill they are to be told upon arrest—in the words of whatever caution the Home Secretary finally decides upon—that, if they do not mention certain matters at that stage, the court may treat their failure to speak as evidence against them.
Quite apart from the special categories of people to whom I have referred, many people when arrested do not understand their position in law, and they are scarcely likely to be assisted by the proposed changes to the caution. Perhaps the majority are inarticulate. Almost all of them will be frightened. It is often forgotten that, particularly in the case of a violent or
1408
serious crime, these people will be in a state of shock. It is simply not sufficient to say that the court can take that into consideration.
The provisions of this Bill as they stand create an interval between arrest and legal advice at the police station when those vulnerable suspects are to be stripped of the protection of the law which they presently and rightly have. Of the amendments that the House is now considering, it is only those that stand in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which restore the protection for that period. With great respect, I commend them to the House.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I also support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I am one of his associates, as described by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. I believe that the safeguards of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, are a minimum to secure fairness to the accused. With great respect, I do not believe that this has anything to do with setting up ritual dances. It is about something that is much more simple: good policing. I believe that the one question of substance that we have to ask ourselves this afternoon is: should the exercise by a suspect of the right of silence before the formal interview at a police station be held against that suspect? I believe that it should not.
At this stage of the debate I wish to make four points. Everyone accepts that the change that is being made in Clause 32 is important or, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said, significant. Everyone also accepts that it is as yet wholly untested. Many were anxious, and remain anxious, that it could increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. They include: the Bar, the Law Society, the Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, Justice, with its deep involvement in the criminal law and human rights, and senior prosecuting counsel—I underline "prosecuting"—at the Old Bailey. I add a Royal Commission in 1981 and the large majority of a Royal Commission in 1993, including its chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, who is also an associate in proposing this amendment.
I accept that, by contrast, the change was urged by powerful voices: the Home Secretary, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the police service. They obviously believe that fears about increasing pressure on vulnerable defendants are groundless. I hope that they are proved right, but none of us can yet know. I believe that in this climate it is sensible to have elementary safeguards in place to make sure that police practices are sound and that evidence is properly obtained.
My second point relates to the whole purpose of the change in the law. Those who wish to allow comment on the exercise of silence at early stages of the investigation do so because they wish to limit the opportunity of an accused to spring a surprise defence or have time to think up and fabricate an untrue defence. Surely this is effectively achieved by making this change bite once, after what would still normally be a relatively short interval after arrest, the accused is in the

1409
police station. This will be at a very early stage of the inquiry and would, I should have thought, have satisfied even the most eager investigator.
My third point is that this proposal is no more and no less than good police practice. In recent years it has increasingly been accepted that a suspect should not be questioned in the police station without first being given the right of access to a lawyer. Why? This is in the interests of giving the suspect a fair opportunity to respond and, together with tape recordings, helps to ensure the accuracy of evidence. It is good police practice and it protects good policemen against false allegations of malpractice.
I believe that it is in principle reasonable that citizens should have an unfettered right to decline interrogation until after safeguards are in place. I do not, however, believe that the caution proposed by my noble friend the Minister offers those suspects any protection. It certainly means, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has said, that the right of silence will only be potentially affected once the person becomes a suspect, so it cuts down the category of those against whom inferences can be drawn. But it does not offer any protection to those who have become suspects.
Moreover, the caution is, in my view, simply downright confusing. It will tell someone that he has a right of silence, or that he need not answer any questions, but that he may suffer if he declines to answer questions. I do not believe that any change in wording which preserves that basically self-contradictory proposition can be satisfactory. Add to that the fact that, as research for the Royal Commission showed, the average IQ of suspects is 82—within the bottom 15 per cent. of the general population. Ten per cent. of those were mentally ill, mentally handicapped or brain damaged. Another 5 per cent. had language problems or were illiterate. It is surely right that, in weighing whether to speak or maintain silence in the face of a somewhat puzzling caution, they should have access to legal advice and that the interview should be recorded. Is it not wrong to encourage, as the government proposal does, interrogation in the street or in the police car before the suspect has been offered legal advice?
My fourth point is that the police, as I understand it, do not share the Home Secretary's desire that adverse inferences could be drawn from silence exercised before the safeguards of tape recording and the offer of legal advice are in place. This morning I had the privilege of speaking in Bournemouth to the conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers. One of my co-speakers was Mr. John Hoddinott, the Chief Constable of Hampshire. He, speaking for ACPO, said that he welcomed the change to allow the inferences to be drawn from the exercise of the right of silence. That is the change which some of us were against but which your Lordships have accepted and which we loyally accept. But Mr. Hoddinott went on to say—and I quote from the copy of his speech which he gave me:
"But we are careful to put these changes into the context of: a proper interview with properly put questions. That is recorded (and we would be anxious to see video recording brought in as soon as possible) And the suspect having access to proper legal advice".
1410
He went on to commend expressly the approach previously taken in debate in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, including his statement in Committee:
"But if we are going to make these major changes, proper safeguards are required".—[Official Report, 23/5/94; col. 499]
Mr. Hoddinott subsequently expressly confirmed to me that the police did not seek a position in which adverse inferences should be drawn from the maintenance of silence before such safeguards were in place. He has an obvious concern that, once the formal interview has begun, the police should not be required to lay all their cards on the table before asking any questions at all, but I do not understand that to be the. effect of our amendment.
The police are committed to establishing evidence objectively and in accordance with good practice. They, as Mr. Hoddinott explained it to me, would obviously wish the position to be that if, once the formal interview has begun at the police station, the accused maintains silence in the face of the same questions which he had earlier been asked before they got to the police station, inferences could be drawn from that maintenance of silence but not from any earlier maintenance of silence. I believe that to be a reasonable and responsible position. I find it puzzling that the Home Secretary does not seek to pursue that which is regarded as good policing. I have read carefully the evidence and I understand what Mr. Hoddinott said to have been the position maintained by the police before the Royal Commission, which may explain the recommendation of the minority to which I now come.
I said I had four points, but being a barrister by trade and currently a banker, your Lordships will appreciate that I have difficulty in counting. I actually have five points. My final point is to refer to the approach of the Royal Commission and its chairman the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. The majority of the Royal Commission, as your Lordships know, recommended that there should be no change to the present right of silence. Only the minority supported change, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quoted from Chapter 4, paragraph 10, the minority made pellucidly plain that it was only questions asked in a formal interview where silence was maintained which would lead to that silence being held against a suspect. So the minority who supported the Government's basic approach would have no truck at all with the present position taken on these amendments.
I know, and your Lordships know because you have heard him, how strongly the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, feels on this issue. He unavoidably cannot be here today but he has written to me asking me to,
"not only express on my behalf my support for the amendment but also make the point that the minority of two on the Royal Commission who wished to see the modification of the right of silence were emphatic that only questions asked in a room with audio or video recording and, unless the suspect has specifically refused the opportunity of legal advice, a legal representative present should qualify for possible comment at: trial".
So that was the view of the Government's strongest supporters, and they are not with the Government on this issue.
In summary, I believe that this part of the Government's approach shows insufficient respect for

1411
individual liberty. It is not a matter of detail, but of good policing. The Government's approach cuts against sensible police disciplines and practices to which the modern senior police force are so impressively committed. On this issue the Government have already set aside, within an unprecedentedly short space of time, the recommendations of the majority of the Royal Commission. They now seek to ignore the basis on which the minority supported their basic change in the law. That is going too far. I very much urge your Lordships to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, it is with great regret that I totally and utterly disagree with my noble friend who has just spoken. I declared at the time of Second Reading that I had 40 years' practice at the Bar, once being in charge of all the prosecutions in England and Wales, and earlier as a younger barrister, I defended in many criminal cases. I always believed that the inability to comment on an accused's failure to explain or account for a fact when challenged was absurd. When my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham spoke of a ritual dance, that is what it was. It was a rule in the game and part of the deft footwork. It was part of that abolition of common sense which the ordinary common-sense person who is not a lawyer believes is utterly absurd. Why cannot you say, "Why did you not say that right at the beginning? Why did you not say that when you were asked about it?" That is what the ordinary, common-sense person says. That is exactly what we were prevented from saying. I commended the Government for their courage in ending what was an absurd rule. It was part of the rule of the game.
It is not a great constitutional issue; it was part of the technique of the game played in British criminal trials. That has been corrected. The Government have shown great courage to do so. Having listened to my noble friend the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice I am quite satisfied that sufficient safeguards have been produced in the amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I strongly reject the proposition of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and all that was said, alas, with such eloquence by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, not for the first time I have listened to the inspiring words of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, which I have heard both in public and in private. What he said—and indeed what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has just said —reminds us of the basic truth that what is relevant is prima facie admissible in a trial save where it is regarded as either generally unfair, like most hearsay evidence, or unfair in particular circumstances, such as evidence which the judge believes is more prejudicial than probative. Broadly speaking, that is the way in which the courts have made rules of their own.
Now we have rather complicated particulars of Clauses 32 to 35. Someone might say "Why do we bother in having such a complicated approach to an essentially fairly simple problem?" I believe that there is one reason. The courts have not acquitted themselves
1412
very brilliantly in their attitude towards the judge's comments on the failure of the accused to give evidence. I thought that it used to be fairly simple provided the judge behaved himself and did not go overboard. But it seems now that if the judge says anything at all he is almost bound to discourage the jury from drawing some very obvious inferences. Therefore, Clause 33 is an attempt to produce some kind of order. If one is doing that it is very difficult to disregard the fact that, partly due to the cautions which have to be given—and if they mean anything at all they must mean that the accused will not be prejudiced if he says nothing—the Government have, quite bravely, brought a Bill to Parliament to try to adduce some kind of order out of the chaos which I believe started at the trial.
It is sobering to reflect that here we are at Report stage and yet matters of principle are still the main focus. For my part I broadly support Clause 33, but I regard Clauses 32, 34 and 35 with only moderate enthusiasm. For reasons which I shall explain, I consider that if those three clauses are to be enacted that should only happen if we incorporate in the symphony what I might call the variation played by the Ackner quartet. I hope I do no disrespect to the other players. On the other hand, one has to remember that we are talking about a right to comment; we are not talking about the admissibility of evidence of what happened. The two are not synonymous.
I have referred to matters of principle. The innovations proposed, although they do not abolish the right of silence or introduce compulsory self-incrimination or—subject to one point which I shall mention—alter the burden or standard of proof, would introduce a procedural change which has been the subject of active controversy and many reports for over 20 years. A change like that has to be fair and must be seen to be fair. It must be acceptable if the reputation of our criminal law is not to suffer. It must be reasonably effective (I stress the adverb) and it must be workable.
Your Lordships are aware that there are very well-informed and well-intentioned people, both in this House and beyond, who are strongly and genuinely opposed to the whole idea behind Clauses 32 to 35. Their views cannot be set at nought except at great risk to the cause of justice. The reassurance that I venture to offer them is that the trial process will remain in charge of a judge whose aim and business it is to ensure a fair trial whatever rules of procedure are in use. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of really good first-instance judging and of continuous training through seminars for that job which is more demanding, though less well remunerated, than most appellate work. Beyond the judge is the Court of Appeal whose duty it is not to uphold a conviction on indictment unless it is safe and satisfactory. The competence and fairness of the judge and the supervision, where necessary, of the Court of Appeal are all-important whatever the regime.
Unfairness can arise even under a fair system. What Parliament must do is avoid legislating for a system which is itself unfair or which leads easily to unfairness. I submit that Clauses 32, 34 and 35, while not in themselves unfair, will lead easily to unfairness unless amended as proposed. Without the recording and

1413
without the presence of a legal representative, the evidence of silence, on which the prosecution means to rely, may become the equivalent of being "verballed" —if I can use the colloquialism which has already issued today from very learned lips.
At present, even allowing for persons who are vulnerable, I believe that very few innocent people are convicted by the time the judge and jury have done their duty. We must be as sure as we can be that that very small number is not increased. That is why I am worried about Clauses 32, 34 and 35 as they stand. It is different with Clause 33. We are now at trial. The Crown case unfolds. The accused is usually advised. A rational decision can be made. A judge is in charge and, finally, what is proposed in that provision is not new. Only a year after the passing of the 1898 Act, a court in which the first Lord Russell of Killowen presided held that the judge could comment on the accused's failure to use his newly conferred right to testify. Much later we appeared to lose our way and the right of judicial comment became blurred.
Now things can improve. The prosecutor, as he would always have been able to do but for proviso (b), will now be able to comment on the silence of the accused. Defending counsel will speak after the prosecutor, as he did not formerly unless he called no evidence and not even then in the old days in Ireland because all Crown counsel assumed the mantle of the Attorney-General. Thus we have at last followed Scotland in what I was brought up to believe is only one of the many respects in which Scots criminal procedure is superior to ours. Finally, the judge can hold the balance instead of appearing to be the Crown's agent as heretofore. I have no major worries about Clause 33.
My last general point is this: is the right of comment under Clause 33 worth introducing or, more accurately, worth clarifying? The answer must be yes, if only for certainty and uniformity. But I go further. This House, in its appellate capacity, has shown in the Northern Ireland case of Murray that the corresponding Article 4 can be properly used to turn a provable case into a proved case. Some Northern Ireland statistics could lead to the conclusion that Article 4 is, and Clause 33 will be, of no real value. On that I make two points. First, the pool of figures is too small to support reliable conclusions. The other point is that non-jury trial, where the judge is not giving perhaps misleading directions to the jury, must be distinguished from the jury trial at which Clause 33 is primarily aimed. So careful are most trial judges at present that when they speak juries are discouraged from drawing any inferences against an accused even where it would be logical and proper to do so.
Perhaps I may seek your Lordships' further indulgence to mention briefly a couple of points arising on the text of the amendments. On Clause 32, while I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and his allies I do not quite approve of the requirement that a record, other than a recording, has to be authenticated by the suspect's lawyer. That is a clear advantage. However, it seems to me that there will be times when the lawyer, without acting improperly, may refuse to authenticate. I suggest that if he will not do
1414
that, it should be enough to give him a copy of the record and still give evidence about the accused's silence.
In Clauses 32,34 and 35, I note the use of the silence procedure to create a prima facie case. I know that that can be logical and even compelling, but I feel that that idea erodes the standard of proof hitherto demanded for a prima facie case. I would harness that in this way: that is all the more argument for having great precautions about the use of pre-trial silence when one considers the important use that can be made of it under those clauses.
It can be said that the amendment may lead to complications and even to great expenditure. On the other hand, I would rather dispense with Clauses 32, 34 and 35 altogether than do without the amendments. There is another point which I gleaned from what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Alexander. Such an amendment is designed to help not only the suspect. A very important reason for supporting my noble and learned friend, based not only on my experience but—I hope that I shall not sound didactic in saying so—on the experience of every judge who has tried criminal cases or sat on appeal—is that if something is logically probative and it happens, it is important to be able to prove that it happened and that it happened in circumstances which cannot be called into question. The caution given before a confession statement is an elementary example. A striking example is what happens in Jamaica where a confession is taken in front of a magistrate who countersigns the statement. That must put an end to a great many controversies as to whether the statement was made and whether It was made in acceptable circumstances.
Recordings and the presence of legal advisers are other matters which help to copperfasten some piece of evidence which has been elicited. There is a great deal to be said for the proposition that one should sacrifice the immediate advantage which can be obtained in the absence of those precautions in return for a greater gain —that when something is obtained, it will then stick, if I can put it that way. That is fair to all sides, including the police who have taken the statement, and it is in the general interests of justice.
Finally, I refer briefly to something which could be relevant to Clause 33.I spoke on an earlier occasion of the debates on the Criminal Evidence Bill in 1898 when strong opposition was voiced, particularly by many who had much experience at the Criminal Bar, on the ground that to permit the accused to give evidence was forcing him to testify and thereby destroying his right of silence. But is it not clear that the 1898 reform was perfectly fair to the accused and positively beneficial to the innocent? It is not a true parallel because Clause 33 is not intended to benefit the accused. It is, however, well fitted to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, it is true that fair means must be used to convict the guilty. It is quite unacceptable to convict a guilty man by an unacceptable procedure. But it is also true that we should remember the interests of innocent people. The fact that all this reform —if that is the word—will be inclined to get

1415
people speaking earlier must benefit innocent people who otherwise would be advised, and might feel it wise, not to say anything until a much later stage.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise only because at the beginning of his speech the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, asked himself what impression the whole debate would have on someone who was a layman and not learned in the law. No one could be more of a layman in the law than I am. I know very, very little about criminal law, and absolutely nothing about the practice of criminal law in the courts. But I ask myself this: why was this Royal Commission set up? It was set up because of certain grave misjudgments and miscarriages of justice in our courts which brought our legal system into some disrepute.
The Royal Commission adjudicated on that matter, and gave its opinion. Royal Commissions are not always right, and so I ask myself: what do those who practise at the Bar and see criminals and people who are not criminals appear before them feel about this? I listened most particularly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. I was impressed. That is why I shall support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Spens: My Lords, after two hours talking about the front end of Clause 32, I shall now focus briefly on the business end of Clause 32; that is, the proper inferences to be drawn. Before I do so, perhaps I may ask the Minister why it is that in the Criminal Evidence (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 the matching clause is followed by a subsequent rider which reads:
"on the basis of such inferences treat the failure as, or as capable of amounting to, conoboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material".
Why has that rider been left out of the Bill?
I come to the word "proper".' It is a qualifying adjective. The bugbear of my life for the past seven years has been qualifying adjectives. Qualifying adjectives probably add up to 10 per cent. of all legal costs. They are difficult to define. When I tried to define what was meant by "proper" I asked several people. I even consulted the dictionary. I could not find a universal answer. In fact, if one looks at the Concise Oxford Dictionary one finds that there are 11 different definitions of the word "proper", starting with, "proper motion of stars", and going right through to, "She's a proper Victorian", which I think represents the demands of society, and perhaps that is where the word in this clause lies.
I have a letter from the head of the Criminal Justice Bill Unit, Mr. Paul Lynch, who, I believe, defines what the Government mean by the word "proper". It goes like this:
"What is proposed is simply that courts should be allowed to draw common sense inferences from a suspect's decision to remain silent when questioned about certain facts".
Whose common sense are we talking about? Is it judicial common sense? It has never been great. Is it public common sense, prosecution common sense or Government common sense? Is it just common sense? Is that what the word "proper" means? If it is what the
1416
word "proper" means, then will the Minister define what he thinks the word "proper" should mean in Hansard to avoid considerable expenditure in tripping along to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to work it out?
My second point is about inferences. There are two types of inference in a criminal trial. There is a positive inference, and an objective inference which comes, as it were, from positive evidence, from which is deduced a logical conclusion. I suppose that the clearest example of that is a fingerprint at the scene of a crime from which it can clearly and logically be deduced that whoever the fingerprint belonged to was present at the scene of the crime at some stage, although not necessarily at the time of the crime. Further evidence would be needed for that.
For many years that has been how our courts have largely operated. But we have now moved into the area of negative inference and subjective inference. That is very much more difficult and dangerous. I have seen it used against me. I can remember occasions when the lack of any written evidence led counsel to say that that lack of evidence was evidence of fraud. He used it by a sound bite: secrecy is the badge of fraud. That sound bite was carried in every national newspaper the following day. It was of course nonsense. It was a nonsense inference. Secrecy has nothing whatever to do with fraud. It did however convict four people. It was probably the only reason they were convicted.
We are using the same argument with the phrase, "may draw proper inferences". The badge will not be secrecy. It will be, "Silence is the badge of guilt". That is what people will be branded with. Presumably that is what the Government wish to impose by passing the Bill. If we are going to go down the route of negative inferences, the judge should direct the jury as to the extreme danger of following negative inferences. It almost certainly follows from a false syllogism at some stage in the argument. I hope that the Minister will consider my amendment along those lines.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House, I should like to draw just one or two matters to your Lordships' attention. Perhaps I may deal first with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Spens. Of course their main effect would be to provide a statutory duty for judges to direct juries as to why they should draw an inference. Our view is that judges welcome occasional guidance from Parliament as to the performance of their duties, but I feel that the amendments would go a trifle too far. They might also trespass upon the jury's responsibility to determine the facts of the case. Nothing in the Bill is intended to alter the obligation upon a judge to deliver a summing up to a jury, but I believe that the judges are best able to decide how to discharge that role. A judge might, for example, direct a jury whether, in law, the circumstances were such that inferences could be drawn under the terms of the legislation that we propose. A judge would have a duty to rule against any prosecution comment in circumstances where the law does not allow inferences to be drawn.

1417
The noble Lord asked why the Bill does not contain the provision of corroboration contained in the Criminal Evidence (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. It was left out of the Bill because the rules on corroboration in England and Wales are being modified by Clauses 30 and 31.
I shall resist the temptation to define the word "proper". It is a word which appears often in legislation. As the noble Lord knows only too well, it is a matter for the courts, not a Minister, to define.
What we are really talking about here are the proposals relating to the right of silence. We do not propose to take away that right in the sense of forcing people to answer questions, but rather to allow a court or a jury to use its common sense in drawing inferences if a person chooses not to answer. That is the simple proposition.
I agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when he said that we were deluged with words and that there is no point trying to put things right just by cascading ourselves with more words. I hope that he will understand that the Government are not cascading your Lordships with words; we have added only two. We have added only two words to make a significant difference. I was pleased that the amendment tabled in my name has the approval of my noble and learned friend, even though he said the main reason for his approval was that he preferred the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice to mine. I do not at all blame my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for that. I should be happy to come second, third or 105th to the ability of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice to put a complicated legal argument clearly. All we are doing is to say that a person who is asked a question and who refuses to answer should be cautioned before that evidence can be used. That is not bad or erroneous. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that we should be preventing miscarriages of justice. Perhaps I may remind him that it is just as much a miscarriage of justice when guilty people go free and untried as when innocent people are convicted.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, also asked what the Government were going to do about the Criminal Cases Review Authority. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice answered that question very well by saying that it was totally irrelevant. The noble Lord also asked me whether there would be legislation in the next Session. He should know only too well that I would not anticipate what might be in the Queen's Speech.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said with immense conviction that Amendment No. 37 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would remove the right or the ability to take into account a person's silence until that person had reached the police station. The noble and learned Lord said that that could not be right. If confessions can be accepted, why should not silence be accepted? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that our amendment would result in a significant improvement in the procedure. Those were impressive and weighty words and your Lordships should take note of them.
I turn for half a moment to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. He said that my amendment was
1418
unhappy. I cannot think why on earth he should have thought that, because it is not so. The noble Lord said that it was an ill-thought-out procedure. The procedure was thought out specifically after your Lordships had debated the matter in Committee. We considered what your Lordships had said and came forward with this amendment. Therefore, I do not believe that it is ill thought out.
The noble Lord spent a great deal of his speech quoting from my speech in Committee. I was deeply flattered that he should have considered it worth repeating. He castigated me for producing a scenario in Committee and said that he knew that all the best brains in the Home Office would find some happy scenario to produce. I did produce a scenario and I have produced another today, for the simple reason that often a mere layman such as myself finds a simple scenario easier to understand than the more complicated language which some lawyers use. I thought that even those of your Lordships who were well versed in the law would be able to understand the niceties of the issue if a simple little scenario was produced.
We can discuss this matter for ever, but we must reach a conclusion. We are discussing whether it should be possible for the court to draw such inference as it thinks fit when a person decides to remain silent at the scene and after a caution or whether it should be taken into account only after the suspect has gone to the police station and had the advice of a lawyer, if he wants that. In my view, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which subscribes to that latter point, is too restricting. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson that it is absurd not to take into account the fact that an accused has decided to remain silent. In order to take that matter into account there should be proper safeguards. I suggest that those safeguards are apparent in Amendment No. 34.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to my mind the undertakings given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers are wholly sufficient and satisfactory. The broad effect of the safeguards sought by Amendment No. 32 will be provided by codes of practice which will be amended after statutory consultation and will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for their support of the spirit of my amendment. I accept unreservedly that flexibility under codes as proposed, albeit somewhat late, is far preferable to the rigidity of a statute as proposed in Amendment No. 32, which I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 21, line 12, after ("questioned") insert ("under caution").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 21, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) Subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply unless—

(a) prior to the questioning or charge or notification of possible prosecution the person is informed of the

1419
purpose and nature of the questions he is to be asked and the possible effect of the failure to mention any such facts as are referred to in subsection (1) above;

(b) his lawyer is present and he has had an opportunity of consulting him prior to the interrogation unless he has stated in writing that he does not require the services of a lawyer; and

(c) a tape recording in accordance with the current code of practice or a contemporaneous record authenticated by his lawyer is made of the interrogation.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move this amendment. Although the matter has been fully debated, this is my only opportunity to make some short comments in answer to what was said following my address to the House on Amendment No. 32.I have few points to make and I can do so in a couple of minutes.
The first point relates to the happy phrase of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—and so many happy phrases come from him—the "ritual dance". That is not how the issue of silence and safeguards was viewed by him, Lord Salmon, Lord Dilhorne, Lord Diplock, Lord Reid and Lord Widgery in the debate some 23 years ago. They stated in trenchant terms that they would have none of the suggestion made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee—which is the same as we have today—without proper safeguards. As none were produced that was the end of those proposals. "Ritual dance" is a happy phrase which is totally irrelevant to this debate.
My second point relates to the police acceptance of our amendment, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I make only one additional point. When the matter was debated in Committee on 23rd May, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out that the safeguards we proposed have a double effect. They not only ensure fairness to suspects who are weak, vulnerable and confused, but they provide protection to the police, and that is why I understand they support it. They avoid later challenges, which are lengthy, time-consuming and costly, to the veracity of police accounts of what was said or not said on the doorstep, in the police car or at the scene of the alleged crime. The noble Lord's speech is at col. 499 of Hansard.
My third and final point is in answer to the rhetorical question of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. He asked, "Why are we so chary of drawing inferences from silence?". I offer him the observation which was made by Lord Reid in a debate some 20 years ago. He said:
"The reason why the right to silence has grown up is that in the past times it was impossible to be in the least sure that interrogation would be fairly done".
We will skip the next few lines. Lord Reid continued: "The purpose of the safeguards is not to give the guilty man a sporting chance; it is to see that the innocent man is as fully safeguarded as human ingenuity can achieve".—[Official Report, 14/2/73; col. 1613.]
The fact that the majority of the members of two Royal Commissions rejected outright what is now proposed, the fact that the Home Secretary's working party not a few years ago did likewise and the fact that what is proposed does not add the protection which would have been accepted even by the minority of those two Royal Commissions make it quite clear that this
1420
provision fails quite hopelessly to safeguard fully an innocent accused as far as human ingenuity can achieve —the Lord Reid test. Therefore, I commend the amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Kirkwood, L.

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Listowel, E.

Annan, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Attlee, E.

Lowry, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mustill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peston, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Russell, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

[Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Halsbury, E.

Spens, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tenby, V.

Howell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wharton, B.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Blyth, L.

Addison, V.

Boardman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Aldington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Annaly, L.

Burnham, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Burton, L.

Arran, E.

Cadman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Atholl, D.

Carnock, L.

Balfour, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Barber, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bethell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Colnbrook, L.

1421

Colville of Culross, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nelson, E.

Cranborne, V.

Newall, L.

Crathorne, L.

Norrie, L.

Cross, V.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Parkinson, L.

Derwent, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peel, E.

Downshire, M.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Romney, E.

Geddes, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L

Savile, L.

Goold, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Gowrie, E.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Halifax, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strafford, E.

Hothfield, L.

Strange, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Kimball, L.

[Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Sudeley, L.

Leigh, L.

Suffield, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swinfen, L.

Long, V.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marlesford, L.

Vestey, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mersey, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wise, L.

Milverton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
Clause 34 [Effect of accused's failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks]:
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Effect of accused's failure or refusal to account for presence at a particular place]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Interpretation and savings for sections 32,33, 34 and 35]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 25, line 35, after ("32(2)") insert (", 34(2) or 35(2).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Jury service: disabled persons
(". After section 9A of the Juries Act 1974 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Discharge of summonses to disabled persons only if incapable of acting effectively as a juror.
9B—(1) Where it appears to the appropriate officer, in the case of a person attending in pursuance of a summons under this Act, that on account of physical disability there is doubt as to his capacity to act effectively as a juror, the person may be brought before the judge.
(2) The judge shall deteimine whether or not the person should act as a juror; but he shall affirm the summon sunless he is of the opinion that the person will not, on account of his disability, be capable of acting effectively as a juror, in which case he shall discharge the summons.
(3) In this section "the judge" means any judge of the High Court or any Circuit judge or Recorder.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may recall, I indicated in Committee that the Government supported in principle an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke:, which sought to create a presumption that people with physical disabilities should serve on juries when summoned.
The amendment seeks, as did the noble Lord's, to restate the present law to create an absolutely clear presumption in favour of people with disabilities serving on juries. It creates a new section dealing specifically with the arrangements for discharging a person with a physical disability. It states clearly that the judge should affirm a jury summons unless he is of the opinion that such a person could not act effectively. We hope that that will send a helpful signal to the courts.
At the same time, I should emphasise that the amendment does not affect the existing arrangements whereby a person with a disability may apply for and be granted excusal by the summonsing officer if there is good reason for that person not serving. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord Advocate sits down, does he not also wish to speak to Amendment No. 44 and the later amendments which are grouped together?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. Perhaps that would be the simplest way to deal with the matter.
Amendment No. 44 relates to another matter which arose in Committee. On that occasion, I indicated to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that the Government accepted in principle his amendment on excusal from jury service on religious grounds. I hope that the amendment now before the House answers the point that the noble and learned Lord made at that time. We believe that it will allow for greater certainty and consistency in the way that applications for excusal on religious grounds are dealt with by the courts. Those two amendments are the only ones in the group to which I am able to speak.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 44. I, too, participated in the debate which led to the tabling of Amendment No. 43. In relation to both amendments, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for doing precisely what we asked him to do. Amendment No. 44 has precisely the formulation that I had in mind. The noble and learned Lord will have the gratitude of those most

1423
immediately affected and will also have earned the gratitude of the many who will never even know the contribution that he has made to ensure that they receive a fair trial. As regards both amendments, it is obvious that the Government have listened to the argument and changed their mind. I hope that they enjoyed the experience and that they will now decide to do so more often.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 43, 88A and 89.I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward Amendment No. 43. It is usual for me to cross swords with his department on some issues, but on this occasion I should like to hand a bouquet to the noble and learned Lord because I believe that that amendment represents a very considerable advance.
I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has included all disabled people in the amendment. It is important that the discrimination that they have suffered should be dealt with effectively by the Government. At present I am primarily concerned about deaf people as regards the amendment. There are very few deaf people; in fact, there are no deaf people who are able to serve on juries and very few disabled people who are able to do so. That is most remarkable when we consider the assurances that we very often receive from Ministers about the present situation.
A classic case of the exclusion of a deaf person from jury service was that of Elaine Heath. That case was well publicised and no doubt the noble and learned Lord will know all about it. Elaine Heath had computer-aided transcription available to her. Even though she could follow perfectly all the proceedings of the court, the judge in his wisdom decided that she was not fit to be a juror. I believe that that was a clear case of discrimination against a disabled person and probably a misunderstanding by the judge. I hope that such a situation can be avoided in the future.
I fully accept that it is the judge who must decide whether or not a person will serve as a juror. Indeed, only a judge can make that decision. However, the problem is that some judges have very old-fashioned ideas about deaf people and most outdated ideas about disabled people in general. Sometimes they are not aware of the developments in the measures that can be used to assist deaf and disabled people. I should have thought that very few judges have actually used computer-aided transcription; that is, the kind of thing that I use in this House. It is a most wonderful piece of equipment and it means that there is total understanding of what is going on. Yet Elaine Heath was denied by that judge the right—and it is a right—to take part in jury service.
The problem is that too many judges tend to equate disability with a lack of general ability. That idea is two or three decades out of date. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could send a polite note to judges on the matter. I do not know what his remit is, but if he cannot do so, perhaps he could take part in a few Middle Temple dinners. After the third glass of port, he could
1424
probably remind the judges of the best thing to do when they are faced with disabled people who are applying to be jurors or applying for any other role in the courts.
The amendment requires the judge to presume capability. That is of great importance. I say that because, without the amendment, judges would still tend to view disabled and deaf people through the wrong end of the telescope; in other words, they would still see them as little people lacking in ability, and so on. The amendment puts the matter right. I must say that I found the noble and learned Lord to be most understanding during the early stages of the Bill. True to his word, he has now come forward with a very valuable amendment. But—and I always add a "but" when praising a Minister —even now the provisions depend upon the perception of the very same judges who have made mistakes in the past. There is still no right of appeal and no right to request the reasons for rejection. If the noble and learned Lord could help on this matter I should be most grateful.
I should also be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would draw the attention of the judges to the amendment that he has moved. I say that because it is most important to disabled people. Further, perhaps he could draw the judges' attention to the debate that led to the tabling of the amendment. I do not say that because I believe my words to be so important; indeed, there were far more important speakers in the previous debates whose words of wisdom should also be heeded by the judges.
I have a further question for the Minister. Will he kindly monitor the judges' decisions for at least five years, and preferably five-and-a-half or six years? Will he request the judges voluntarily to give reasons for rejecting disabled people? That is an ordinary, reasonable, modest request. I would be grateful if he would do that. If the noble Minister is unable to do that, I thank him in any case because I am grateful for the constructive way in which he has dealt with this problem which troubles and worries disabled people and, more particularly in this case, deaf people.
I shall say a few brief words—I do not like long speeches —on Amendments Nos. 88A and 89. I shall leave Amendment No. 89 to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, not only because he is better informed than I, better looking than I and more eloquent than I, but because the amendment is in his name. I just wish to add to what he will probably say. I think his amendment is important because it will make provision for disabled people via the code of practice. At present they suffer a great deal of inconvenience and even discrimination.
I am afraid my final point will take about four minutes. I do not like people who refer to their final point eight times, but this is definitely my final point. On this question of the code of practice for deaf and hard-of-hearing people, I must say that without sign language interpreters, or other forms of communication support, profoundly deaf people are cut off from the proceedings. Inevitably, injustice is bound to result. Ministers are always reassuring about the situation and they emphasise what is being done. The Home Office and the Lord Chief Justice's department believe that the present provision is adequate. They have some fine civil servants working for them who are also very helpful.

1425
But I have to tell the Minister that there are serious problems despite the belief of the Home Office and the Lord Chief Justice's department that the problems have been virtually solved. For example, only a small number of courts and police stations have adequate provision. There is widespread confusion about what is available and about who pays for these things.
I know that payment is no problem for deaf millionaires. I do not know many deaf millionaires but I am pretty sure they would not be worried if they had to go to court for whatever reason. But the Home Secretary told me on 26th April of this year that interpreters are paid from public funds. However, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf understands that even in criminal courts payment is at the discretion of the court. Why should that be so? Why should payment be discretionary? This is a basic requirement for deaf people and it should be provided automatically. If the noble Minister can be as helpful on this as he has been on the previous occasion, I should be grateful.
That is the position as regards the criminal courts, but what about the civil courts? Provision depends upon the availability of legal aid. That means that millions of people are denied the measures I am discussing. I am sure the Minister will not be too happy about that. I know that cost is a grey area. In view of the kindness of the Minister—he has been very helpful indeed on this Bill and I appreciate that—I should like to ask him to say who has to pay for interpreters for deaf people. No one really seems to know. If he could advise us on that, I would be very grateful. What is the justification for the decision on that matter?
I am glad that the authorities now realise that deaf people need interpreters. However, what they do not realise is that there are different forms of interpretation. Some deaf people need sign language interpreters, some need lip speakers and some need the kind of computer-aided transcription that I have mentioned. Providing the wrong kind of facility is the equivalent of offering a Frenchman a Spanish interpreter, or an Englishman a Chinese dictionary. Neither is very helpful. Therefore, it is important to be precise about the kind of problem one is dealing with and about the kind of help that is offered.
I hope I may refer to a remarkable case as the House is entitled to know exactly how I justify my claim about deaf people. Mrs. A is a deaf woman from whom a large sum of money was stolen by a man. For her this was an absolutely crucial case. She wrote down her complaints for the judge. It was only when she was in the witness box that she was told that she could have a sign language interpreter. However, she could not un-derstand sign language. She had been offered the wrong kind of help. She struggled through a cross-examination conducted by a truculent defence barrister. It so happened that a woman from Victim Support was present and able to help. With that person's assistance Mrs. A struggled through the cross-examination. But without that assistance from Victim Support the lady would have been forced to struggle alone, faced by an intimidating defence counsel who would not even look at her to put questions. The lady did not even understand the verdict. That is clearly a case of injustice. The case
1426
was so important to her that she asked stenographers for a full report. She was told that would cost her £800 a day. She could not afford that. How can one justify that kind of treatment?
I wish, in 30 seconds, to tell the House of the startling case of Mr. B who sued for medical negligence. That is difficult at the best of times. Anyone who takes on doctors unless he is a skilled legal Member of this House or some similar luminary is a brave man. However, the chap I am discussing sued for medical negligence. He was totally deaf, had double vision and brain damage and was unable to walk unaided. As the courtroom was on the top floor he could only attend in the courtroom for one day. He needed a transcript but he was told it would cost £6,000 to £8,000. When he asked his lawyer to help he was sent a scribbled illegible note from the solicitor's clerk which contained nothing about the judge's summing up. He was told that he had lost his case and that he could not appeal, but he does not know why. That man, like the woman I mentioned, was denied normal justice because of disability.
Those are but two examples of gross discrimination. I repeat my thanks to the noble Minister because I appreciate the way he has dealt with this matter. He will not be able to meet all my requests because they are a little complicated and demanding. I realise that, but in thanking the Minister I ask him to try to answer some of the questions that I have put to him. If he is unable to do so, perhaps he could write to me when convenient
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, as I had my name to the original Amendment No. 43 perhaps I may briefly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in thanking the Government most sincerely for taking this amendment on board and moving it tonight. It will give tremendous satisfaction to many people outside this Chamber who feel strongly on this matter. I feel most encouraged that, on this occasion anyway, the Government have proved (hat they are a government who will listen to sincere cases put forward in your Lordships' House and, I dare say, even in another place. If they are persuaded by the argument they will take the issue on board and move an amendment themselves. That, frankly, to me is very encouraging. So often one has the feeling—noble Lords must judge for themselves whether or not they agree with me, but I do not speak particularly of this Government—that governments sometimes take the attitude: "Do not bore us with facts. Our mind is made up. We are going to drive it through willy-nilly". However, on this occasion, the Government have shown quite clearly that that is not the case. I wish most sincerely to thank the Government for taking on board Amendment No. 43.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I greatly welcome my noble and learned friend's amendment, Amendment No. 43, because people with disabilities should be considered as perfectly ordinary people and their disabilities should not be allowed to become a handicap. My amendment, Amendment No. 89, is grouped with that amendment. The fact that we shall probably put my

1427
noble and learned friend's amendment into the Bill tonight means, in my view, that the need for a code of practice for all disabled court users is all the greater. The fact that my noble and learned friend is willing to put the amendment in the Bill emphasises that fact.
There are many problems relating to access to courts for disabled people. That applies to people with all kinds of disabilities and to all business in the courts, either as witness, defendant or lawyer. The Crown and county courts, as the House will know, are covered by the Lord Chancellor's Department's court standards and design guide, which stipulates that all new courthouses and those undergoing significant alterations or extension must comply with Part M of the building regulations. However, the Lord Chancellor's Department's guide to facilities for disabled people in Crown and county courts also shows that current provision is abysmal. At 44 per cent. of courts the main entrance is not accessible; 59 per cent. have no toilet facilities for disabled members of the public; and only 6 per cent. have facilities for the deaf or people who are hard of hearing. In addition, Crown and county courts have court immunity, which means that they are not subject to the usual building control process.
When Wolverhampton combined court was built some two years ago, no plans were submitted to the planning authority. Only after the court had been built was inadequate provision brought to light. When a disabled solicitor attended the court on behalf of his client he found that he was unable to use the lavatory facilities because he could not gain access. Nor could he move his wheelchair around the courtroom.
I could detail what we should include in a code of practice, but I do not think that that would be helpful at this moment. I also recognise that many courts are listed buildings and that my expectations and those of disabled people must be tempered by that fact and the issue of reasonable costs.
During the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill through this House my noble and learned friend, after I had spoken in Committee, gave me an amendment to bring forward at Report stage which provided that magistrates' courts committees had to have regard to the needs of disabled court users. In addition, in other Bills that have gone through this House the Government have responded favourably towards similar amendments. An amendment to the Railways Bill resulted in the Department of Transport's mobility unit drawing up a useful code of practice for future rail franchisees relating to people with disabilities. In the Education Bill 1993 a code of practice was drawn up to show what was expected of all schools in order to meet special educational needs. Therefore, the Government are not averse to codes of practice. I urge them to consider that approach in this case.
Before I finish, I should mention that it is the convention of this House that at Report stage I should not speak again. Therefore, I cannot speak after my noble and learned friend replies to the debate. However,
1428
I should point out that if I do not like what he says I may well return to the matter at a later stage. However, I hope that I shall like what he says.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there are two matters arising on Clause 43 which I feel obliged to mention. The first is that, in exercising his discretion under subsection (2), in my opinion the judge should give the benefit of the doubt to a disabled person who does not wish to serve.
My second point is that I do not believe that blind people should serve on juries anyway. I say that for two reasons. First, increasingly in cases today documents have to be considered. Those are not merely typewritten documents but documents in ordinary calligraphy. Sometimes even policemen's notebooks have to be considered. Secondly, it is essential that juries should be able to observe the behaviour of witnesses who are giving evidence. A blind person cannot do that. Justice must be done.
That brings me to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, Amendment No. 88A. I am glad that the noble Lord has pressed the case, but there is a limitation in that case also which we should not ignore. By all means let us give this opportunity to deaf people or those who are hard of hearing, but above all we must ensure that justice is done. If the deafness is so extreme that the deaf person could not take in all that is said, especially all that is said on behalf of the accused, then in my opinion that deaf person should not be required to serve.
That brings me to Amendment No. 89, because the three points that I have mentioned could very well be contained in a code of practice.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he agrees that a great deal of what has been said by himself, by my noble friend and by the noble Lord opposite could be met if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could direct the attention of the Judicial Studies Board to these problems. There have been items in judicial seminars relating, for example, to the problems of racial minorities. A great deal could be done if this issue were addressed in judicial seminars of that kind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not think that that is an answer to the problem. The Judicial Studies Board issues reports which are not binding on anyone and which are not in general circulation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that there is a blind judge. He does a marvellous job. Would the noble Lord be in favour of dismissing that judge as being unable to assess what is taking place in a court of law? Is the noble Lord not aware that crooks adopt a countenance which is designed to mislead the jury? A blind jurist would not be misled by a countenance which is designed to mislead and would have an advantage rather than a disadvantage in a court of law.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, these amendments are of importance not only to disabled people but also to the administration of justice. For that reason, in general we support them.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if on a less serious note I say that I support the amendments with just a tinge of sadness. On many occasions friends have come to me and asked how they can avoid jury service because it is particularly inconvenient. I shall no longer be able to give them the advice I have always given. That is that all they need to do is to go along to court and when their name is called to go into the jury box they make no answer on the first two occasions and on the third they cup one hand to an ear and say, "Was that me?" They are at once discharged from all further attendance.
Lord Rodger of Ealsferry: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words about the amendments from noble Lords on all sides of the House. The Government's task in accepting the amendments was made all the lighter by the very good-natured spirit in which the original amendments were moved and the sincerity with which the case was put forward.
A number of points have been made in connection with Amendment No. 43. It is true to say that it will be the judges who will have to take decisions under subsection (2) of the new section. Their attitude will be important. If I may say so, the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is well taken on this matter in connection with the Judicial Studies Board. I shall take the liberty of drawing that point to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Such a procedure may be one way of getting knowledge of this section and its importance into the system.
For the remainder, the duty is clear on the statute. I hope that statutes are a clearer method of transmitting a message even than Middle Temple dinners. When it is seen in statute that the presumption is to be in favour, I hope that that will do the trick. The issues involved where such service was refused could well be sensitive. I am not sure that giving reasons would be the best way of handling the matter.
With regard to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, when moving the amendment I stressed that the existing arrangements are not in any way affected. A person with a disability may apply for and be granted excusal by the summonsing officer. Those who felt that they could and wanted to serve would have that right in force. It was not to put a burden on those who might otherwise feel that they could not serve.
With regard to the ability of a blind person to serve, as my noble friend says, in some cases such service may be wholly inappropriate. But it is for the judge in the individual case to decide whether a person with a specific disability is or is not capable of serving on the
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, made a number of points when speaking to Amendment No. 88A. If I may, I shall reply to a number of them in correspondence. However, in broad terms, as the noble Lord may know, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has agreed to meet members of Deaf Accord
1430
on 18th July to discuss provisions for the deaf in court. That will give an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and others to bring to my noble and learned friend's attention the kinds of cases about which he has spoken. On the whole, the Lord Chancellor's Department has not been made aware of a great number of problems in, for example, obtaining sign language interpreters.
Inquiries have been made recently. It has been found, for example, that in magistrates' courts it has been the practice of the defence to obtain quite satisfactory services by using the sign language interpreters who have been provided for the prosecution. In broad terms, in many cases that is the key in criminal trials. If a witness is a prosecution witness, it will be the prosecution which in effect will have to bring to court the sign language interpreter, whoever he or she may be. Where that is not the case—as noble Lords will appreciate, in the vast majority of criminal cases the defendant will have the benefit of legal aid—-the provision of the appropriate interpreter is a charge on legal aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to civil proceedings. I appreciate that there the position is different. Interpreters are a matter really for the parties. Where a party is legally aided, again the position is dealt with by legal aid. However, I recognise that where parties are not legally aided, if an interpreter is required it is a matter for the parties themselves. That may be a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and others will wish to discuss with my noble and learned friend at such a meeting.
Having explained to your Lordships the; position with regard to interpreters, I shall not repeat some of the points I made in reply to the noble Lord in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen moved an amendment in connection with a code of practice. The Government do not believe that a code of practice is in fact necessary. That is not because the point which the noble Lord raised is not important. It is already well understood that the matters to which the noble Lord draws attention should be taken into consideration. As my noble friend said, the higher courts are a matter for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Already he requires that all new courthouses should comply with building regulations which set out standards of facilities for people with disabilities. It follows that the design of those buildings should, therefore, enable people with disabilities to have easy access into and around the building. Therefore I am quite happy to undertake that the Lord Chancellor will apply that approach to new buildings in the future.
My noble friend also drew attention to the position of existing buildings. I readily accept that not all of them at present have the facilities that he wishes. But those buildings will from time to time have to be refurbished. Subject to the constraints imposed by the design of the older buildings, the requirements of listing and the costs involved, again I am happy to undertake that when facilities are being upgraded care will be taken that appropriate facilities are provided for disabled court users. Indeed, that is already the position. Schemes currently undertaken for the refurbishing of existing

1431
court buildings are already subject to that requirement. Efforts are being made for appropriate improvements for the disabled in the access to and facilities in those buildings.
I am happy to have given those two undertakings. I hope that in the light of them my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope that I have not become lost in a procedural morass. I believe that the correct procedure is for me to commend Amendment No. 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Jury service: excusal on religious grounds
(". In Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974, in Part III (Persons excusable as of right), after the entry entitled Medical and other similar professions, there shall be inserted the following—
"Members of certain religious bodies
A practising member of a religious society or order the tenets or beliefs of which are incompatible with jury service." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transfer for Trial]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 48:
Page 133, line 7, leave out from ("decides") to ("to") in line 8.
Page 133, line 8, after ("discontinue") insert ("or withdraw").
Page 133, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise decide, under section 152(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, to stay or compound the proceedings;").
Page 133, line 48, at end insert ("unless the person to be served cannot be found").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 45 to 48. These are largely technical amendments concerning the transfer pro-cedures. The main purpose of the amendments is to cover circumstances other than those already specified in the Bill where the prosecution may decide not to proceed, or indeed may not be able to proceed, with the transfer of a case. Those are circumstances in which the prosecution withdraws, as opposed to discontinues, the proceedings and where the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may stay or compound proceedings.
Amendment No. 48 removes the requirement to serve a copy of the notice of the prosecution case on an accused person where he cannot be found. I believe that noble Lords will agree that that makes sense.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 51:
Page 134, leave out lines 25 and 26.
Page 134, line 38, leave out from ("accused") to end of line and insert ("makes the representations permitted under").
Page 135, line 7, leave out ("(5) or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again these amendments are connected with the transfer procedure. The effect of Amendment No. 49 is to remove the requirement on an unrepresented defendant to give an indication to the court in his application for
1432
dismissal of his intention, if any, to make oral representations. We have concluded that this is an unduly onerous burden to place on someone who is not represented and who may therefore not fully understand the procedure. It therefore follows that the unrepresent-ed defendant will always be permitted to make oral representations should he so wish. Of course in practice an unrepresented defendant will need to be notified by the court of the date on which his application is to be considered and thereby be given an opportunity to appear. That matter will be dealt with in rules or in guidance.
Amendment No. 50 is a drafting change and gives the effect that the prosecution will be permitted to make oral representations to the court only if the accused actually makes such oral representations.
Amendment No. 51 is consequential on Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 135, line 50, leave out from beginning to ("for") and insert ("Where an accused has been remanded in custody, on transferring proceedings against him").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, as well as to Amendment No. 73.
Amendment No. 52 is just a paving amendment. Amendment No. 53 substitutes a new subsection and it relates to a person who is already remanded in custody when the court proceeds with the transfer of his case. On transferring the proceedings against the accused, the court can, under new Section 8(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, either order that he be safely kept in custody until delivered in due course of law or that he be released on bail to appear before the Crown Court for trial.
As currently drafted, the new Section 8(4) would allow the court to exercise these powers in the absence of the accused only if the circumstances were similar to those in which Section 128(3A) of the 1980 Act would apply. That gives only a limited range. It applies only where the previous remands are for no more than eight days each. In practice the courts remand for up to 28 days during the later stages of the proceedings. Therefore subsection (4) has been substituted to reflect that practice. However, noble Lords will wish to notice that the other provisions in the section have been preserved and they provide safeguards. Noble Lords will also wish to notice that we have added a safeguard by providing that the consent to this procedure must be in writing. In other words, the accused must have given his written consent to being remanded in his absence; the consent must not have been withdrawn; and the accused must have attained the age of 17 when he gave that consent. If those conditions are not satisfied the defendant will indeed have to appear on transfer of proceedings against him.
Amendment No. 54 provides a procedure for dealing with an accused who is already remanded on bail prior to transfer. The effect of the amendment would be to provide that, where proceedings against that accused are

1433
transferred for trial, the requirement for him to appear before the magistrates' court at the end of the period of remand will cease unless the court states that it shall continue. That is similar to procedure that is already found in the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1991.
Where the court states that the requirement is to continue, the accused will be under a duty to surrender to the court at the end of the period of remand. The court will then have the power to release him on bail again in accordance with the Bail Act 1976 to appear at the Crown Court for trial or order that he be kept in custody until delivered in due course of law. Where the release on bail is subject to recognisances, the court may fix the amount in which the surety is to be bound with a view to the surety's entering into that recognisance subsequently. Meanwhile the court is to remand the accused to custody.
Amendment No. 73 again relates to the matter of transfer and again applies to someone who has been remanded on bail. It provides for the court to adjust the terms of recognisance so that it applies to ensure that the accused appears before the Crown Court for trial. A procedure will be specified for ensuring that the surety is notified of the decision to transfer the case and that he gives his consent to continuing to stand surety. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 136, leave out lines 23 to 29 and insert:

("(4) The court may exercise the powers conferred on it by subsection (1) above in relation to the accused without his being brought before it if it is satisfied—

(a) that he has given his written consent to the powers conferred by subsection (1) above being exercised in his absence;

(b) that he had attained the age of 17 years when he gave that consent; and

(c) that he has not withdrawn that consent.").

Page 136, line 29, at end insert:
("(4A) Where proceedings against an accused are transferred for trial after he has been remanded on bail to appear before a magistrates' court on an appointed day, the requirement that he shall so appear shall cease on the transfer of the proceedings unless the magistrates' court transferring the proceedings states that it is to continue.
(4B) Where that requirement ceases by virtue of subsection (4A) above, it shall be the duty of the accused to appear before the Crown Court at the place specified by the magistrates' court on transferring the proceedings against him for trial or at any place substituted for it by a direction under section 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
(4C) If, in a case where the magistrates' court states that the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A) above is to continue, the accused appears or is brought before the magistrates' court, the court shall have the powers conferred on a magistrates' court by subsection (1) above and, where the court exercises those powers, subsections (2) and (3) above shall apply as if the powers were exercised under subsection (1) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 137, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Where at any time during its consideration of an application for dismissal the court proceeds to try summarily the case of one or more of the accused under section 25(3) or (7) below, while dismissing the application for dismissal of the other accused or one or more of the other accused, it shall not be unlawful under this section to publish or include in a relevant programme as part of a report of the summary trial, after the court
1434
determines to proceed as aforesaid, a report of so much of the application for dismissal containing any matter other than matter permitted by subsection (8) below as takes place before the determination.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to provide that, where a court decides to try summarily the case of one or more accused and dismisses the application for dismissal of the other accused, it is lawful to publish or report: details of the application for dismissal as part of a report of the summary trial. It applies of course only to the details of the application for dismissal by the person who then goes for summary trial. That again replicates the procedure which is provided in the old Section 8(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 138, line 38, at end insert:
(""the 1853 Act" means the Criminal Procedure Act 1853;
"the 1878 Act" means the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878;
"the 1883 Act" means the Explosive Substances Act 1883;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56 I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group. These amendments are entirely consequential on the new procedure for transferring cases to the Crown Court for trial. Again, this is a tidying up operation. They replace references across the statute book to committal with references to the new transfer procedure. This, as I understand it, is the result of a computer search of the statute book which has revealed the need for particular amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House, but I am fascinated by the reference to these amendments being required as the result of a computer search. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate tell the House whether, if the computer search is applied to a lot more legislation, we shall gain in the sense that we shall have less legislation, or are we to lose in the sense that we shall have more? My impression from this list of amendments is that we shall have more.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I must enter the debate now. In the presence of the Chief Whip I feel bound to point out that Amendments Nos. 45 to 84, and others grouped with the amendments that we are now considering, together occupy 11 pages of the Marshalled List and involve nearly 50 amendments. We are a revising Chamber and it is quite clear that much of the work that comes to us arrives in an undigested state from another place. This is an example. We are handicapped because under our procedure at Report stage we would not only be unable to do so but would be very unpopular if we tried to discuss these amendments in detail.
I hope that on future occasions we may either be given the opportunity of having many of these amendments, which could have been put into the Bill originally, included when the Bill is first presented to us or be given the opportunity, which is always given in

1435
another place when new matter is introduced at Report stage, of having the particular amendments for committal. In other words, we can discuss them as in Committee without being fettered by the procedure on Report. I do not put that suggestion forward for any frivolous or pedantic reason but because there is a tendency for this situation to happen increasingly. It is something which ought to be discouraged if possible in the years to come.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I can tell him that I asked this morning how these references were provided, and the answer was that a search had been made by computer. Once the statute book is on the database—we hope it will be later this year—it should make it easier to search and to obtain the references more quickly. I hope that, rather than having this data coming in—as your Lordships will appreciate that it tends to do—as the Bill proceeds, more of the references will be picked up and we shall be able to have them at an earlier stage. I hope that that will not increase the amount of legislation and certainly not lengthen the time that it will take.
To deal with my noble friend's point, I regret that these amendments have had to be brought forward, but they concern technical matters, except in so far as the amendments respond to amendments tabled by other noble Lords. They do not introduce new policy. They are technical matters, partly thrown up by the consideration that the Bill undergoes during Committee stage and so on. It is certainly better that such technical points are dealt with now rather than omitted and not included, therefore handicapping those who eventually have to use the legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 72:
Page 138, line 41, at end insert:
(""the 1952 Act" means the Prison Act 1952;").
Page 138, line 45, at end insert:
(""the 1969 Act" means the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;").
Page 138, line 45, at end insert:
(""the 1973 Act" means the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973;").
Page 138, line 46, at end insert:
(""the 1978 Act" means the Interpretation Act 1978;").
Page 138, line 49, at end insert:
(""the 1982 Act" means the Criminal Justice Act 1982;").
Page 139, line 5, leave out ("and").
Page 139, line 6, at end insert:
("; and "the 1992 Act" means the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.").
Page 139, line 6, at end insert:
("Criminal Procedure Act 1853 (c. 30.)
. In section 9 of the 1853 Act (bringing up a prisoner to give evidence), for the words "under commitment for trial" there shall be substituted the words "pending his trial in the Crown Court".
Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 (c. 73.)
In section 4 of the 1878 Act (procedure under that Act), for the words "committal of there shall be substituted the words "transfer of proceedings against".
Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3.)
In section 6(3) of the 1883 Act (inquiry by Attorney-General, and apprehension of absconding witnesses), for the words "committing for trial of there shall be substituted the words "consideration of an application for dismissal under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 made by such person for such crime or the transfer for trial of proceedings against".").
Page 139, line 14, at end insert:
(". In section 56(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (powers of courts to remit young offenders to youth court)—

(a) for the words "the offender was committed" there shall be substituted the words "proceedings against the offender were transferred"; and

(b) for the words "he was not committed" there shall be substituted the words "proceedings against him were not transferred".").

Page 140, line 4, at end insert:
("Prison Act 1952 (c. 52.)

.—(1) Section 43 of the 1952 Act (remand centres, etc.) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (a)—

(a) the words "trial or" shall be omitted; and

(b) after the word "sentence" there shall be inserted the words "or are ordered to be safely kept in custody on the transfer of proceedings against them for trial".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (b)—

(i) the words "trial or" shall be omitted; and

(ii) after the word "sentence" there shall be inserted the words "or is ordered to be safely kept in custody on the transfer of proceedings against her for trial"; and

(b) in paragraph (c)—

(i) the words "trial or" shall be omitted; and

(ii) after the word "sentence" there shall be inserted the words "or ordered to be safely kept in custody on the transfer of proceedings against him for trial".

.In section 47(5) of the 1952 Act (rules for the management of prisons, remand centres, etc.), for the words "committed in custody" there shall be substituted the words "ordered to be safely kept in custody on the transfer of proceedings against them".").
Page 141, line 4, at end insert:
("Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19.)
.In section 1(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (limitation of right of appeal in case of scheduled offence), for the word "committed" there shall be substituted the words "transferred proceedings against".").
Page 141, line 26, at end insert:
("Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c. 54.)
.In section 23(1) of the 1969 Act (remands and committals to local authority accommodation)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "or commits him for trial or sentence" there shall be substituted the words ", transfers proceedings against him for trial or commits him for sentence"; and

(b) for the words "the remand or committal shall be" there shall be substituted the words "he shall be remanded or committed".").

Page 141, line 26, at end insert:
("Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (c. 62.)
.In section 21(2) of the 1973 Act (restriction on imposing sentences of imprisonment, etc., on persons not legally represented)—

(a) for the words "or trial" there shall be substituted the words "or in respect of whom proceedings have been transferred to the Crown Court for trial"; and

(b) after the words "committed him" there shall be inserted the words "or which transferred proceedings against him".

.In section 32(1) (b) of the 1973 Act (enforcement, etc., of fines imposed and recognizances forfeited by Crown Court)—

(a) the words "tried or" shall be omitted; and

(b) after the words "dealt with" there shall be inserted the words "or which transferred proceedings against him to the Crown Court for trial".").

Page 141, line 36, at end insert:
(".In section 5 of the 1976 Act (supplementary provisions about decisions on bail)—

(a) in subsection (6) (a)—

(i) for the word "committing" there shall be substituted the words "transferring proceedings against"; and

(ii) after the words "Crown Court" where they occur first, there shall be inserted the words "or has already done so"; and

(b) in subsection (6A) (a), for sub-paragraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"(i) section 4(4) (adjournment when court is proceeding with a view to transfer for trial);".

. In section 6(6) (b) of the 1976 Act (absconding by person released on bail), for the words from "commits" to "another offence" there shall be substituted the words "transfers proceedings against that person for another offence to the Crown Court for trial".
. In section 9(3) (b) of the 1976 Act (agreeing to indemnify sureties in criminal proceedings), for the words from "commits" to "another offence" there shall be substituted the words "transfers proceedings against that person for another offence to the Crown Court for trial".").
Page 141, line 49, at end insert:
(".In section 4(6) (c) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases), for the words "commits him for trial on" there shall be substituted the words "transfers proceedings against him for trial for".").
Page 141, line 49, at end insert:
("Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30.).
.In Schedule 1 to the 1978 Act—

(a) in the definition of "Committed for trial", paragraph (a) shall be omitted; and

(b) after the definition of "The Tax Acts" there shall be inserted the following definition—

'Transfer for trial" means the transfer of proceedings against an accused to the Crown Court for trial under section 7 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. 1980.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 145, line 30, leave out from ("words") to ("; and") in line 31 and insert (""transfers for trial proceedings against a person who has been remanded on bail" ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 84:
Page 145, line 35, at end insert:
(".In section 145(1) (f) of the 1980 Act (rules: supplementary provisions), for the word "committed" there shall be substituted the words "in respect of whom proceedings have been transferred".").
Page 145, line 45, at end insert:
("Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (c. 47.)
. In section 2(2) (g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (application of procedural and other provisions to attempts), the words "or committed for trial" shall be omitted.").
Page 147, line 13, at end insert:
(". In section 80(2) of the 1981 Act (process to compel appearance before Crown Court), for the words from "the person" to "committed" there shall be substituted the words "proceedings against the person charged have not been transferred".").
Page 147, line 13, at end insert:
("Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48.)
. In section 1(2) of the 1982 Act (restrictions on custodial sentences for persons under 21)—

(a) the words "trial or" shall be omitted; and

1438

(b) after the word "sentence" there shall be inserted the words "or ordered to be safely kept in custody on the transfer of proceedings against him for trial".

. In section 3(2) of the 1982 Act (restriction on imposing custodial sentences on persons under 21 not legally represented)—

(a) for the words "or trial" there shall be substituted the words "or in respect of whom proceedings have been transferred to the Crown Court for trial"; and

(b) after the words "committed him" there shall be inserted the words "or transferred proceedings against him".").

Page 147, leave out lines 15 to 26 and insert:
("(1) Section 52 of the 1983 Act (provisions relating to persons remanded by magistrates' courts) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for the words from "accused" to "or" there shall be substituted the words "court, on transferring proceedings against the accused to the Crown Court for trial, orders him to be safely kept in custody, or commits the accused in custody to the Crown Court".
(3) In subsection (5), after the words "expired or that" there shall be inserted the words "proceedings against the accused are transferred to the Crown Court for trial or".
(4) In subsection (6), after the word "If there shall be inserted the words "proceedings against the accused are transferred to the Crown Court for trial or".
(5) In subsection (7)—

(a) for the words from "inquire" to "into" there shall be substituted the words "proceed with a view to transferring for trial proceedings for"; and

(b) for the words from "commit" to "1980" there shall be; substituted the words "transfer proceedings against him for trial".").

Page 147, line 30, at end insert:
("Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60.)
. In section 62(10) (a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (power of court to draw inferences from failure of accused to consent to provide intimate sample), for sub-paragraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(i) whether to grant an application for dismissal made by that person under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application for dismissal of charge in course of proceedings with a view to transfer for trial); or".").
Page 147, line 39, at end insert:
(". In section 21(6) of the 1985 Act (interpretation, etc.), in paragraph (b), for the words from "the accused" to "but" there shall be substituted the words "proceedings against the accused are transferred to the Crown Court for trial but the accused is".'").
Page 148, line 27, at end insert:
("(4) In section 6(5) (applications for dismissal), for the words from "a refusal" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the dismissal of a charge or charges against an accused under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.".").
Page 149, line 50, at end insert:
(". In section 17 of the Coroners Act 1988 (supplementary provisions applying on adjournment of inquest)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted the words "proceedings against"; and

(ii) for the words "is committed" there shall be substituted the wonts "are transferred"; and

(b) in subsection (3) (b), for the words "that person is committed" there shall be substituted the words "proceedings against that person are transferred".").

Page 150, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 (applications for dismissal), in sub-paragraph (7), for the words from "a refusal" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the dismissal of a charge or charges against an accused under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.".").
Page 150, line 30, at end insert:
("Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (c. 34.)
. In section 6(3) (c) of the 1992 Act, for the words "commits him" there shall be substituted the words "transfers proceedings against him".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Isolds, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42 [Criminal Damage, etc. as summary offence—relevant sum]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 27, line 20, leave out ("£5,000") and insert ("£4,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide a little more justice for victims of serious criminal damage than the Government seem willing to provide and, with luck, to help prevent such damage being caused in the first place.
The Magistrates' Courts Act became law on 1st August 1980. In that Act the relevant sum—which equates to the cost of the damage caused—below which the case would be triable only summarily was fixed at £200. To most people that seemed to strike a very reasonable balance. Between August 1980 and May 1994 (the most recent month for which the RPI figure is available) the RPI rose 112.58 per cent. by my calculation. To keep the figure constant in real terms, the present watershed (if I may so describe the sum in question) should be £425. However, the Government have already, since 1980, raised the real watershed value by a factor of 4.7 to £2,000. Now, to add insult to injury, it is proposed to raise it by a factor of 11.6 per cent. —in real terms, to £5,000. The amount of £5,000 is not a trivial sum where criminal damage is concerned. The owner of a car smashed into by joyriders and written off may have been able to insure the car for third party, fire and theft only. Similarly, a householder may not have been able to insure his or her furniture or garden equipment against similar destruction.
Your Lordships may consider my suggestion of a 20 per cent. reduction of the sum proposed by the Government rather feeble—mere tokenism, as it were. Ideally, I should like to have inserted a much lower figure. However, I concluded that figure of £4,000 was a compromise that the House and possibly even the Government would be more likely to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the reason for the change from £2,000 to £5,000 is to put right an omission made in 1991. As the noble Lord said, the original sum was £200. It was raised eventually to £2,000 by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. At that stage it was in line with a number of other financial thresholds. Those financial thresholds were raised by a factor of 2.5 in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It was the intention to raise all the thresholds by that factor at that time. However, by inadvertence that particular threshold was missed out. What has been done is simply to put right what should have been done three years ago in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It is a matter of catching up.
Nobody denies that damage in the order of such figures can be a serious matter. But this amendment simply raises the threshold, still leaving the magistrates with die discretion to decide on the appropriate venue for more serious offences involving criminal damage between £5,000 and £10,000.
In that connection I observe to the noble Lord that the Lord Chief Justice gives guidance on mode of trial. His

1440
guidance suggests that summary trial is appropriate where the value of the property destroyed or damaged is less than £10,000. That is the Lord Chief Justice's guidance on the matter. Noble Lords can see that we have raised the figure only to £5,000 despite that guidance. Therefore we feel that we are catching up on a technical oversight. We are also well within the policy range indicated by the Lord Chief Justice. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I do not believe that I can make much headway against both the Government and the Lord Chief Justice. The fault seems to lie basically with the 1991 Act, which received a certain amount of criticism at the time: I do not believe that it would be inappropriate to repeat it briefly.
There is no doubt that the higher threshold saves money, but it does so at the expense of justice to those who have been wronged and who perhaps have lost the equivalent of six months' earnings. In many cases they have no chance of recovering the money. Moreover, the lower maximum penalty may tempt more young people to indulge in this kind of destructive behaviour.
It is odd that, on the one hand, the Government constantly impose higher maximum penalties because they say that they are needed for deterrent purposes, but, on the other hand, in this particular instance effectively they lower the maximum penalty, even though the crime in question is by no means in decline; on the contrary, it is increasing. However, for the moment I believe that I have said all that can be said. 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. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage does not begin again until ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
7.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order I will also speak to the second order that relates to Scotland. The two orders are long awaited and will, I am sure, be widely welcomed. They will enable industrial tribunals to hear claims arising not only from various statutory employment rights as they do at the moment, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed, but also contractual claims, such as for notice pay, which may arise at the same time. Currently, these claims generally

1441
have to be pursued separately in the separate courts. This is administratively inconsistent as well as costly, time-consuming and inconvenient to all concerned. Consultation showed overwhelming support for the extension of the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to cover such claims. The draft orders are judicial matters and are therefore to be made by my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate. They are brought forward under Section 131 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.
The two orders are identical in substantive effect, but the House may like to note the following particular aspects. Under Article 3 the new jurisdiction is limited to complaints which arise or which are outstanding at the end of the employee's employment. Under Article 4 employers can counter-claim where employees have made a complaint that they have not settled or have withdrawn. Under Article 5 personal injury and some other claims, for example disputes about intellectual property, are excluded from the new jurisdiction as being outside the industrial tribunals' normal field of expertise. Under Articles 7 and 8 employees will normally have three months to make a claim and employers six weeks from being notified of employees' applications. Finally, under Article 9 an upper limit of £25,000 is set on the amount that a tribunal may award under the new jurisdiction. That is both in line with County Court practice and is round about the highest amount normally payable in an unfair dismissal case. Of course, anyone who wishes to claim a larger sum will be free to do so in the civil courts which will have concurrent jurisdiction. I commend the draft orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the orders. They are long awaited and are broadly acceptable and welcomed by many of those who are concerned with industrial relations generally. However, I should like to raise one or two points. Is the Minister satisfied that the resources are available at industrial tribunals to enable them to cope with the extra work? We all know that the tribunals are rather overwhelmed by work at the moment. If there is an onward reference to an EAT the case may well take as long as two years. How does that compare with the time taken in the civil courts? I know that one of the intentions in referring these matters to industrial tribunals is to ensure speedy resolution of issues.
The second point I raise is related to the three months a claimant has in which to lodge a claim with an industrial tribunal. Is that not a rather short period? There may very well be a necessity to continue negotiations. Indeed, very often issues that are referred to the civil courts are the subject of negotiation and before the case is heard a settlement has been achieved. If people are to have only three months in which to make their references to an IT, is it not possible that they will be making references to protect their position even

1442
while negotiations proceed? That seems a rather short period. Perhaps a longer period could have been provided.
Thirdly, I note that there is an upper limit of £25,000. I understand why that is so. In most instances it will be more than adequate for ordinary breach of contract of employment cases. However, if the case is likely to exceed £25,000 the individual concerned may be well advised to commence proceedings in the civil court. Having said that, I welcome the long-awaited orders. I hope for some reactions from the Minister to the points I have raised.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as someone with practical experience of arguing cases before industrial tribunals, as well as employment cases before the ordinary civil courts, I too welcome the draft orders. I agree with all the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner; I wish to add one or two of my own.
First, I believe it is good to put on record that industrial tribunals have been a great success story in the 30 years since their establishment. I remember that they were first set up to deal with industrial training levies in 1964. Step by step were added redundancy payments, unfair dismissal, equal pay, sex discrimination, race discrimination and so on. In my judgment, they have done well, despite limitations on their resources, in giving speedy decisions in simple cases. They have not done well in complicated cases, especially discrimina-tion cases with a European Community aspect where the issues are at least as complicated as the most difficult income tax cases or ordinary litigation in the High Court.
The first point I raise does not strictly arise under the order as it stands. However, I believe that if one is widening the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals there is need to think about ways to take difficult and complex cases of that kind away from them and to transfer them to some other tribunal, whether it be the Employment Appeals Tribunal as a court of first instance or the High Court. But I am sure that at the moment they are not capable of dealing with complicated, large cases of that kind.
Secondly, I am troubled about the uncertainties of transferring industrial tribunal cases to and from the civil courts. As I read them, there is nothing in the draft orders that gives any express right to transfer appropriate cases between an industrial tribunal and the civil courts. That is a serious omission which may lead to delay, excessive cost and perhaps injustice. A right of transfer does not appear in the industrial tribunal rules, nor in the county court or High Court rules. That is very troublesome. It is even troublesome at present in equal pay cases where it is very unclear what the precise relationship is between a High Court contract claim for equal pay and an industrial tribunal claim and how one should deal with transfers from one to the other.
As regards damages, my view is that the proposed upper limit of £25,000 is inadequate. Many straightfor-ward claims for wrongful dismissal now exceed that figure. Should there be any limit, I think that a figure of £50,000, being the figure at which cases are normally considered appropriate for the High Court, would have

1443
been more appropriate. Leaving that to one side since it is outwith the order as it stands, it is unclear to me whether Article 10 is intended to apply the limit of £25,000 to the aggregate of any claim and counter-claim on the same contract or whether, alternatively, the limit is intended to apply separately to any claim by the employee and also to any counter-claim by the employer. I should be grateful if that uncertainty could be clarified.
In the county court, interest on damages is calculated from the date on which the cause of action accrues. Under the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Remedies) Regulations 1993 industrial tribunals must calculate interest in a broadly similar way to that under the sex discrimination legislation. Interest on damages claims brought in the industrial tribunals should, I suggest, be calculated in the same manner as interest would have been calculated in the county court if the claim had been brought in that jurisdiction. To do otherwise is to undercompensate the innocent victim of a breach of contract and, in effect, to reward the contract breaker—the person in breach.
I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, as to resources. I wonder whether I may make a practical suggestion which I think would not result in more public expenditure but would ease the operation of the draft orders. In using part-time chairmen of industrial tribunals there should be no upper limit as to the number of days on which they can sit. If they show themselves to be experienced and competent, in view of the shortage of experienced judge-power in this area I suggest that that would be very welcome. It would be especially helpful to women with family obligations if they were able to sit for more days per year and help to cure the delays and backlog in the tribunals.
Finally, I turn to legal aid. This gives rise to some difficulties. Experience has shown that there is a problem of inequality of arms between the parties where an employer is legally represented and the employee is unrepresented in the kind of case where legal skill and advocacy really matter. It cannot be left to the chairman of the industrial tribunal to cure the inequality. If cases are now to be heard in industrial tribunals, which I for one greatly welcome, the employee—for it is he who will normally be the person without adequate legal means to defend himself or to prosecute his claim— should be eligible for legal aid in exactly the same way as for a claim that could have been heard in the county court or the High Court.
Perhaps I may give an example of the potential injustice which would otherwise arise. It is the best example I can give. An employer, instead of bringing a claim against an employee in the High Court or county court, chooses, as will now be possible, to bring the claim for breach of contract in the industrial tribunal. In that situation the employee would have been eligible for legal aid in an ordinary civil claim in the High Court in order to defend himself against the allegation of breach of contract. Because legal aid is not available in industrial tribunals he will not now be eligible for legal aid and there will be a gross inequality of arms. He will lose the entitlement to legal aid that he at present

1444
possesses in ordinary civil litigation. I see no good reason in principle why that should be so and why we should make this category of employees worse off. The only way in which the employee could avoid the injustice would be by seeking to transfer his claim to the civil court. The problem about transfers is at least opaque under the present legal regime.
This is a serious problem because in the grossest form of case it could lead to a real denial of justice. As the Minister will no doubt know or be advised, cases have gone before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights where a denial of legal aid in a complex civil claim involving employment or other matters has been held to be a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the family context the case of Airey v. Ireland is the best known claim.
As a legislature scrutinising draft subordinate legislation we should note that the absence of legal aid in industrial tribunals for this class of claim could be a breach of our international obligations and, as important, lead to real injustice in the individual case. I should therefore be grateful if that point could be looked at, not in any way to cast doubt on the validity of approving the orders but in order to make sure that employees are not worse off through some Treasury-driven ambition to save on legal aid in respect of this small class of cases than they are at present.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may also trespass on the time of the House by adding a few points to reinforce those which have already been well made. The extension of the industrial tribunals' jurisdiction is welcome and overdue. Section 131 and its predecessors lingered far too long before being brought into operation. The tribunals themselves want the additional jurisdiction and it should simplify matters for employers, employees and their advisers.
There is often a problem in advising a dismissed employee, who may have a claim worth more than the tribunal's present statutory limit, whether to go to the tribunal or to the court first, or indeed whether to start proceedings in both to avoid missing the stricter time limit governing tribunal cases. Moreover, it is never easy in practice to work out whether and to what extent the awards from the court for wrongful dismissal and the separate awards from the tribunals for unfair dismissal do and do not overlap. This extension order will allow a single point of entry for some cases. But, as noted by a distinguished commentator recently, drawing the borderline between the contractual limit in this order and the unfair dismissal compensatory award could cause fun and games in the future.
The order does not make it mandatory to go to the tribunal rather than to a court. That raises the point of legal aid mentioned by my noble friend. Legal aid is notoriously not available in the industrial tribunal and the tribunal's discretion to award costs is more circumscribed. I certainly hope that people who are eligible for legal aid to proceed in the courts will not automatically have it refused because there is now a remedy before the tribunal.

1445
Another matter of concern is the £25,000 limit. I do not know whether it is intended to uprate that regularly, as the compensatory and basic awards are uprated. Like my noble friend, I question the need for any such limit. Larger claims are not necessarily more difficult. Conversely, the tribunals can now make substantial unlimited awards in discrimination cases, which are often far more complicated.
Another matter to be considered is that of interest, which again was touched on by my noble friend. Putting the matter a little differently, it seems to me that tribunals should be allowed to award interest as part of the award covering the period prior to the hearing. The courts have that power. The tribunals have it in discrimination cases now, but not otherwise. As I understand it, at present they can only award interest from a point 42 days after the decision has been made. Surely, that should be rectified to equate the remedy in the tribunals with that in the courts. I also question why the employer's right to issue a counter-claim depends, under Article 4(d) of the order, on the existence of the employee's claim under the order. Why should not the employer be able to counter-claim in the tribunal if the employee chooses only to make a statutory claim for unfair dismissal?
Article 9 deals with the effect of death and bankruptcy. This is probably stating the obvious. When an employer tells you that you are no longer wanted and then tells you later that you have been overworking and closes you down altogether, a personal representative can always continue your contractual claim. Likewise a trustee in bankruptcy can continue a contractual claim. As things stand I do not believe that a tribunal could prevent them. Nevertheless, if Article 9 of the order makes that clear beyond any doubt, then I suppose it has value to that limited effect.
I conclude with a plea for the industrial tribunals to have adequate resources in the face of the extension of their jurisdiction. It is not so long ago that they faced such a severe budgeting crisis halfway through a financial year that there was a very severe problem which led to questions in your Lordships' House, as I recall. The tribunals' jurisdiction has been growing rapidly with almost annual domestic employment Acts and also with the impact of European law which has affected industrial tribunals directly far more than any other part of our legal system. Given the increasing complexity and volume of the caseload, it is no good pretending any longer that tribunals can invariably be seen as a straightforward place to deal with straightforward law. At the moment they are having to blocklist large numbers of Ministry of Defence pregnancy dismissal cases and they are bracing themselves for the introduction of claims by part-time employees. If the jurisdiction is to be extended as this order proposes, but without resources, there will be a further crisis. There will be increasing delay and remedies such as reinstatement and re-engagement will become almost meaningless. With those reservations I welcome the order.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the fairly general welcome which the orders have received. I agree

1446
with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that industrial tribunals have been a considerable success over the years. I can only hope that neither the noble Lord, Lord Lester, nor the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has lost any business as a result.
Perhaps I may start by dealing with some of the points which have been raised. I shall deal first with the limit which has been set at £25,000 and which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, considers to be inadequate. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also expressed some doubts about it. Obviously, that is something which is not fixed in stone in perpetuity. Like all such figures it is something which will be kept under review by my right honourable friend. It seems to me a fairly reasonable figure. I understand that it is the guideline figure below which civil claims are normally tried in the county court rather than in the High Court. I appreciate that the actual limit is £50,000, but I understand that the guidance suggests somewhere about £25,000. It is also similar to the combined maximum basic additional and compensatory awards available in unfair dismissal cases which amount to a maximum sum of £22,480. Therefore, it is broadly in line with much of what happens already.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked whether it would apply separately both to the claim and counter-claim. I can give an assurance—I sincerely hope that we have drafted it so as to meet the assurance—that our intention is that the £25,000 limit should apply separately to the claim or a number of claims arising from the same contract and also to the counter-claim. We believe that the order achieves that. If the noble Lord advises me that it does not, obviously that is something we would have to look at in due course.
Some concern was expressed about the possible impact on the tribunals themselves of this new and extra work. There has been some criticism, notably last Monday, about the resourcing of industrial tribunals, if I can use that word. On Monday night I answered in some detail exactly what we have done to reduce delays and referred to the number of extra full-time chairmen and administrative staff and how we have expanded premises. It is not necessary now for me to repeat all that I said on that occasion other than to say that I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that already many part-time chairmen sit. We are obviously very keen to make use of their expertise. It is obviously difficult to estimate the number of cases which will be brought under this new jurisdiction.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before leaving the question of part-time chairmen, I believe I am right in saying that they can sit for a maximum of 70 days only in a year. That seems to me an unnecessary restriction. I was suggesting that that might be looked at in order to make better use of the most expert and experienced of the part-timers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may check the figures which I have in front of me. The noble Lord is right. Originally, part-time chairmen could sit only for 50 days. As the noble Lord put it, that has been increased to 70 days and to 100 days for those who have

1447
retired from practice. Both figures have gone up to some extent. I take note of what the noble Lord said but having just increased those figures we have no current plans to increase them again. It is a matter we shall keep under review. It could have a positive effect. One begins to wonder at what point someone ceases to be a part-time chairman once one increases the number of days beyond 100 or whatever. We take note of what the noble Lord said.
It is difficult to estimate exactly the number of cases which will be brought under the new jurisdiction, but we shall monitor the operation of it and determine its impact. If it is necessary for more resources to be put in or for changes to be made such as those suggested by the noble Lord, we will consider them.
The noble Baroness also referred to the time limit of three months being too short. I say to her that it is the normal time limit for making a complaint to an industrial tribunal, including under the Wages Act, which may cover similar claims, and also for unfair dismissal claims where, along with other claims, ACAS successfully assists in conciliation in up to two-thirds of the cases. I can give an assurance to the noble Baroness that the tribunals have a discretion to increase that three-month period where it is not reasonably practical to claim within that time. There is a discretion that they can make use of.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about the transfer of complicated cases to the High Court. Again, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall always look at whether there are better ways of dealing with claims. I can give an assurance that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department of Employment has announced a review of tribunals. I believe that the limit of £25,000 to some extent ensures that those cases involving high costs, which often, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, relate to the more complicated cases, will remain with the civil courts.
As I think I made clear in opening the debate, the jurisdiction is concurrent with the civil courts and it will be entirely a matter for the applicant to decide in which forum to bring the action. Therefore, those who wish to apply for legal aid can obviously continue to pursue their cases through the civil courts. As I think the noble Lord will know, industrial tribunals were set up to provide a far speedier and more informal means for settling employment disputes than the civil courts. The procedures have always been designed with that in mind. I do not believe that legal representation is necessary from my brief experience of those courts, and I have to say that legal aid will continue not to be available.
I do not accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we are likely to be in breach of our international obligations. I believe the noble Lord was trying to argue that there would be an imbalance between the employer who might make use of lawyers and the employee who did not. As the noble Lord will know, employers cannot institute a complaint in the industrial tribunal unless the employee has already made a Section 131 claim to the tribunals. Therefore, it

1448
is for the employee to decide whether to institute such a claim in the courts with legal aid if he thinks it appropriate, or in the tribunals, taking advantage of the simpler and less legalistic system. Therefore, I do not think that it is fair to argue that there is not a level playing field between them.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked why the employer was not allowed to counter-claim when the employee claims arrears of wages under the Wages Act. In these orders, we are allowing for employers to counter-claim when employees make a claim under the new contractual jurisdiction. To allow counter-claims more generally when the employee's complaint is under the Wages Act or some other employment protection provision would be another matter and a major departure from the current position. There has been no pressure for such a change from either the employers or their representative organisations. In our view, it would not therefore be justified.
I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been put to me. I hope also that, with the general welcome that has been given to these two orders, the House will see fit to give them its approval tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
7.42 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee).—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994
7.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said:My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994, which were laid before the House on 14th June be approved. The regulations are made in exercise of the powers in both Sections 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and Section 16(2) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. They implement both national proposals outlined in the Third Consultative Document on Pesticide Residues which was issued in 1991 and three European Community Directives: Directive 90/642/EEC, which establishes a framework by listing certain products of plant origin, such as hops, oilseeds and tea, and fruit and vegetables for which maximum residue levels (MRLs) will be set separately in stages;

1449
Directive 93/58/EEC, which establishes the first stage of MRLs for the products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables; and Directive 93/57/EEC which sets additional MRLs for cereals and products of animal origin. The new regulations will supersede the existing Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988. All of the new MRLs have been subject to extensive consultation with interested parties.
The regulations are designed to achieve three objectives. First, MRLs are designed to reflect the maximum residue which will occur if pesticides are used correctly, in accordance with good agricultural practice, and thus provide a check that farmers and growers are using pesticides in accordance with their instructions for uses. Secondly, they are intended to provide consumers with the reassurance that levels of pesticide residues in food are safe and are the lowest levels compatible with efficient food production. Thirdly, the MRLs set by the European Community will harmonise MRLs and thus facilitate intra-Community trade.
I would like to expand on these three objectives a little further. Good agricultural practice in the use of a pesticide is essentially the observance of the conditions of use set out on the label of the pesticide product. This reflects the terms on which use of the pesticide has been approved by Ministers in six government departments, such as the crop on which the pesticide may be used, the maximum number of applications and the interval between the last treatment and harvest. Good agricultural practice is intended to ensure that any residues which are left are not only safe, but are as low as possible. Statutory controls governing the use of pesticides were introduced in 1986 and the controls introduced on MRLs in food in 1988 provided an additional control to ensure that pesticides are neither misused nor over-used. The new regulations include additional pesticides and new food commodities. Crops for use as animal feeding stuffs are covered for the first time. If pesticide users follow the instructions on the labels of pesticide products, they should have no difficulty in complying with the maximum limits set out in the regulations. Residues should not be found above the MRL if the pesticide has been used correctly.
The regulations apply equally to home-produced and imported food. Food which contains residues which exceed MRLs can be seized or disposed of. Imports from outside the Community can be returned to the country of origin. Government surveillance will continue to be carried out by the Working Party on Pesticide Residues to check that samples of food comply with MRLs.
The safety of food for consumers is always of paramount importance. The regulations set MRLs which are in all cases acceptable to the experts who help us to run our regulatory system for pesticides, both within the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and on the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. But I must emphasise that the limits are not themselves safety standards. In many cases, even if the crop in question contained residues at the level of the MRL, intakes of pesticides would still be well below the safety levels.

1450
This is because of the high safety margins which our approval system requires in all cases. If a chemical is found to be effective at a low application rate, we would not approve a higher rate even if there were no concern in safety terms. This reflects the Government's policy that pesticide usage should be the minimum consistent with efficient food production.
I also mentioned the part that the regulations will play in harmonising Community arrangements for pesticides. Many member states, including the United Kingdom, have existing national MRLs for a range of pesticides. The Community directives, implemented by the regulations, begin the process of harmonising these limits and hence promoting the completion of a single market for properly treated produce.
The regulations will extend considerably the scope of the statutory MRLs which were introduced in 1988 both in terms of the pesticides and food commodities covered. The number of pesticides covered will increase from 61 to 87 and the number of foods will increase from 40 to over 150. The foods covered include cereals, meat, milk, eggs, hops, tea, oilseeds and a very wide range of fruit and vegetables. It will be necessary to amend the regulations on a regular basis in the future in order to take account of the continuing harmonisation of MRLs within the Community.
Turning now briefly to the detail of the regulations, I should first of all explain that although the title of the regulations implies that they cover "crops, food and feeding stuffs", they do not cover feeding stuffs as such. There are separate controls covering pesticides and other contaminants in animal feeding stuffs—the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1991. However these regulations do apply to crops and food when intended for either human or animal consumption. The intention is to prevent food which contains residues in excess of an MRL from being diverted to animal feed.
Within the body of the regulations themselves a slightly different approach has been taken which distinguishes those MRLs set on a national basis and those which have been fixed by the Community. The national limits are shown in Part 1 of Schedule 2 and the Community limits are shown in Part 2 of Schedule 2. National limits are being implemented by means of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Part III of which concerns pesticides, and the Community limits are being implemented by means of the European Communities Act 1972. The EC directives which fix MRLs require that food shall not be put into circulation with a residue greater than the maximum permitted level, while the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 requires that no level of residue may be left greater than the maximum permitted level.
Although these regulations are being made under two pieces of primary legislation, as I have just outlined, the penalties for exceeding either a national or Community MRL will be similar. There will be fines of up to £5,003 on summary conviction and unlimited fines on indictment.
Responsibility for enforcing the regulations will rest with agriculture Ministers. One of the purposes of the surveillance carried out by the Government's Working Party on Pesticide Residues has been to check

1451
compliance with the statutory MRLs first introduced in 1988. The surveillance is targeted at areas where residues are most likely to be found. The full results of the surveillance programme are published each year and results in recent years have shown that two-thirds of food does not contain detectable residues. Overall, residues above MRLs are found in 1 per cent. of samples analysed. Where it is clear that breaches of the regulations are occurring in a number of cases in a particular food commodity, a campaign to enforce the regulations can be mounted. That involves Ministers designating as enforcement officers individuals, such as departmental staff, local authority or port health authority officers. Their job would be to collect samples for analysis at a government laboratory. The intention is to target a particular food commodity and to obtain samples which could then be traced to the individual grower if the results showed that an MRL had been exceeded. Growers could then be prosecuted for the breach of a statutory MRL and the food could be seized and destroyed. Where action is taken with imported food, the consignment can be held while residue analysis is carried out and if an MRL is found to have been exceeded, the consignment can be refused entry.
Not all pesticides leave detectable residues and many that are present just after application do not persist. Since 1988 we have had a framework of controls on pesticide residues in food within which farmers know that they can operate freely, although in accordance with good agricultural practice traders can buy and sell and the consumer can purchase food in the knowledge that produce meets stringent controls on residues. These regulations represent a further step to harmonise controls on pesticide residues within the Community and to achieve a single European market. I commend the instrument to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th May be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to what I feel may be a major omission in the draft agriculture pesticides regulations. I hear what my noble friend the Minister said in explaining the regulations, but the omission relates to the maximum levels of pesticide residues which may be left in crops, a very broad spectrum of foods, and feeding stuffs for human consumption. However, in much of Schedule 2, Part I and Part II, many foods and products of foods are left completely blank; in other words, no maximum residue level has been set. Those include some tree nuts such as almonds and Brazil nuts; miscellaneous fruits such as dates and figs; brassicas such as kale and broccoli; leafy vegetables such as spinach, celery and watercress; and oil seeds such as linseed, peanuts, sunflower seeds, soya beans, mustard seed, and others. Even products of animal origin such as meat, milk and dairy products have some omissions.
Perhaps I may give the example of bananas. They come under miscellaneous fruit. One might be staggered to know that in a kilogram of bananas 0.05 milligrams of aldrin and dieldrin, 20 milligrams of inorganic

1452
bromide, and 0.05 milligrams of paraquat might be found. I am assured that those levels are considered safe for human consumption. If higher levels of those and certain other pesticide chemicals are found in that kilogram of bananas then, as my noble friend the Minister said, an offence has been committed and penalties for contravention are administered. My point is that many products have no upper limit whatsoever set down. So does that mean that the sky is the limit?
My noble friend the Minister told us that over a further period of time more limits will be introduced, but I have to say that there are many gaps remaining from the 1988 pesticides regulations. Will my noble friend push for a threshold level to be put on all products that remain without a set maximum limit? That would prevent the risk of over-the-limit food imports or homegrown produce reaching the marketplace, as at the moment the regulation neither protects the public fully nor provides for a definite penalty against the offender. I am concerned that it appears to be more of a guide to what one can get away with than a regulation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for, as always, giving such a lucid explanation of these complicated regulations. I was struck by the interesting observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that he is outnumbered two to one this evening by former students of Writtle Agricultural College.
As I understand it, the regulations are a general updating, tightening up and bringing into line with European directives. As the Minister said, they combine good agricultural practice and a reassurance for consumers. For those reasons, of course, we have no objection from these Benches. I believe that the point raised by the noble Viscount was responded to by the ministry to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but I must say that I found the response and the reasons for the gaps in Schedule 2 hard to understand, and so I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to that point.
If I am correct in assuming that the regulations increase consumer safety, where the figures are quoted, then obviously they are to be welcomed. I have only three brief observations. The first relates not to the regulations but to the interesting comment made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the signature on the regulations of a Minister from the Department of Health. The point made by the joint committee was reasonable—that just because a department approves a policy that does not constitute a reason for signing a regulation. It is the first time I have seen that criticism of a regulation. I did not find the department's response particularly convincing.
My second observation is a general one. It concerns the multiplicity of crop chemicals which are now available. The days are long gone when a farmer could obtain a decent two tonnes of wheat to the acre with some fertilisers in the seed bed, one squirt of MCPA in the spring, and a top dressing of nitrogen. Then one shut

1453
the gate and waited to harvest. That extra tonne to the acre for which we all look and expect now requires a pretty good range of chemicals to help achieve it.
The third point is one of interest. I was struck by the fact that, in the case of milk, on page 55 of the regulations the footnote states that the levels for the MRL are for fresh, raw cow's milk and fresh, whole cream cow's milk expressed on the whole milk. I wonder what would be the effect on skimmed and semi- skimmed milk which now forms a high proportion of total milk sales. I am not a chemist, but I imagine that the amount of residue may differ, as it were, in the cream and the rest of the milk. I wonder how the calculations will be done for skimmed and semi-skimmed milk. Is it a straightforward arithmetical calculation from the tables or is some other factor involved?
With those general observations, I repeat that we on these Benches welcome the regulations. I thank the Minister for explaining them so clearly.
8 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Addison and to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. My noble friend was concerned that MRLs have not been set for all the pesticide/product combinations in Schedule 2. It is indeed the case that there are still some pesticide/product combinations for which MRLs have not yet been set. In such cases there will be a "blank" in both Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 2. However, the European Commission's objective is to set an MRL for all the pesticide/product combinations in Schedule 2. Many of the blanks that appear at present arise because the positions have been left "open" to allow experimental data to be generated by agrochemical companies or growers.
Maximum residue levels are set on the basis of crop trials in order to establish the residue levels that occur under approved conditions of use. To obtain representative data, a series of trials conducted under a variety of conditions is required. Companies have been allowed up to four years to generate this data.
As soon as the data is available MRLs will be set. In the meantime, we are able to rely on other powers, including powers in the Food Safety Act, if any health concern over excess residues arises.
My noble friend asked whether there was a case for inserting a threshold MRL in those open positions. As I explained, MRLs can be determined only on the basis of data from properly conducted crop trials. Without such data, a reliable MRL cannot be set. The blanks mean that no level has been set but that does not mean that action would never need to be taken. The chances of excessive residues occurring in any one instance are small, but if they do occur we can use powers to cope with that situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised several points and I wish to cover two of them. I shall deal, first, with the comment by the joint committee as regards the signatures. I am aware of the anxiety expressed by the joint committee. In drafting the statutory instrument we were guided largely by precedent. The 1988 regulations, which are replaced by the regulations under discussion,

1454
were signed by the Secretary of State for Health and by territorial Secretaries of State. This has also been the practice with other legislation on pesticides. It was considered desirable that the Health Secretary should sign the regulations because they relate to issues of consumer safety and consumer protection, which fall within her responsibility. However, while our current view is that we should maintain that practice, we will look again at the issue in relation to future legislation. Obviously, it is a matter about which the joint committee is anxious.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked about the MRLs for milk, in particular skimmed or low fat milk. MRLs for milk are set on the basis of the raw milk product but they are then adjusted as appropriate depending on the fat content of the milk, which is referred to in the footnote to Schedule 2. I do not have in front of me the precise table of calculations which would enable me to give a more precise answer, but I hope that the noble Lord will take it on trust that these matters are worked out with all due care.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.4 to 8.10 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 86:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
( "Penalty for murder
. No court shall be required to sentence a person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move an amendment which would mean that, when someone is convicted of murder, he is not necessarily sentenced to life imprisonment. I moved the same amendment in Committee and I postponed discussion on it until Report stage, when I was hoping for a larger attendance. It can hardly be said that that has been secured this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Quality, quality!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, quality is what counts. I should say straight away that I shall divide the House on this subject because, in conscience, I am completely committed to the idea that this is an important issue of principle and it cannot be avoided by someone telling me that the House is very thin at 10 past eight in the evening. Therefore, we can rely on a vote of some kind.
If the House of Lords was ever said to be committed to any proposition, it is committed to this one. Quite a few years ago, a very high powered Select: Committee of the House under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, expressed itself to be in favour of the provisions of this amendment. Later, the House, by a large majority, voted in favour of the proposition. At that time, two Lord Chancellors, including the noble and

1455
learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, supported the proposal, as did the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and five Law Lords. Therefore, all those most exalted in the legal profession were in favour of the proposal.
And then, only last year, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, introduced a Bill which was accepted by the House without a Division. That is only a little more than a year ago.
Even more recently than that, at the end of last year, a committee of exceptional strength led by the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and which included the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, whose knowledge of these matters is equalled by few, if any, reported again in favour of an amendment of this kind.
I should say in passing that I am extremely sorry to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, has been seriously ill since that time. Were it not for that, he might well have been there this evening to make his views plain.
Now, a year later, what do we find? We find that the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, has come out strongly in favour of this proposal. In an interview in The Times, he made his views abundantly plain. When I read that interview in The Times, I approached the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, to discover whether he would rather move the amendment. It appeared from his office that he did not intend to move an amendment. I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, to ask him whether he would speak in favour of the amendment. He said that he would do so if he were present, but if he were not present, he would like me to make it plain that he is in favour of the amendment, as one would expect in view of his interview in The Times.
If ever the House can be committed to anything, it is committed to this. I shall not spend time discussing the arguments for and against the amendment. They have been rehearsed often in this House over the years. They have been summed up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, and others who have said that it is quite wrong that the same penalty should be exacted in the case of very different crimes. Of course, a great deal more can be said on the subject.
Since the last debate, I have been in contact with another kind of situation arising out of life imprisonment; that is, the question of recall. I have tabled an amendment on that subject which we shall discuss later. I should say in passing that, when a life prisoner emerges from prison, he is on licence and that is not quite the same as being on parole. It was brought home to me only recently how different it can be. In effect, if you are released on licence after a life sentence, even having served relatively few years, you are paying a penalty for life whether or not you are incarcerated. You are treated, in effect—and I shall deal later with that case on another amendment—in all future discussions as guilty until you are proved innocent. That is an additional argument.

1456
But my main argument is that the House of Lords has committed itself time and again to this proposition and I hope that your Lordships will vote in favour of it. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment. At the time of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, of which I was a member, I felt deeply, although I agree that I was the only member so to do, that the mandatory life sentence for murder should be retained. Since then, I have been thankful that successive Home Secretaries have maintained that position.
I believe that if its mandatory nature were removed, it would give quite the wrong message to the public as a whole at a time when violent crime is, sadly, still far too prevalent. As the Crown Prosecution Service said at the time of our report, public confidence in the criminal justice system would be eroded if the penalty for murder became discretionary.
As our report also said at paragraph 109A:
"The distinction between murder and manslaughter…becomes meaningless if there is no difference in the sentencing powers available to the court; and the mandatory sentence is the only way of making such a distinction".
As the National Association of Senior Probation Officers said in favour of its retention:
"the penalty for murder expresses the value society places on life".
A life sentence does not normally mean imprison-ment for life. However, it means that, after due consideration by those responsible, the murderer's release is only on licence and he may be recalled at any time if he breaches the conditions of his licence or his behaviour indicates that he may be at risk of committing a further violent offence.
Murderers have demonstrated that they are capable of murder once. As one reads the newspapers, one learns that violent people repeat their crimes, as was confirmed in our report at paragraph 111A. I should put the protection of society as my first priority and I hope that your Lordships will not agree to the amendment.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I apologise for having missed the first few words of the noble Earl's observations.
On these Benches, we have repeatedly expressed our support for the principle put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and, for the sake of the record, we wish to do so again this evening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can only echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I do not know whether it is a party political issue or whether there is a Whip involved. However, I do know that my noble friend Lord Longford is entirely right to say that the House of Lords has repeatedly expressed its view that there should not be a mandatory life sentence for murder. I have to confess that my personal views approximate more closely to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. But it is not my place to say so from this Dispatch Box.
My noble friend has not sought to rehearse the arguments, and in some ways we are grateful to him for

1457
that. But the question that he must consider is whether he will advance his cause by putting the matter to a Division when he knows as well as I do that he will be opposed by the payroll vote. However, if he believes that that is to his advantage, he must—as, indeed, he always does—do what his conscious dictates. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it would be the correct course of action for him to take.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Earl will ponder the wisdom of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that he was sorry that he was not present in the Chamber to hear the opening remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Perhaps I may repeat those remarks. The noble Earl said that what he seeks to do is to ensure that a person who has committed murder should not have a sentence for life—
The Earl of Longford: No, my Lords; I must correct that statement. I said that a life sentence should not necessarily be imposed. The noble Earl must know that that was what I meant to say. If I used a faulty expression, surely he would have understood it; indeed, he has done the same himself before now. No one could suppose that I thought that it would be the ending of the life sentence; indeed, no one could possibly think so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I may say so, the amendment is perfectly clear. It says:
"No court shall be required".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not for the first time I apologise to the noble Earl if I have taken down his words incorrectly. However, he has now explained what he said and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is now in the happy position of knowing what the noble Earl said even though he was not present in the Chamber to hear it.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I believed myself capable of anticipating what the noble Earl said with some accuracy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord's anticipation was more accurate than mine. I tried to record what the noble Earl said, but evidently I misrecorded his remarks.
We are discussing a subject which has been raised many times in the House in recent months. It has also been the subject of two inquiries by eminent committees: the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan; and, more recently, the Committee on Penalty for Homicide chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. The arguments were carefully and cogently put.
The Government regard this as a deeply important issue and we recognise that strong views are held on both sides. We take those views very seriously, including the arguments of those who believe that the mandatory life sentence should be abolished. Your Lordships will not be surprised that the Government's position remains unchanged. We continue to think that it is right to retain the mandatory life sentence in order

1458
to mark the unique nature of the offence of murder and to provide in the case of murderers the particular safeguards afforded by the mandatory life sentence.
My noble friend Lady Plait was right. She had the wisdom, the rectitude and the courage to make a minority report when she served on the Nathan Committee. I shall add only that murder is unique in that it involves the deprivation of another person's life, even though there may only have been intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That inevitably sets murder apart from other offences, and it means that the way in which we respond to it has particular significance for public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.
Public concern about murder has not noticeably ebbed since capital punishment was abolished in 1965. Indeed, I suggest that quite the reverse is the case. So concerned are people about crime that many would willingly see the return of capital punishment. What the public will not understand—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the Minister in favour of the return of capital punishment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Earl is asking me a personal question, the answer is yes.
As I was saying, what the public will not understand is not having capital punishment, and now, if the noble Earl were to have his way, not having a life sentence for murder. After all—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, that is not true. I do not know where the noble Earl got that from. He knows perfectly well that I am not trying to abolish life imprisonment altogether. I said that it should not necessarily apply in every the case. If the noble Earl reads the amendment, he will see what I am talking about.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are having quite some difficulty in the matter. We are not in Committee. I have been trying to make a speech and I have been interrupted five times thus far. I am not trying to misrepresent the noble Earl. All I was trying to tell him was that when capital punishment was abolished a mandatory life sentence was put in its place. People were led to believe that, although capital punishment may have gone, in future a person who committed murder would in any case receive a life sentence. The point that I was trying to make is that people would simply not understand what Parliament was doing if the latter were also to be removed. People would think that it was not right for Parliament now to abolish the mandatory life sentence.
I know that the noble Earl feels strongly about the matter. I understand his feelings. However, I must remind him that, whatever his feelings—which I respect —the Government do not feel that now is the right time to remove the mandatory life sentence for murder.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have much respect for the feelings of the noble Earl and certainly for his parliamentary skill. But he comes before us now in support of capital punishment. He must be aware that the House of Commons has repeatedly voted; against it by a very large majority. Therefore, in no sense could his remarks be said to be an expression of the will of the

1459
people. Indeed, if the noble Earl read the Sun new spaper —and I read it every day—he would realise that press reports state that Mr. Howard is about to get the chop. His policies have not worked out and they are not at all popular with the public. I am sorry for Mr. Howard, but no doubt he will be able to find another sphere of usefulness. However, as I said, according to the popular press he is in line for the chop.
Let us now try to take a broad view of the matter. One either believes that the judiciary in this House has been repeatedly right or that the noble Earl who supports capital punishment is right. Naturally the noble Earl is against the amendment, as, indeed, is Mr. Howard. However, there is no foundation for saying that the country is against it. That may or may not be true. No one knows the position of the country on the amendment; indeed, it has never been put to the people. Therefore, I wish to press the amendment to a Division.
8.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 77.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Gisborough, L.

Howell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Longford, E. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Knutsford, V.

Astor of Hever, L

Leigh, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L.

Moyne, L.

Burton, L.

Newall, L.

Cadman, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Caithness, E.

Peel, E.

Camock, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cranborne, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Crathorne, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Stockton, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Strange, B.

Downshire, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ferrers, E.

[Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Torrington, V.

Geddes, L.

Trumpington, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Vivian, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Wakeham, L. [lord Privy Seal.]

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Rights of life sentence prisoners to review of sentence

.—(1) All prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, other than juveniles and under-14 year olds, shall have the right to have their sentence reviewed by a court when they have served 15 years in prison, unless they have already been released on licence.

(2) The rights conferred on adult life sentence prisoners by subsection (1) above shall apply to—

(a) all juveniles convicted of murder, after 10 years; and

(b) all under-14 year olds when they reach the age of 18.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am opening up a new subject here. It will be a relief to noble Lords who feel the strain of going through the Division Lobbies to know that it is unlikely—although I will press it hard —that I will take this amendment to a Division. However, for a long time it has been in my mind, and the minds of many other people, that life prisoners may be stuck in prison for years and years—indeed, one might say for ever—without ever getting a fair trial of any kind.
I shall refer to one case and one case only. As I have said on an earlier occasion, I am in touch with many life prisoners, or half a dozen actively at the moment. I refer to the case of a woman who has been in prison 28 years. She was convicted—rightly, undoubtedly—of being an accomplice in horrifying murders many years ago. She was an infatuated accomplice of a man who for a good many years has been in a special hospital. At any rate there she was—rightly, if you like—incarcerated in prison. She has been there for 28 years.
I submit that none of us fallible, and indeed sinful human beings, has any right to keep any fellow human being in prison for 28 years with no immediate prospect of coming out unless there is some danger to the public. We heard in an earlier debate that the public should come first. But what public interest is served by keeping this woman in prison? No one thinks she is dangerous. Years ago the then chairman of the Parole Board told me in writing that she was not dangerous. She has twice been passed as suitable for parole, or licence, by local review committees, and yet she remains in prison.
People say to me, "Oh, I do not think any Home Secretary would ever have the guts to let her out of prison. Think of the tabloids—think of what the Sun would say". People say that it is widely surmised that it would be too dangerous and too frightening for any Home Secretary to let her out. Is that justice? Is it Christian, humanist or any sort of justice? What is this matter left to at the present time? It is left to political expediency and to the question of whether the Home Secretary of the day has the courage to face the tabloids. That is where it is left at the moment. No one really disputes the fact that that is where it is left. I say that that is all wrong.
One cannot deal with that matter easily. It is not a simple problem. After a certain number of years, in my opinion, any life prisoner should be allowed to come into the open, appear before a court and be represented. Who knows what would happen? The court might decide that the person, who may be a terrorist, should

1461
stay in prison. But at least that would be a judicial decision independent of political expediency. It would provide a less dishonourable situation than the one we have now. I think the present situation is a disgrace to humanity. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would like not only to pay tribute to my noble friend for his persistence in this matter but also to express my total agreement with his argument on this point. It seems quite extraordinary that we are in the position where those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder should depend for their release on the Home Secretary, advised by the Home Office, rather than on a court.
My noble friend proposes a very modest formula under which the matter would be reviewed after 15 years and whereby it may be taken out of the media and political arena to be determined by a court rather than, as at present, the Home Secretary. I am absolutely convinced that he is right.
My noble friend has not said that he is considering taking the opinion of the House on the matter. Perhaps I may say to him in due humility that I think that he would be ill advised to do so after the vote that has just taken place. It might give the impression—which I am sure would be wrong—that the House of Lords, consisting of human beings, rejected the humanitarian plea which my noble friend rightly makes. I would not wish him to seek the opinion of the House, but I am totally convinced that his arguments are just and humane.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although I understand his reasons, I find it curious that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should say that the noble Earl is making a humanitarian plea. We are talking about somebody who has committed murder. In the old days he would probably have been subject to capital punishment, but because capital punishment has been done away with he has been committed to life imprisonment. Now the noble Earl says that no human being should have the right to put another human being in prison for 20 or so years.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I made the proviso unless it could be claimed that that person was a danger to the public. The noble Earl took down some of my remarks but not all of them. I kept on saying that in this particular case, and many others, it is recognised that there is no danger to the public.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can see that I shall have to undertake a course of shorthand in order to take down the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I wrote down his remarks as quickly as I could and I thought that I had taken them down reasonably accurately. If I am wrong I am sorry.
The noble Earl is concerned that nobody should be kept in prison for a long period. The effect of his amendment is that any life sentence prisoner who is still in custody after 15 years should have the right to have his sentence reviewed, not by the Home Secretary but by a court.

1462
The principal purpose of the amendment is to take responsibility for the release of long-term mandatory life sentence prisoners out of the hands of the Home Secretary and to put it in the hands of the courts. No government would support such a move. One important reason for maintaining the mandatory life sentence for murder is to sustain public confidence. That is in part achieved by the mandatory nature of the penalty, but also by the fact that it is the Home Secretary—who is accountable to Parliament for maintaining public confidence—who takes responsibility for the release of prisoners in these cases.
In our view there are adequate arrangements for reviewing the detention of these lifers, with scope for independent advice to be considered and for representations to be made. In setting the period to be served for retribution and deterrence the Home Secretary takes the advice of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. He can review that period at any time. The prisoner can make representations as to that period at any time. When release is considered the Home Secretary consults the judiciary again and has the benefit of expert advice on risks from the Parole Board.
I do not understand which parts of that process the noble Earl wants the courts to take over after 15 years. Presumably he would like them to take over all of the process. Our view remains that the final decision belongs with the Home Secretary because the Home Secretary is responsible for public safety and public security.
In trying to introduce arrangements to benefit this small group of long-term mandatory lifers the amendment would have some odd effects on the rest of the life sentence system. For instance, courts would find themselves reviewing cases where the prisoner had served the period to be served for retribution and deterrence but where he remained in prison because the Parole Board considered him to be dangerous. The courts would be determining questions of risk. They have never had to do that before. I do not. think that it would be appropriate for them to do so now.
The courts would also have to review the tariff in discretionary life sentence cases. That tariff has been set by a court in the first place. I do not understand why this second look should be taken at the needs of retribution and deterrence or why determinate sentence prisoners, who have been given 20 or 30 years, for example, should also have their sentences reviewed after 15 years.
I know that the noble Earl is aiming at a very small group of prisoners, but in our view the current arrangements provide a much more flexible and less cumbersome means of review than introducing a whole new tier of court hearings for all life sentence: prisoners.
The Home Secretary of the day is responsible for security. It is one thing for the courts to make a judgment on what a person has done. It is another matter for that person to be released back into the community, where the community will be affected. That is not a question which the courts ought to judge. It is a question for the Home Secretary.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there cannot be much meeting of minds between myself and the noble Earl in regard to life prisoners. He is in favour of capital punishment. He thinks that these life prisoners are very lucky not to have been executed long ago. I respect him on all other grounds, but on this issue he is very old fashioned.
The noble Earl may not be aware that in Germany there is a rule that after 15 years life sentence prisoners come before the courts. Therefore, the proposal is not impossible.
In the long run the noble Earl will realise that very brutal results follow from his policy. I shall return to the subject in debates over the years, if I am spared. Today I shall withdraw the amendment, making it plain that I regard the case as overwhelming. I am particularly glad to have the support of my acting leader—my noble friend Lord McIntosh—who has had some difficulty with my approach on previous occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Video recordings of testimony from child witnesses
. In section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 at section 32A(S) (b) the word "adequately" shall be inserted after the words "dealt with" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is not able to be with us but I am happy to move the amendment standing in his name. It is concerned with the tightly defined but important question of the testimony of child witnesses in court and the use of video recordings for child witnesses in court.
I remind the House that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 added Section 32A to the 1988 Act. It provided for the video recording of the evidence of child witnesses. That was done with extremely good intentions and without any party political differences in this House or in another place. However, experience in the courts has led us, and in particular my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn—who is much better informed on these matters than I am—to question whether the formulation which was produced in the 1991 Act is adequate to the purpose.
Perhaps I may explain the position. At present under Section 32A the evidence of a child witness may be taken in the form of a video recording. That video recording is available to the court. At present there is no possibility for any evidence-in-chief arising from that evidence which has been given in the form of a video recording to be questioned in the court either by the judge or by counsel representing the party on whose side the evidence is being given. I am sure that I have used wrong phrases, but perhaps noble Lords will understand what I seek to say.
The child has given his evidence in the form of a video recording. So far as concerns the child, he is immediately subject to cross-questioning by counsel for the opposing sides. Having given his evidence in the form of a video recording—it is a humane way of

1464
dealing with the issue—because it is the opposing counsel who has instructions to cross-question him the child has the idea that the court is opposed to his evidence. Recent experience has indicated that that concept can cause terrible problems.
Mr. Justice Kay wrote yesterday to the Home Secretary on the issue. He made his comments in open court. He has authorised me to refer to the case about which he wrote to the Home Secretary. He has just completed a very long trial in Swansea in which a number of adults were charged with sexual abuse of children. Clearly there were a number of children. They gave their evidence in the form of video recordings. Mr. Justice Kay states:
"Under the Act, since it was not suggested by the prosecution that matters had not been dealt with either adequately or at all in the video, I had no power to allow any questions by the prosecution before this process began.
"The children were thus confronted for days at a time by hostile counsel putting questions to them, as they were obliged to do on their instructions, that almost every word they uttered was untrue. They saw no other person in court and had no opportunity to see that there were others present who did not share the views apparently being expressed in court".
As Mr. Justice Kay makes clear, no one wants to extend the questioning of children in court. However, the point that he argues, as does the NSPCC, which has suggested that the amendment be put to your Lordships, is that there should be the possibility of some friendly questioning on the evidence in chief by counsel on the children's own side before they are subjected immediately to the hostile cross-questioning from the other side. That procedure would give the children who have given evidence on the video the understanding that the court is not entirely stacked against them. Mr. Justice Kay says that in fact some of the children became extremely distressed at this continual question-ing which had not in any way been counteracted by friendly questioning. One of the children in fact refused to go on giving evidence because he said, "No one in court believes anything I say".
Under those circumstances, a modest amount of questioning on the evidence in chief by the judge or by the counsel on the children's own side would, it is suggested, be helpful in the interests of justice. It is clearly an extremely difficult area. It is an area in which everyone concerned seeks to do the best in the interests both of obtaining the right decision from the point of view of justice and of not distressing the children who have to give evidence. I do not suggest that there is any ill will on either side. However, the evidence from the NSPCC, and from one particular judge who has been involved in the matter for a period of nine months, is that it is worth considering the addition of the word "adequately" into Section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act. I am encouraged in that view by the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, when he said that,
"it was the Government's clear view that examination could recur when matters had not been adequately dealt with in the videotape".—[Official Report, 23/5/94; col. 586.]
I hope that the House will agree that the amendment gives effect to the statement of the Lord Advocate and provides some modest improvement of the law in this very difficult matter. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, for the benefit of those of us whose minds are not quite as sharp now as they were before dinner, will the noble Lord be kind enough to read to us the words of Section 32A(5) (b)?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish that I could. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to do so. I have not been favoured with those words.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, not unusually, the noble Lord's confidence is misplaced. I shall not be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, those words. However, in default of that, perhaps I may paraphrase what I understand to be the purpose.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, the problem is this. There is in general terms a prohibition, which is stated in the Act, on counsel for the prosecution going over the evidence which has already been given by the child on the video. The question arises as to whether or not the prosecution is entitled to ask questions of the child where a matter has not adequately been dealt with. The problem appears to be that some judges have interpreted the section as it stands in the statute book at present as prohibiting any questioning at all, even if the matter has not been adequately dealt with. If it has been touched on, or dealt with at all, they have said that the prosecution cannot ask any questions. It is to allow the prosecution to ask questions where the matter has not been adequately dealt with that the noble Lord raises the issue.
As the noble Lord said, it is not a party political matter in any sense. When the matter was going through the House in 1991 I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers expressed the view on behalf of the Government at the time that indeed the provision meant "adequately dealt with". However, since the matter has been put in doubt by decisions of various judges, and since it is clearly correct that it should be put beyond doubt now, and that questioning should be allowed where the matter has not been adequately dealt with, we are more than happy to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke on this matter too, and expressed the view that, broadly speaking, the issue bore out her experience in practice. We are more than happy to accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He appreciates, as I do, how difficult the matter is and how difficult it is to reach perfection. We have not reached perfection by changing the law in this way. However, I am grateful to him for his acceptance of the argument. I have no doubt that my noble friends who raised the matter previously will be equally grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 88A and 89 not moved.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Recall of life prisoners while on licence
. For section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 there shall be substituted the following section—
Recall of life prisoners while on licence.
"39. — (1) A life prisoner—

(a) who is released on licence under this Part; and

(b) who fails to comply with such conditions as may for the time being be specified in the licence,

shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a fixed term not exceeding three months.

(2) The magistrates' court by which a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above may, whether or not it passes any other sentence on him, order him to be recalled to prison, notwithstanding the terms of the licence on which he is released.
(3) Before ordering the recall of a prisoner under subsection (2) above the court shall—

(a) consider any representations in respect of the; recall made—

(i) in writing or in person by that prisoner and by any representative of his;

(ii) the Board;

(iii) the Secretary of State; and

(b) inform the prisoner of the reasons for recalling; him to prison.

(4) Any person ordered to be recalled to prison under subsection (2) above shall be liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence and, if at large, shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment provides that a life prisoner recalled to prison after release would have the right of early access to a court of law. It may well be that the provision should be drafted differently, but it is the principle that I wish to lay before the House.
I am not surprised that very few people in the House have considered the matter with proper care because I had not myself considered it over the years as carefully as I would now wish to have done. I do not remember raising the issue previously in debate. However, I hope that any aggressiveness that I may have shown to the noble Earl earlier will be forgiven and forgotten and that with his customary good nature he will bring an objective, cool, calm and deliberate mind to bear on the amendment. I do not expect a very positive answer tonight. But this is a matter to which the House must return.
It happens to have come home to me in more than one case recently. I shall mention just one case and everybody will know what I am talking about, as will people who read these remarks. There is a certain prisoner who killed his wife after a row. He spent 13 years in prison. I do not say that that is too long or too short a period, but he spent that period in prison where I visited him on several occasions.
Within a few months of coming out he was back in prison, where he is still. When he came out of prison he became associated with a lady who, I understand, is engaged in social work. He became dissatisfied with her, as perhaps she became dissatisfied with him, and the relationship broke up. He has given me his side of the story, but I have not heard hers. When the relationship broke up she went to the police and accused him of assaulting her. The police interrogated her but did not interrogate him. They interrogated one party but not the other. The probation officer reported the matter to the Home Office. The next thing the man knew was that he was being arrested by police officers. He did not

1467
even know why he was being arrested. That was in April. It is now July, and unless anything has happened today, he has not yet come before the Parole Board. Even if he does come before the Parole Board he will not be represented. That would not be the situation if he had been a discretionary lifer. But leaving aside that issue, which should be looked at on its own, the fact is that here is someone who will have been in prison, whatever the Parole Board decides, for three months without any access to a court of law or any chance of proving his case to anybody. That cannot be justice.
I do not believe that this is one of those instances that anybody designs. Indeed, when I spoke to the parole authorities about it I believe I am right in saying that they were a little surprised that he had been so long in prison without coming before the Parole Board. That is the situation. Here is a man who, so far as I know, is still in prison tonight. He has been there for three months simply on the say-so of a woman who convinced a probation officer without the man being interrogated. That is grossly unfair. I do not believe that anybody would justify it. I do not believe that anybody designed it or intended that it should happen that way. But that is the way it happened. My amendment is intended to enable a person in that position to come at an early date before a court of law. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wonder if I may say just a very brief word on this matter. I know that the time is late. I declare an interest as chairman of the Parole Board.
The amendment essentially copies Section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which provides for magistrates' courts to deal with the recall of short-term prisoners who are released automatically at half their sentence on parole licence. It was thought right in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that if it looked as though those licences were going wrong, the magistrates' courts should be the place where it should be decided whether short-term prisoners—that is, prisoners serving under four years—should be recalled or whether they should not.
As the noble Earl's Amendment No. 90 deals specifically with life sentence prisoners, is it really desirable to seek to apply a recall system which is being used at the moment only for short-term prisoners who have received automatic early release? The decision whether or not to release a mandatory or discretionary lifer on life licence does not fall within the responsibilities of the magistrates' courts. We all know that. Therefore I should like to ask the Government a question which I am certain my noble friend is ready to answer. It is simply this. Do the Government take the view that it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State and the Parole Board, who are responsible for deciding whether life licences should be issued, to be removed from deciding whether those life licences should be revoked if the circumstances require it.
Perhaps I may add just one more point. It is only fair to say—and it is appropriate to say it—that I believe that the Home Secretary takes the very greatest possible care

1468
in issuing detailed guidance on recalls for long-term and mandatory life sentence prisoners, which includes taking account in all cases of the recommendations of the supervising probation officer. Arguably, that is, if the noble Earl will forgive my saying so, preferable to the making of representations under subsection (3) of his amendment which would be both cumbersome and time-consuming.
In moving the amendment, the noble Earl said that he was interested in the principle of this amendment. So am I. Hence the questions that I venture to ask my noble friend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about the period spent in custody by the prisoner to whom he refers before his case can be heard by the Parole Board. I do not, though, think it is an argument for bringing recall arrangements for lifers into line with those for prisoners who are serving less than four years in prison.
Offenders are given a life sentence either because they have committed murder or because they have committed another offence so serious that it justifies a life sentence, or because they are considered to be dangerous. In all these cases a key purpose of the life sentence is to protect the public by ensuring that such offenders are subject to supervision on release and that they should remain subject to recall to prison for the rest of their lives.
There is always an element of risk in releasing those who have committed a grave offence and whose circumstances at the time of the offence warranted a life sentence. It is important that this risk should be minimised and that licensees should be able to be recalled if their conduct gives cause for concern. My noble friend Lord Belstead asks: is it inappropriate for the Secretary of State or the Parole Board to recall such people? My answer is: no, it is not inappropriate. One can just imagine the outcry if a life licensee were to commit a further grave crime, where that could have been avoided if those concerned had been able to read the warning signs and recall him to prison in advance. An accusation of assault would be an obvious instance. The public would rightly be horrified if someone who was on life licence was allowed to stay at large in those sorts of circumstances.
It is entirely right where there is evidence that a licensee is acting in a way which causes concern, even if such behaviour does not amount to breach of his licence conditions, that he can be recalled immediately —that is, before he becomes a real threat to the public. Under this amendment the licensee would only come to the attention of the court if he breached his licence. In our view that would not provide anything like a sufficient safeguard. There may be other warning signs which do not constitute a breach of licence which would warrant his recall, at least while his case was reconsidered.
It is also right that normally the Parole Board should consider whether to recommend a life licensee's recall to prison. The Parole Board is trained and experienced in assessing risk and has the benefit of advice from a psychiatrist. It will also have before it all the evidence

1469
on which previous Parole Board decisions have been taken, including reports on the offender's conduct in prison. Magistrates are simply not trained to deal with this kind of assessment. They do not have the same expertise; nor would they be able to guarantee to have all the relevant documents before them.
In cases where recall decisions are taken by the Home Secretary without a Parole Board recommendation, it is because there is reason to believe that it is in the public interest to recall licence before such a recommendation is practical—in other words, it is an emergency. These cases are referred to the Parole Board as soon as practicable after recall. Again, it would simply not make sense for magistrates to get involved in those kinds of circumstances. The disadvantages would be the same, and there is the additional question of urgency. If it is not practicable to put the matter to the Parole Board, the same would be true of a magistrates' court.
It would be manifestly unjust if someone who was recalled was detained in prison indefinitely with no further review. But that is simply not the case. The Parole Board will consider all the information appertaining to the licensee in the light of the new information which has come to light and decide whether it is still safe for him to be allowed at large in the community. Where it is persuaded that the risk is acceptable, it will recommend his immediate release. In those circumstances the Home Secretary must release the prisoner.
The noble Earl's concern seems to relate particularly to the length of time a recalled prisoner may have to wait before his recall can be reviewed by the Parole Board. In all cases where a life licence is revoked the person is, immediately on his return to prison, given written reasons for the decision to recall him and he is informed of his right to make representations to the Parole Board. The prisoner is also provided with a copy of the papers which were before the Parole Board when it recommended recall.
In cases where the recall took place in an emergency without a Parole Board recommendation, the prisoner is given a copy of the papers to be placed before the board when it comes to review the Home Secretary's decision to recall the licence. How quickly a case is reviewed by the Parole Board depends upon how long the prisoner needs to make his representations, but normally recall cases are referred to the Parole Board within a few weeks of the prisoner's return to prison. But there have been occasions where prisoners have requested a longer time in which to formulate representations.
What is at stake here is not the irreversible revocation of a life licence. It is the incarceration of a potentially dangerous offender until the safety of his continued freedom can be assessed.
We should not forget that these offenders have in the case of murderers forfeited their right to liberty for the rest: of their lives because of what they have done. In the case of discretionary lifers, they have similarly forfeited their right to liberty should they be judged to be dangerous. It is clearly up to these people so to conduct themselves that they give no cause for concern. That is the basis on which they were released in the first place.
The Earl of Longford: I suppose that chat can be described as a very reactionary reply. The announce-ment that anybody who receives a life sentence has forfeited his right to liberty for the rest of his life is quite unacceptable. I have never heard that said plainly in this House before. But I have to swallow it. The Minister said it tonight. I only hope that when the new government come in that kind of attitude will be reversed. It is not the fault of the Minister It may be the fault of Mr. Howard. I do not know. It may be the fault of the Government. I think that it is an intolerable attitude towards fellow human beings.
With regard to this particular situation, I do not see how the Minister is able to defend such delays. I doubt whether he can do so or would try to defend them. Something must have gone wrong there. I think that three months is probably some mistake and somebody has slipped up somewhere. It happens in organisations and I think that it has happened here. It may be that three months is an abnormal length. It is no good questioning the Minister now, but I shall come back to this matter in later debates, possibly at Third Reading but probably more likely in later debates.
In the case of discretionary life prisoners, why is it that under pressure from Europe the ex-prisoner is allowed to appear and be represented but that is not the case with mandatory life prisoners? I do not want to cross-examine the noble Earl. It has been a long day and I expect that there is more of it to come. But that is a question that will be put to him very often. No doubt the noble Earl has his own philosophy—but in my eyes it is a very reactionary one—toward life prisoners. Tonight I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Powers of police to take non-intimate body samples]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 35, line 37, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3C) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Clause 50 and Amendments Nos. 91 to 94, to which I wish to speak now, we move on to Part IV of the Bill, which is entitled "Police Powers" and which is specifically concerned with police powers to take intimate samples. These four amendments are not concerned with the issues that we raised in amendments at Committee, most of which we did not debate because of pressure of time. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me in June in such detail about the amendments that I did not move. Does he not remember that he wrote to me? He will know that a new Minister who comes into office asks his civil servants how he is to write letters. The answer he is given is that he does not write letters but only signs them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I remember the letter with pristine clarity. I wondered whether it was appropriate to write to the noble Lord and was advised that it would be a good idea. I decided to write to the noble Lord, and I well remember doing so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was extremely courteous of the Minister and his letter was

1471
most helpful. As a result, I have not returned to the issues that I raised in Committee. I move now to a very specific issue in relation to intimate samples. The thrust of these four amendments is not to change the definitions of intimate and non-intimate samples but to seek to ensure that where samples are sought they shall be required only for those offences where, in particular, DNA profiling can be useful in evidence. In these amendments it is provided that the Secretary of State can make regulations listing such offences rather than seek to do so on the face of the Bill.
The present position is that these samples can be obtained only for serious arrestable offences which, as your Lordships know, include rape, murder and other very serious offences. Under Clause 49(3) (b) that possibility is extended to all recordable crimes, which goes a good deal beyond serious arrestable offences. All recordable crimes could include, for example, fare-dodging on public transport, shoplifting and similar offences where it could not possibly be claimed that DNA profiling was a relevant consideration. In Clause 50 it is provided that non-intimate samples can be obtained by force, not just for the purposes of investigation but for any reason. The matter is left entirely open. It seems to us that this goes a good deal beyond what is necessary for the purposes of the pursuit of justice, or indeed what the Runciman Commission discuss in a very thoughtful section of its report. The report recognises, as we do, that one cannot and should not seek to resist the course of science and that the availability of DNA profiling in identifying individuals and connecting them with samples relevant to the offence is a valuable advance in the pursuit of crime. There is nothing in that with which we disagree, and nothing in our amendments which derogates from that. In accepting that, the Runciman Commission propose a number of precautions which are not represented in Part IV of the Bill. To take only one example, Runciman said that samples taken in this way should be destroyed after use and not be retained.
I remind your Lordships that the definition of intimate samples is fairly wide and rather nasty. It includes blood, semen, other tissues and swabs from orifices of the body, including the mouth. Is it really the intention of the Government that it should be permissible to take such samples for the purposes of DNA profiling for the whole range of recordable crimes rather than simply for those offences where it may be relevant in providing identification? I suggest that if the general public knew what was now proposed they would believe that in the pursuit of efficient and scientific criminal investigation we were going too far. I believe that we are going too far in the way this part of the Bill is drafted. I hope that the Government will think again and see merit in the thrust of these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made out a most convincing case for incorporating these safeguards into the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will consider the amendments favourably.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord would remove the main plank of the proposed new approach to DNA samples by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which is implemented in these clauses. The Royal Commission noted on page 15 of its report:
"It is not uncommon for persons arrested for sexual offences to have previous convictions for other types of serious offence, for example burglary".
In Recommendation 20, the Royal Commission proposed:
"The police should have the power to take without consent non-intimate samples for the purpose of DNA analysis from all those arrested for serious criminal offences, whether or not DNA evidence is relevant to the particular offence".
It is important that the House should understand the background to the changes to the law proposed in Clause 50. At present a body sample may be taken only where the sample will tend to prove or disprove the person's involvement in a particular offence. This contrasts with the arrangements for fingerprinting, where fingerprints may be taken from anyone who is charged with an offence and can be retained on a database if the person is convicted. We believe, along with the Royal Commission, that body samples for the purposes of DNA analysis should be placed on much the same basis as fingerprints.
In 1989 the Home Office Research and Planning Unit published a study entitled Changes in rape offences and sentencing which contained a number of startling statistics which are relevant to the matter we are now discussing. This research looked at the criminal histories of rapists convicted in 1985. The research showed that 80 per cent. of rapists had at least one previous conviction for what I might call an "ordinary" criminal offence, if one can think of what an "ordinary" criminal offence is. Thirty per cent. of rapists had more than 10 previous convictions for "ordinary" criminal offences.
The point of the Government's proposals in Clause 50 is to ensure that the police are able to take a DNA sample from people who are charged with "ordinary" criminal offences and retain it on a database if they are convicted so that, just as with fingerprint records, if DNA traces are found at the scene of a crime in future it will be possible to trace them back to the offender if he has previous convictions.
The Government believe that by treating DNA in the same way as fingerprints it will significantly increase the ability of the police to detect crime and will also deter some offenders, who know that their DNA is already on record, from committing further crimes. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that his amendments would significantly diminish the effectiveness of our proposals. I hope that he will be able to see the wisdom of leaving the Bill as it is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation but I note the difference between the phrase which he used about "ordinary" criminal offences for which rapists have been convicted and the quotations which he gave the House from the Royal Commission report. Both of the two quotations referred to serious offences, which is exactly what our amendment is seeking to achieve.

1473
I hesitate to say that the noble Earl has misrepresented the views of the Royal Commission but I do say, without indulging in a complete textual analysis of that valuable part of the Royal Commission report, that the suggestion that the Royal Commission's report has been faithfully reflected in this part of the Bill, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission, first, referred continuously to serious offences and, secondly, did not treat DNA samples in the same way as fingerprints in the sense that it suggests that the samples should be destroyed, is a misrepresentation of the facts.
I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. I am not convinced by his argument that we are significantly weakening the provisions of this part of the Bill, certainly not to the extent that it outweighs the civil liberties aspect of the amendments we are proposing. It may be that we shall return to this matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 94 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Fingerprints and samples: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 36, line 33, after ("roots") insert ("from such part of the body as is reasonably chosen by the person from whom the sample is taken").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, two or three weeks ago Auberon Waugh, writing in the Daily Telegraph, castigated this Bill, and not for the first time. He went on to describe it as 40 Bills crammed into one. Mr. Waugh, again not for the first time, was exaggerating, but only slightly. It would not be wholly unfair to describe it as perhaps eight Bills crammed into one. The result is that important matters, or those which large numbers of people consider to be important, get between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the attention and scrutiny they deserve, while those which most people do not consider to be particularly important get no more than 10 per cent. of the scrutiny they deserve.
When I think of the hours this House spent, and quite rightly, in passionately debating the proposals to allow intimate body searches contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill 10 years ago—there were strongly held feelings on both sides and a good deal of opposition to the idea of body searches—it is extraordinary how little time we have spent on the proposal to allow the police to pull a person's hair out by the roots. That is something which is comparable in many ways to intimate body searches and many would find the two equally unpleasant.
If anyone other than the police were to pull a person's hair out by the roots it would constitute an assault in law, and not surprisingly, because it can on occasion draw blood—admittedly only a spot of blood, but blood nonetheless. So, if it has to happen for DNA purposes —I do not challenge the Government's right to do that because it may be necessary and I am prepared to accept the argument on that point—at least those from whom hair is to be plucked and who may be wholly innocent in fact as well as in law, should have the right to choose the least painful and disagreeable method by being

1474
allowed to choose the part of their body which is the least sensitive from their point of view. Eivery human being is different: for some people it may be the scalp and for others the chest or the calf and so on. But they should be given that choice.
I have used the word "reasonably" in the amendment so if someone is bald that person cannot say "You can only pluck hair from my scalp". That would be ridiculous. The police would then have the right to say, "No, the hair must be from somewhere else other than the scalp"—hence the word "reasonable". The amendment is not very elegantly worded, but then it is not a very elegant subject. Some safeguard has to be incorporated. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not find too much difficulty with the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, proposes so far as hair samples for DNA purposes are concerned. The Home Office will be issuing guidance to the police as to the way in which the new regime for body samples should be implemented, and this is precisely the kind of matter which we will be addressing in that guidance.
I do question, however, whether it is a proper matter for inclusion in statute. It seems to me that the words of the amendment set down a degree of operational detail which is not appropriate to a statute. In particular, they can impose inflexibilities which may cause legal difficulties. For example, hair samples can be used for a variety of purposes—from testing for drugs to making a visual match with a hair found at the scene of a crime. In the case of a visual match, it is clearly important that the right kind of hair is matched. There would be no point in trying to match the hair from somebody's forearm with an eyelash found at the scene of a crime.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances that we will deal with the matters which are raised by his amendment in guidance to the police on the taking of body samples so far as hair samples for DNA art; concerned and that, on that basis, he may feel it appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that answer and for his explanation of why, in his opinion and the opinion of the experts in the Home Office, the amendment would be excessively inflexible. The important thing—I am encouraged by his answer —is that the Home Office intends to issue guidance on this matter. That is reassuring, and as long as the guidance is adhered to, there is nothing more to worry about. However, we shall obviously have to monitor this in the years to come. As I have said, so long as the guidance is adhered to—the noble Earl has given us his assurance on that—I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 [Power to remove trespassers on land]: [Amendment No. 96 not moved. ]
[Amendment No. 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 97 A:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
( "Trespass: power to stop persons from proceeding

.—(1) If a constable in uniform reasonably believes that a person is on his way to land to which a direction under section 56(1) is in force, he may, subject to subsection (2) below—

(a) stop that person, and

(b) direct him not to proceed in the direction of the said land.

(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above shall only be exercised at a place within 5 miles of the boundary of the land to which the direction applies.

(3) If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) above has been given to him fails to comply with that direction, he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Clause 60 the Government have accepted that the police need a specific statutory power to direct persons who are on their way to a rave and within five miles of the boundary of a site not to proceed any further. The amendment would apply similar provisions to the problems which Clause 56 seeks to address.
In Committee, my noble friend was not convinced of the need for my amendment. He suggested that Clause 65 trespass cases would not be on the same major scale as those encountered with raves and that the assembly powers of Clause 65 could be invoked against mass trespass.
In the case of the Castlemorton Common incident in Worcestershire in 1992, the police found themselves facing a rapid build-up of very large numbers of travellers about whom they had had very little warning. As my noble friend knows, a Clause 65 ban on the assembly can help only where the authorities have at least several days' notice. The notice was given far too late in the case in question. A clear legal power to disperse such persons on their way to such an event would surely help the police to control mass trespass, which has every prospect of getting worse and out of hand.
The new clause provides the police with similar powers for Clause 56 situations to those provided for Clause 58 raves. The Association of Chief Police Officers has indicated to the Home Office that it is strongly in favour of the extension. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend will agree to this minor amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord describes this as a "minor amendment". He will have seen that in Amendments Nos. 101A and 117 the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I are proposing to reduce, in Clauses 60 and 65, the limit from five miles to one mile. If I may anticipate my speech on the later amendments, the effect would be to reduce the very all-embracing power from 78 square miles to three square miles. The noble Lord is now proposing to increase that for the relatively simple offence of trespass. I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I said at the Committee stage, I have some considerable sympathy with my

1476
noble friend's intentions, but I have to tell him that I do not think that his new clause would be either desirable or enforceable. I am sure that in saying that I incur the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The provisions of the Bill give extensive—some would say "draconian"—powers to the police to prevent raves on land in the open air. Those are unusual in that they impose significant restrictions on the rights of people to travel and to assemble. But such is the nuisance to whole communities of those large-scale events that we consider the powers to be justified.
Encampments of New Age travellers and the like are different. I agree that they are an intolerable nuisance, particularly to those who are immediately affected. That is why the Government have brought forward the enhanced powers in Clause 56, but I do not think that it would be right to go as far as my noble friend would wish.
For all the misery and total frustration which is caused by groups of New Age travellers, a simple encampment cannot be said to create quite the wide-scale problems that raves do. With raves, we are dealing with a public, rather than a private, nuisance, particularly because of the damage which they do to the community by the noise they create from which it is impossible for man or beast to escape, and it is easier therefore to see that wider ranging powers are required.
In the case of raves there is hard evidence on which the police can act. Published leaflets give details of potential rave sites, and people will often clearly be travelling with the purpose of attending a rave at a particular site. With New Age travellers, that evidence is not usually available, and the police would be hard pressed to justify in court their action which was justified solely by a belief that people were travelling to a particular piece of land. That would open the way for all sorts of legal arguments.
Where the police have advance intelligence of a trespassory assembly which may result in serious disruption to the life of the community or significant damage to sites of special importance, they can use the powers provided in Clauses 65 and 66. I hope therefore that my noble friend will see the wisdom of what I have tried to explain to him and will feel that his amendment would be inappropriate.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am afraid, with the greatest respect, that I do not see the wisdom of it, but I am prepared to concede it. I shall say just one or two things in summing up. First, It is extremely arguable whether raves are worse than Clause 56 offences. If my noble friend were allowed by the Welsh Office to visit Bala he might gain a different impression from the people who live there. I make the point time and time again. I am asking only for a power for the police. They do not have to use it. My noble friend knows perfectly well that the police are unwilling to use draconian powers such as those he suggests the amendment gives them.
I am surprised that my noble friend's department does not wish to help the police more, but that is his department's affair. It would be better to try to prevent a problem than to let it build up. I was trying to prevent

1477
it with the amendment, but I realise that I do not have the support of the House and, in particular, that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am not surprised that I do not have his support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 97B:
Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Power to remove unauthorised campers on highway land

.—(l) if the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are present on land forming part of a highway and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, and that any of those persons has caused damage to land adjoining the land forming part of a highway, or to property on the said land, or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier of the said land, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or property they have with them on the land.

(2) A direction under subsection (1) above, if not communicated to the persons referred to in subsection (1) by the police officer giving the direction, may be communicated to them by any constable at the scene.

(3) If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) above has been given which applies to him fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(4) A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.

(5) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Government for the great improvements they have made with Clause 56 compared to the present law contained in Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. In Committee, I moved an amendment to extend police powers under Clause 56 to include all highway land, not just footpaths and bridleways, which of course are in the Bill. My noble friend suggested that the police already have adequate powers to deal with unauthorised camping on major highways but he kindly agreed to look at my proposal.
In the later debate on Clause 72 my noble friend referred at col. 1122 of Hansard to the habit of travellers camping on bits of surplus highway land. In practice, because Section 39 does not cover highways, the police experience serious difficulties in moving on travellers who while not obstructing the free flow of traffic therefore do not offend against the Highways Act, which my noble friend said they would. They would not in fact in areas such as lay-bys or on improvements to highway land, commonly called oxbows.
Considerable damage to property, and distress to humans and to animals, has been caused to farmers and other local occupiers with land adjoining the highway by people in such encampments. Yet the police cannot use their powers to move them on because they are not trespassing on private land. The new clause seeks to close that loophole by giving the police powers similar in nature to those in Clause 56. It would operate only when an encampment on a highway land had resulted in damage to adjoining land or property, or to threatening

1478
behaviour towards adjoining occupiers. Like Clause 56, it provides a "reasonable excuse" defence. This is a public order matter as opposed to a trespass matter.
Once again, I must tell my noble friend that the police support the amendment and I ask him to support it too. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have been most sympathetic to all that my noble friend Lord Stanley has tried to do to help people in rural areas. I fully understand and sympathise with the intention underly-ing this new clause. However, I very much doubt whether it is necessary, because it overlaps to such a great extent with the law as it stands. It is already an offence to cause malicious damage anywhere and in any circumstances. It is an offence to cause a breach of the peace. In certain circumstances, the use of insulting words or behaviour is also punishable.
I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about the matter. Probably he can set at rest the mind of my noble friend and of the police by reminding them that there are already powers which cover almost all of what my noble friend has in mind.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend is trying to achieve with the amendment. I hear what my noble friend Lord Renton is saying. However, often the offences which arise as a result of people wandering on to private land from sites, as described by my noble friend Lord Stanley, are civil offences. We all know that it lakes a great deal of time for a private individual to bring a successful prosecution under civil law. During that time a great deal of damage can occur.
I suspect that my noble friend's aim is to get the police to solve a problem which can be solved through the civil courts but which takes a great deal of time. From that point of view, I have a great deal of sympathy for what he says. However, I suppose—and I am speculating slightly—that if individuals wandered on to private land from these sites and they were to interfere with farming activities they could be caught under Clauses 63 and 64, which deal with aggravated trespass. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend's
amendment would apply a version of Clause 56 to major highways and it could give the police additional powers to direct trespassers on the highway to leave where they have caused a nuisance on land which is adjoining the highway.
As I said in Committee, the Government do not think that it would be right to extend Clause 56 to major highways. Not only is the type of nuisance which is created by an encampment on a highway very different from that which afflicts an occupier, but the police have perfectly adequate powers under highway law to clear any obstruction. I fear that the amendment would bring unwelcome duplication and confusion to the law. The amendment also goes further than Clause 56 by applying its provisions to those trespassers on highway

1479
land who cause a nuisance on adjoining land. Under this amendment, unlike Clause 56, no one need ask the trespassers to leave.
The purpose of Clause 56 is to provide the police with powers to restore to the occupier the use of his land. The powers are dependent, therefore, on the landowner taking initial action to ask the trespassers to leave. We believe that it would be wrong in principle to extend those powers to deal with problems which might arise to third parties. Where people cause damage or use abusive behaviour, or commit other offences, there is a remedy under the general criminal law and public order law, as my noble friend Lord Renton suspected.
What my noble friend is trying to do is to say that those people are not trespassing on a person's land but they are residing beyond the hedge and defiling his land, and because of that they should be moved. The fact is that Clause 56 is dependent wholly on trespass. It would be difficult to use those substantial powers to move someone not because he was trespassing but because he was not trespassing, though he was doing something, however objectionable, to someone else's land. The civil law should deal with that.
I know that my noble friend feels strongly about these issues—and I do not blame him. I know that he welcomes the general thrust of the Government's proposals, but I hope he will realise why we feel that it would be difficult to accept the amendment as it stands.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer. He did not reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Peel as to whether the aggravated trespass provision would apply. I do not believe that it would.
We are slightly at cross purposes—and I understand why we are—because I am suggesting that this is not a trespass matter but a public order matter. My noble friend says, quite rightly, that Clause 56 is a trespass provision and does not deal with the issue of public order.
The main difference in our approach to this is that I wish, as I believe does my noble friend, although perhaps it does not apply in this particular case, to try to prevent causes of public disorder which these encampments can and indeed do cause. These people camp in an area and then chase the sheep, rob and do other things. I wish to say, as do the police, that those people are a nuisance and that we should remove the cause of the problem.
I understand the reason why my noble friend on the Front Bench cannot agree to the amendment, but I would quarrel with him with regard to what he said about the Highways Act. That cannot be used to remove such people because they are not causing an obstruction to the traffic; they are merely causing a public nuisance.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, although I am not entirely happy about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a rave]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 44, line 18, after ("apply") insert ("— (a) in England and Wales,'").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 99, 101, 105 to 112 and 213. In fact, Amendment No. 213 is the most important amendment because it extends to Scotland the powers in relation to raves and a power to retain and charge for seized vehicles and property under Clause 59(4).
Amendments Nos. 98, 99, 101 and 105 to 112 are technical amendments, ensuring the relevant application of the powers to Scotland. They are essentially consequential on Amendment No. 213.
When consideration was given in Committee to amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay of Bragar and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I indicated that our previous conclusion was that the Bill's provisions relating to raves were not needed north of the Border. Existing powers were deemed to be adequate to deal with any existing problems—and I stress "existing problems"—likely to be encountered in controlling unlicensed raves of the type covered by the clauses.
A generation somewhat younger than those noble Lords present here tonight see some of those powers as being an attack on the right to dance. But what we have been concerned to determine is whether in extreme cases the police have sufficient powers to deal with problems. In Scotland the police already have powers to seize music-making equipment when an offence has been committed under Section 54 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. It was our view that the power of seizure may serve as a deterrent to persons who might otherwise be inclined to hold illegal raves in Scotland.
However, in the light of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, during the debate on his amendment—and I hope that the influential noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will pass on to the noble Lord the fact that we have taken his views into consideration—I said that we would take advantage of the period between Committee and Report to conduct a reassessment of the risks of a growth in illegal raves of the type experienced in parts of England against the background of existing powers in Scotland to control such events. We have now undertaken that reassess-ment. At present it is an offence under existing law, especially under Section 54 of the 1982 Act, to use sound producing equipment so as to give persons cause for annoyance. In certain circumstances equipment so used can be seized and retained by the police. Further, a limited measure of control for raves may be provided under Section 41 of the Act. That enables local authorities to require a licence for the use of premises as a place of public entertainment.
I am content that those and other provisions in our law are effective to cope with existing raves in Scotland. The question then is whether they will be able to cope in the future. Persons who arrange those events often do

1481
so, not surprisingly, surreptitiously and do not restrict their activities to any particular locality. Given those circumstances, it is not surprising that no hard information exists which suggests that they might turn an unwelcome attention to Scotland if prevented from mounting raves south of the Border. On the other hand, there is no reason to dismiss that possibility.
Taken overall, the Association of Chief Political Officers—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Political!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I believe that they would resent that slip of the tongue in Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not an insult to police officers; it shows the Government's real thinking.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I was trying to say, it is now the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) that organisers of illegal raves may see Scotland as an attractive proposition in order to pursue their activities if they are successfully blocked by the Bill—as, indeed, we hope that they will be—from doing so in England and Wales. The association has now suggested that, on balance, there would be an advantage in having the powers in question applied to Scotland in case we should witness an unwelcome influx of such events on their being proscribed in England and Wales.
While we conclude that the existing legislation can effectively cope with the existing rave scene in Scotland, the powers in question may be hard pressed to deal with any developing change caused as a result of illegal rave organisers turning their sights north of the Border. Therefore, following on from the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, we have concluded that there is merit in the rave powers being extended to Scotland. I urge your Lordships to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, only this week I have heard word of such a party which is to take place this weekend near a West Invernesshire village. Minor events of this kind were held last year and the village was disturbed about that. Therefore these events have already occurred. As my noble and learned friend said just now, if these events were banned in England, I have no doubt at all that Scotland would be the obvious place for them to occur. I am therefore most grateful to my noble and learned friend for having produced this amendment. I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wish to raise a problem which has been submitted to me by the Motor Cycle Action Group. That organisation has 20,000 members in the country as a whole, and I believe it extends to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. It has posed the question of what happens when equipment is confiscated—as is provided for under Clause 61— which does not belong to the group in question. The Motor Cycle Action Group holds large meetings, the primary purpose of which is to discuss and to organise activities in connection with motor cycles. However, at those meetings the group may incidentally play music.

1482
I wish to point out in passing that, although the rubric on this clause refers to raves, there may be a great many other activities which fall within the definition of Clause 58(1) which refers to,
"a gathering … in the open air of 100 or more persons … at which amplified music is played during; the night".
In the course of motor cycle rallies and, I believe, many other kinds of meetings—for example, meetings where traction engines are exhibited—it is the practice to play music over loudspeakers. Some people might say, subjectively, that that was likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of a locality. Consequently the organisers and participants at such a meeting would be caught under a provision which is designed for some completely different purpose.
The point which has been raised with me by the Motor Cycle Action Group is that the equipment which it uses to provide sound at its meetings is almost invariably hired. It will become increasingly difficult to persuade hirers to hire out their equipment if they know that there is even a remote possibility of it being confiscated. I note that in Amendment No. 106, which is proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, there is provision for a claimant to get back the property which he owns—that is to say, a person other than the organisers of the rally, who presumably had hired the equipment for that purpose. The claimant may apply to the court and obtain an order from the court for the equipment to be restored. However, people will regard this as an enormous nuisance.
I have a feeling that the Motor Cycle Action Group is correct in its supposition that even the remotest threat that equipment might be confiscated, and that one might need to apply to the courts, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales, as regards the possibility of getting the equipment back will discourage hirers from hiring out equipment. I believe it is not stated that the court shall restore the equipment, but rather that it may restore the equipment to the owner if he satisfies the court of certain conditions. That hurdle which may occur as regards reclaiming the equipment will, I believe, be enough to stop the owners from hiring their equipment out to bodies such as the Motor Cycle Action Group in the first place. That would create great difficulties for that group as regards organising the music which is an incidental part of its rallies.
Obviously I do not have an amendment to propose on this matter, but I thought it was worth raising this point in connection with the amendment of the noble and learned Lord in case he had not considered it in the drafting of these provisions as they apply to Scotland. Of course they are parallel to those which have already been agreed by your Lordships for England and Wales. I certainly hope that before we leave this Bill it will be possible for the Government to have the opportunity of giving consideration to the point I have raised. Perhaps we may be able to discuss it after this debate or return to it on Third Reading.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to raise one question on this point in respect of Clause 59. I draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (10). If the

1483
clause is now to apply to Scotland I wonder whether there should also be a definition of "local authority" in the subsection. The subsection reads:
"In this section—
'entertainment licence' means a licence granted by a local authority".
The words "local authority" do not apply anywhere else. As the subsection defines a local authority in London, England and Wales I wonder whether there should be a further definition of a local authority within Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps with leave I may reply briefly. In relation to the question of forfeiture and seizure, I shall read what the noble Lord had to say on that matter. I am sure that he will appreciate that the matter of forfeiture is best determined by the courts. One cannot insist that, if an application is made, in every circumstance the property will be returned to those who make objection to such seizure. However, I shall certainly look at the matter again.
My noble friend is concerned about the definition of local authority. My immediate reaction is that there is no difficulty on that matter in terms of drafting. However, again I shall have another look at that matter to ensure that there is no difficulty, particularly in the context of another Bill which is going through your Lordships' House which would change the basis of local government in Scotland from two tiers to one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 44, line 19, at end insert ("; or (b) in Scotland, to a gathering in premises which, by virtue of section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, are licensed to be used as a place of public entertainment.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert:
(""night" means the period between 23.00 and 07.00 in the morning of the following day; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage your Lordships had an interesting and cheerfully melodious debate on what is meant by the term "night" in Clause 58. The clause turns on the concept of loud music played at night causing serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality. In common with many noble Lords, I would have preferred the new powers to tackle unlicensed raves to be available at all times of the day. However, if they must be confined to the night, I believe that we should at least define what is meant by night. Otherwise there will be uncertainty and a potential weakness in the law, given the relatively short period of darkness in some latitudes in the summer, particularly in Scotland.
The amendment defines night as meaning a period between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning. My reason for choosing those hours is that there is considerable precedent, notably the law restricting the use of car horns at night, which was introduced in 1937

1484
and which no doubt many noble Lords will remember, and the standard period for restricting noise from aircraft night movements. The period is also the time band adopted by the Government in their forthcoming planning guidance on noise.
I believe that this is a sensible amendment. I hope that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope that nobody will accuse me of inconsistency in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on Amendment No. 100 and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on Amendment No. 101A. Both amendments would enhance individual freedom—the latter amendment the freedom to pass along the Queen's highway and generally move around the country, except in exceptional circumstances involving physical threats to persons or property, and this amendment the freedom of people, including perhaps in particular children of school age studying for exams—to enjoy a decent night's sleep.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my recollection is that there are several definitions of "night" to be found in the law. So far as I know, no definition of night is given in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment moved by my noble friend deserves consideration.
In the circumstances envisaged by Clause 58, bearing in mind that we are concerned with people making a noise at night, I should have thought it reasonable and fair to consider that "night" means between 2300 hours and seven o'clock in the morning. Indeed, I would have preferred to make the period rather longer. My noble friend's moderation is commendable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we had a discussion in Committee as to what was meant by "night". Defining anything like that is always difficult. I suppose that the best definition of night is "that which is not day". However, that does not get us far.
I believe that everyone in Committee recognises that this is not an easy area. As presently drafted, the Bill gives police powers to prevent or stop raves which take place during the night, because it is during the night that they cause most distress to the local community. We deliberately did not define "night" but left it to the discretion of the police, and ultimately the courts.
My noble friend seeks to import a statutory definition. I have much sympathy with that because it would make the law much clearer. But simplicity is not always a virtue. In some parts of the country at some times of the year, it can be dark at four o'clock in the evening. In other parts of the country at other times of the year, it is not dark until two o'clock in the morning. In his amendment my noble friend seeks to define "night" as being from 11 o'clock at night until seven o'clock in the morning. My noble friend Lord Renton considers that that is not long enough in which to sleep. I understand that. My grandfather used to say, "I sleep slowly". Therefore, what is sufficient night for some people is not sufficient night for others.
To stop a gathering at 11 o'clock at night might be quite unreasonable. I have no doubt that some noble

1485
Lords may at some time in their lives have been to, or even held, barbecues, possibly with amplified music, which could well continue until after 11 o'clock at night. That could be to the distress of some neighbours. On the other hand, in certain circumstances that hour could also be too late for an event reasonably to continue.
The simple fact is that we would far prefer the matter to be left to the police and the courts to use their discretion as to whether something has gone on in the night. Most people know what the night means; and that means when most people are normally likely to be asleep.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend might—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is in difficulty because at Report stage it is the convention that noble Lords do not speak after the Minister has spoken, unless they preface their remarks by saying "before the noble Lord sits down". However, as I had already sat down for quite a long while, I think that he has probably shot his bolt.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether there might not be a solution to the problem of the definition of "night". I seem to remember that in the Army one "stood to" one hour before sunrise and "stood down" one. hour after sunset. If there is a change of darkness in various parts of the country, to which my noble friend quite rightly drew attention, would not that phrase satisfy the difficulty to which he referred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I might have the leave of the House, I think that the answer is no.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Thank goodness, my Lords; I agree entirely with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I agree that the answer to that is no.
I thought my noble friend was very persuasive, but frankly he did not have a single case of merit in his argument. First, "night" is described in three cases, which I quoted, by the Government as always between 11 o'clock (23.00 hours) and seven o'clock. So I cannot see why we cannot transpose that definition for this case.
My noble friend quoted some lovely cases when some of your Lordships were younger and might have gone to parties. I can only ask him to read Clause 58. None of those cases would be caught by Clause 58, and that is a very serious point. It completely defeats his argument. I shall not read the whole of Clause 58. Clause 58 (2) is quite interesting, as is Clause 58(1), but I will not go through them. I can see that I do not have my noble friend's sympathy. I am sorry about that, because I believe that the point is valid. My noble friend Lord Renton agrees. But I shall have to leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 44, line 39, after ('"'occupier"") insert (", "trespasser"").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke; to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Raves: power to stop persons from proceeding].
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 45, line 33, leave out ("5 miles") and insert ("1 miles")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move Amendment No. 101A I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 117. Amendment No. 101A refers to the same issue in Clause 60 as Amendment No. 117 refers to in Clause 65. Both amendments seek to remedy what appears to us to be a quite extraordinary provision of preventing people going to events: in one case, in Clause 60, a rave; in the other case, in Clause 65, a trespassory assembly.
I have listened to the Ministers on the Front Bench as they have described these powers. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, that some would say they were draconian powers. He also used the words "extensive" and "severe powers". These are certainly very severe powers when we are talking not about people who are at the raves or trespassory assemblies but who are considered by a police constable in uniform to be going towards such assemblies.
We are aware that police in some parts of the country are already anticipating the powers that are given by this Bill. The thought that they may be given parliamentary authority to do the kind of things that are happening fills me with very great alarm. When stopped by a police constable in uniform who asks: "Are you going in the direction of Lower Bolting-in-the-Marsh?", or whatever it may be, and you reply that you are going there, who is to say that you know there is to be a rave there or a trespassory assembly? But the police constable, just by identifying the fact that you are going to that place, will be able to turn you away. You have committed an offence—not a civil offence but one that becomes a criminal offence.
These powers go way beyond the legitimate protection of individuals and, in particular, way beyond the legitimate protection of landowners. They amount to a real intrusion on the freedom of our people to move around our country. They extend this power beyond the land on which the supposed offences are taking place to an area of 78 miles; that is, five miles around the area, instead of the three miles that we propose now. I suggest to the House that they go far too far. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I cannot disappoint the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I think his amendment is most unacceptable. I hope that my noble friend will resist it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when I first looked at this amendment I thought that there might be some merit in it. But the more one applies one's mind to the circumstances envisaged by the clause to which it applies, the more one realises that the amendment is quite unacceptable.

1487
The police officers may be in a car, on bicycles, on motorcycles or on foot. Luckily, these days the police are equipped with radios and are able to keep in touch with each other over a wide area. If a police officer hears that there is a build-up of something which will become a rave, even five miles or more away, and if he sees a vehicle or two obviously of the kind that would attend that rave, perhaps with musical instruments protruding from them or people in the vehicles already playing instruments, I should have thought that he had every reason to say to those people, "Where are you going?" If they are truthful they will say where they are going. The officer may say, "We know what you are going there for and I am obliged to ask you not to go there. I have power under statute to stop you." Even though it is five miles away, it is better that they should be stopped at that distance than that the policeman should have to follow them for another four miles, perhaps on his bicycle, until they are so close as to be within one mile. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, gave a practical objection to the amendment but he did not address the libertarian argument. Like quite a few people, I was very uneasy about the way in which the police stopped miners and their supporters travelling around the country during the miners' strike. It seemed to many people to be stretching the law as it then existed to its very limit and perhaps beyond. But at least it could be argued and was argued that in practice the restrictions, strictly legal or not, almost certainly saved a number of individuals from being injured, possibly seriously.
The same arguments about the prevention of injury to persons or property on balance could be applied to some of the new powers being granted to the police under this Bill where trespass is concerned. That is why I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Amendment No. 117.
However, this clause is not concerned with physical injury or damage to property but with nuisance in terms of noise emanating from a site where people have in general been given permission to gather. On balance, mere nuisance does not seem to justify putting into quarantine an area of 78.57 square miles.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I too am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It seems to me that the powers conferred on the police to move away participants in the noisy gathering should be sufficient to deter those who are likely to contemplate organising such events without the extensive powers conferred by this clause to stop people from even approaching the gathering.
There is a great difference in principle between giving the police powers to stop something that is already causing a nuisance—I think we all agree about the necessity for the police to have powers to stop gatherings that are causing serious nuisance to people in any locality—and saying that people should not even

1488
approach a place where the police suspect that such a gathering is to take place. That is an enormous extension of principle. No one has done anything at that point.
The case is not quite that put by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, where the police ask the traveller a question, having seen musical instruments sticking out from a van which has given them reason to suppose that the driver is approaching the rave. A person may be dressed in a particular kind of clothing which the police think betokens his intention to go to the gathering, and that may be the only reason they have for suspecting that he will do so. If he denies that he is going to the gathering, the police having, as they see it, reasonable cause to suspect that he will attend the rave will order him not to do so. I believe that the police have a very drastic power if they can stop somebody from moving freely about the country, not because he has committed or is even thinking of committing an offence but because they consider that they have reasonable cause to believe that he will attend the gathering. One imagines that if these matters came to court and there was a dispute about whether the police had reasonable cause, in every case the court would take the side of the police in upholding their reasonable belief in the person's intentions.
I believe that we are giving an enormous power to the police and that the more we restrict it the better. I do not agree with the Minister, who said, when we discussed this matter on another amendment in Committee, mat it would impose on the police severe operational difficulties if they could not stop somebody in the space between five miles and one mile from the site of the gathering. One mile is an enormous distance on a road where the police can have their vehicles spaced to intercept travellers who are on the way to the gathering. I do not honestly believe that the Minister, on reflection, will insist that in any country area where the police are on the roads approaching the site of a rave they will have difficulty in stopping people at the shorter distance proposed under the amendment. I beg your Lordships to consider that we are extending the powers of the police very widely to deal with activities which they believe are in contemplation by an individual but which he may not have any intention of carrying out. We ought to restrict that power to the narrowest limits that we have and not be misled into thinking that the evil we propose to combat—the rave itself—means that we must extend the powers over such a wide area as is proposed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the simple fact is that when the police are trying to stop a rave from happening it is essential mat they have the ability to turn people away before sufficient numbers gather to make the dispersal operation impractical. If the police can act only within one mile of the site it will be very difficult for them to prevent the gathering from taking place. I believe that five miles is a reasonable distance, given that these powers are envisaged for use in rural areas.
Amendment No. 117 seeks to introduce a similar restriction in respect of trespassory assemblies. This is all very much a matter of judgment. I said in Committee that the Government's objective in bringing forward Clause 65 was to prevent disruption of the community by assemblies of trespassers in a given and precise area.

1489
This area needs to be wide enough to enable the police effectively to enforce protection but not so wide as to represent an unreasonable interference with people's general freedom of assembly. It can always be a matter of judgment whether the distance should be five, four or three miles or one mile. The fact is that we are dealing with a gathering of people that is likely to involve vast numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that one mile was a vast distance. We are talking here about gatherings that sometimes attract tens of thousands of people. If they all congregate within one mile of the event before the police can take any action, the police will be powerless to prevent the assembly. The people will be overwhelming in their numbers and the police will be unable to turn them back, not least because the very roads on which they will turn them back will already be jammed with other people who are going to the assembly.
These assemblies can be deeply offensive to the local community. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that this is an intrusion into the liberty of people to do what they want to do. But the real intrusion is into the liberty of people when masses of others gather together to disrupt the life of their community. That has happened and does happen. There is no point in the noble Lord saying that it is an infringement of the liberty of people to turn them away. The real infringement of liberty is what happens to the individuals whose lives are disrupted. Directions can be given only where a police officer believes a person to be going to the gathering, not just to the place where it is for some unconnected purpose.
It is as well to remember the point which my noble friend Lord Stanley made earlier. The police will not always use five miles. Of course they will not. But they should have the ability to turn people back within five miles should they deem it necessary in order to stop the event happening and in order to stop all the roads being jammed before they can do anything about it, by which time it would be too late.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister says that it is a matter of judgment. Indeed it is. The judgment we have to make is whether powers which are sought to deal with a particular nuisance should be so extensive as to interfere with the liberty of the subject. The Minister in his speeches, not just today but at earlier stages of the Bill, has continually referred to the seriousness of the nuisance which he is describing. He referred today on more than one occasion to thousands of people. Clause 58 does not say anything about thousands of people. Clause 58 says:
'This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers) at which amplified music is played during the night".
I shall not be so impertinent as the Minister and ask whether any of your Lordships has attended or even held a barbecue, but I suggest that most of us have attended weddings. Weddings take place in the open air; weddings have more than 100 people; weddings involve amplified music; and weddings fall within the definition

1490
of raves as found in Clause 58 of the Bill. The powers which the police have could be applied to weddings of people the police do not like.
The whole point of our objection to this series of clauses about trespassory assemblies, aggravated trespass and so on is not that we are defending the very few extreme cases that take place but that the powers which are sought in the Bill are powers of a police state. They are powers which extend far wider than the examples which the Government choose to give. Every time Ministers seek from the Dispatch Box to defend these powers they defend them by describing the events in much more lurid terms and therefore in much more restricted terms than the terms in which the Bill is drafted.
This Bill is an open invitation for the police and for the authorities generally to interfere in the legitimate activities of people, and particularly of young people, in our country. Our objection to it cannot be encapsulated in the particular amendments which we are forced to introduce in the way in which we consider the Bill in this House. These are repulsive extensions of police power in our society and at some stage they will have to be removed. The difference between five miles and one mile is not a worthy subject, particularly in a Chamber crammed with landowners, on which to seek the opinion of the House tonight, but it is a serious issue which will require parliamentary action in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Power of court to forfeit sound equipment]:
10.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos 105 to 112:
Page 46, line 21, at beginning insert ("Except in a case to which subsection (5A) below applies,").
Page 46, line 25, at end insert:
("(5A) In a case where forfeiture under subsection (1) above has been by order of a Scottish court, a claimant such as is mentioned in subsection (5) above may, in such manner as may be prescribed by act of adjoumal, apply to that court for an order for the return of the property in question.").
Page 46, line 26, after ("(5)") insert (", or by virtue of subsection (5A),").
Page 46, line 35, after ("(5)") insert (", or by virtue of subsection (5A),").
Page 46, line 37, after ("(5)") insert (", or as the case may be by virtue of subsection (5A),").
Page 46, line 43, after ("(5)") insert (", or by virtue of subsection (5A),").
Page 47, line 2, leave out ("convicted") and insert ("— (a) convicted in England and Wales").
Page 47, line 4, at end insert:
("(b) so convicted in Scotland, means the time of his arrest for, or of his being cited as an accused in respect of, the offence;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 98, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 105 to 112. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62 (Retention and charges for seized property]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 47, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) A county court may make an order for the retention of any vehicles which have been seized and removed by a constable under section 57(1) or 59(4).
(1A) A vehicle may not be retained under subsection (1) above if it is the sole or main residence of any person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall seek not to make the more general criticisms which I have made of this part of the Bill. I simply ask the Government whether it is really their intention to use these powers to take away people's homes, because that is what is proposed here. Clause 62 refers to property and it seems to equate vehicles with sound equipment and other property. Do the Government realise that what they are doing is taking away people's homes and providing legitimacy for the removal of those homes? What is going to happen to the people who live in those homes and in particular to the children? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this amendment seems to be unnecessary. It will lead to delay in achieving the purpose which we have in this clause. I am bound to point to out that waiting until the county makes an order is not in conflict but it is incongruous when we compare that with the power in subsection (3) of the clause given to the Secretary of State to make regulations for the,
"disposal and destruction of vehicles".
Subsection (1) of the amendment is inappropriate and unnecessary. But subsection (1A) is more serious. I consider this to be a wrecking provision. It means that, even though breaches of Clause 56(1) involving trespassing and causing damage have taken place, or there have been breaches of Clause 58 where 100 or more people have played loud music at night, the vehicles could stay on the land, however many vehicles there were, if the owners of the vehicles were accustomed to residing in them. That would utterly defeat the purpose which Parliament has so far had in mind in trying to protect the public.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, about a police state, he has completely overlooked that these clauses are necessary for the protection of the public so that people can live in peace and quiet and seclusion in rural areas. I hope that my noble friend will not have any sympathy towards this amendment especially subsection (1A), which is a wrecking provision.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that in the regulations which Ministers draw up under this section a distinction has to be made between individuals who use vehicles as a residence and those who have merely arrived at the site of the trespass in vehicles and have some other home to which they can go. If Ministers do not make such a distinction, what do they believe will happen to the persons who live in those vehicles? They will certainly be treated as homeless within the terms of the recent Government guidelines. That will make the local authority responsible for rehousing them and their children at vast expense to the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Is that really the intention or does not the Minister think that, on the face of this clause, the powers of the court to retain and dispose of vehicles should be

1492
different in the case of vehicles which are used as the main or principal residence of the owners concerned and those whose use of such vehicles is incidental to their presence on the site?
If the Minister does not think that, what provision is being made for other authorities to be notified of the decision of the court so that adequate arrangements can be made for the rehousing of the families and the welfare of the children? At this point, perhaps I may remind the Minister of the extreme anxiety which has been expressed by all children's organisations concerning some of the effects of the Bill. I do not have any particular sympathy with New Age travellers. As the Minister is aware, I want to distinguish between the New Age travellers and the gypsies, for whom I hold a particular regard—and have for many years—and for whom I think special provision ought to continue to be made. We shall come to that point on Monday.
We are talking about New Age travellers here, many of whom are accompanied in their caravans by children. The local authorities' obligation to the children is the same whether the parents belong to the gypsy community or to the New Age traveller community. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with that. You cannot simply remove a vehicle from a site, leave children on the roadside and not make any arrangements for their accommodation. One cannot allow the courts to take away a person's home - and to destroy it, if they wish - without making any alternative provision for looking after the children.
I hope that the Minister will say that that point will be taken care of in the regulations and that adequate accommodation will be made available to such travellers under the homelessness provisions. Unless the noble Earl can give us those assurances, I remain extremely concerned about the effect of the clause.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make the retention of vehicles seized and removed by the police following a direction to leave land under the terms of Clauses 56 and 58 dependent on a county court order rather than on regulations made by the Secretary of State.
I am the first to acknowledge that the seizure of vehicles is a sensitive area. The circumstances in which a vehicle might be retained, like all interferences with private property, must be prescribed by law. It is therefore right that their retention should be carefully regulated and restricted rather than left to the wide discretion of the courts. The regulations are subject to the negative resolution procedure, which will provide Parliament with an opportunity to discuss them. The noble Lord's amendment would provide the courts with no guidance and would therefore allow them to make arbitrary and inconsistent decisions.
The amendment also seeks to provide a restriction that vehicles which are peoples' homes may not be retained. Of course one would not expect lots of vehicles which are homes to be seized. In most cases, people who will be directed to leave will do so for their own good. That is what happens in most cases now, under the existing law which is contained in Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.

1493
What the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is really saying is that, if a person is told and given a direction to remove his vehicle from a certain place, he must do so, but, if the vehicle is occupied by his family, he need not bother. He can stay there and disregard the direction. I do not think that that is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asks what happens if people do not move and have to go into care. That is an extreme view. The fact is that, if these people have trespassed, and in such a way that they are given an order to move, it is up to them to move. It is highly unlikely that they will continue to remain on the land. The noble Lord asks, "What happens if they do?" The fact is that they will have to be moved on. The noble Lord is right about the totally extreme case. Where vehicles are seized, the people concerned would become a liability on the local authority. Frankly, I think that that is highly unlikely and the fact that it is a possibility —even though it is a highly unlikely one—is not sufficient reason for saying that, provided the vehicles are occupied by people, those people can disregard an order. If someone were to ignore such a direction, we see no reason why he should not be open to having his vehicle removed so as to end the nuisance which required the direction in the first place.
Vehicles will, of course, be reclaimable on payment of the appropriate fee, just as someone who is parking illegally in London and has had his car towed away may recover it on payment of the appropriate sum. If we are to have the provision, and I suggest that it is necessary to have it, the amendment would not be an improvement, because one has to make provision for what is to be done when people refuse to obey the order.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask a brief question for elucidation. Will it be possible for the draft regulations which are referred to in subsection (3) to be produced before Third Reading so that your Lordships can see what is proposed to be done by the courts under this provision in the case of families living in accommodation, and the differences in treatment the Minister proposes should be accorded to them as compared to single persons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to consider that point. It is unlikely that we shall be able to get the draft regulations in time for Third Reading. But I shall consider the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is a master at taking government proposals and giving his own explanation of what they mean, which is often entirely different from what they actually mean. What he said in response to the amendment was that we are saying that those who have the vehicles in which they live on land which is designated under the terms of the Bill are being told that they can just get on with it; that there is nothing that can be done about it. The amendment does not say that vehicles cannot be removed from land even if the vehicles are the vehicles in which the people live. What we are talking about in the amendment is a different thing: it is the retention

1494
—in other words, the confiscation—of those vehicles which are homes. That is the issue which is addressed in the second part of the amendment.
In the first part of the amendment we are saying that the confiscation of people's homes shall be possible only if that is required by a county court. It is irrelevant to say that the county court has no indication of the basis upon which it will confiscate people's homes. Of course county courts will pay attention to the legislation and form rules, as they do with all such things, as to the basis upon which they will sometimes order the confiscation and sometimes not. Even though subsection (1) of the clause is removed by the amendment, there is nothing to stop the Home Secretary from issuing guidance notes to county courts as to how this part of the Bill should be interpreted.
I found the Minister's response to the amendment not just unhelpful but in many ways misleading and beside the point. I do not believe that he understood the issue that I and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were trying to raise: that in not just a few rare cases, but in a number of cases, this will result in local authorities having to take charge of children and an increase in homelessness. Nothing that the Minister has said has persuaded me that the amendment is not one of the ways, but only one, in which it will be necessary to address this serious social problem. The faults with this part of the Bill are so widespread that one cannot deal with them in individual amendments in this way. They will have to be dealt with by widespread repeal in due course rather than by piecemeal amendment today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 63 [Offence of aggravated trespass]:
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 48, line 4, leave out ("or adjoining").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 113A I wish also to address Amendment No. 113B. I apologise to the House for the fact that the amendment was tabled only last night. It was a mistake, an oversight. There was no intention to surprise your Lordships.
The amendment refers to the offence of aggravated trespass. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that a person will commit that offence only if he trespasses with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity which is taking place on the land or on adjoining land. What exactly does "adjoining" mean?
Perhaps I may take, first, the case of three small farms lying side by side. Let us suppose that saboteurs trespass on the first farm and the hunt or shoot is on the second farm. Since it is clearly adjoining land, an offence is committed and the police can take action. But what if the hunt or shoot happens to be 50 yards further away, or perhaps not further away but nevertheless on a third farm whose land does not march with the first? While saboteurs are on the first farm, is it the case that they commit no offence because the land is not adjoining? Clearly, that would be absurd.
Disruption is no less irritating and no less likely to provoke a public order problem because it happens to fall foul of a legal loophole by taking place on the wrong piece of land. It would make a mockery of an otherwise excellent and welcome new offence. Worse, I suspect that it is a recipe for police confusion. How can the police be sure whether saboteurs are on adjoining land? How can they know where the borders between two or more farms lie?
It is worrying to contemplate how many prosecutions under this legislation will fail because defence lawyers, quite properly, discover that the land is not adjoining. I respectfully submit that it is not enough to say that the lawful activity and those seeking to disrupt it should be in close proximity for an offence to be committed. How close? The whole purpose of Clause 64 is to give the police pre-emptive powers to prevent disruption. What is proposed is not some carefully defined geographic limit but adherence to the arbitrary and completely unpredictable boundaries of the land registry's map. In parts of the country where farms and land holdings are very small this loophole could well be enough to make the new police powers extremely difficult to operate.
I suggest that "neighbouring" would be a better word than "adjoining". There is an objection to the word on two grounds. First, some lawyers—and some lawyers to whom I have spoken—have advised that "adjoining" may indeed mean "neighbouring". The Government have indicated that they do not want the courts to interpret adjoining land as being strictly limited to contiguous land. The Government have said that fields, for example, separated by a river or a road, would probably be considered to be adjoining land. "Probably" is rather vague. What if they are not? In the example I gave, would the first and third farms be adjoining or not? It is most important that we have clarification.
Secondly, there is a worry that if "neighbouring" goes beyond "adjoining" it is far from clear how wide it will be taken to go. We are extremely anxious that at an earlier stage the Minister said that he would certainly not wish to see the offence so widely drawn as to include all land in the same locality or neighbourhood. But, on reflection, why not? This is not an extreme or wide concept. It is essential that the police have clear and workable powers.
We have been told that "adjoining" does not mean "contiguous". It might mean "neighbouring", but "neighbouring" does not mean "in the neighbourhood". Therefore, what does it mean? If it is not clear, and it is not clear at the moment, I suspect that it would be much better to have no limiting factor. A person who trespasses with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity on any land would commit an offence. I fail to see why that should be unacceptably wide. A person trespasses and he does so setting out to disrupt something. That is the intention. Why should it matter how far away the activity is that he intends to disrupt? There cannot be scope for injustice. Clearly a person must be relatively close to disrupt or even to intend to disrupt. Indeed, he must probably be within sight or sound of the activity.
If a limiting factor is required, the Bill needs to be far more clear and precise than it is at present. A geographical limit of five miles is defined in relation to raves in Clause 60, and we discussed that earlier this evening. Therefore, there is a precedent for a similar limit in relation to aggravated trespass.
I do not believe that this is a petty or a drafting point. We discussed this matter in Committee. It was not clear then and it is no clearer now. I suspect that, unless we sort out the matter and achieve a more precise definition, there will be a great deal of confusion and injustice in the future.
The amendment does not seek to broaden the offence or to make it more narrow. I seek only to clarify what is intended and what will happen in practice.
The reason that there are two amendments is very simple. One substitutes "adjoining" for "neighbour-ing". If your Lordships are not convinced that "adjoining" or "neighbouring" achieve a sufficiently precise definition, the obvious answer—and I do not suggest that it is the perfect answer—is not to have a defining adjective at all so that the legislation refers only to "land"; hence the two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mancroft has given us some vivid practical reasons for making the change which he proposes and I have a lot of sympathy for what he said.
The trouble about the word "adjoining" is that it is ambiguous. It could mean either "immediately contiguous", a phrase which my noble friend mentioned, or "land in adjoining ownership". Now, the adjoining ownership could stretch for miles in certain rare cases; for example, with a large estate. In fairness to all concerned, we should be clearer as to what we are trying to achieve.
I believe that the word "neighbouring", which could include land in different ownerships and not far away, is one way to solve the problem. I am not quite sure about my noble friend's other suggestion that we should just say "on land". I do not believe that that is precise enough.
Another way in which to approach the matter which my noble friend may consider between now and Third Reading is to say "on or near that land". I believe that the words "on or near" would cover the circumstances envisaged by my noble friend.
This looks to be a narrow point but in practice it could be quite important. We need to achieve fairness to all concerned, including the trespassers. Therefore, we need to consider this matter further.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Mancroft said. It is largely a question of interpretation. It is quite clear to me what is meant by "adjoining" but I am not a lawyer.
I am sure that, as the Bill is currently drafted, there is a very real possibility that a prosecution under Clause 63 could very well fail because, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, the offence may take place some distance away from the legal activity and yet the legal activity may still be prevented from taking place by some form of disruption.

1497
I take shooters as an example. Let us suppose that those who were going to participate in that shoot, that legal activity, were staying at a public house. That public house could be many miles from where the legal activity was likely to take place. It is not unknown for those who wish to disrupt such activities to gather outside a pub and try to disrupt and prevent them from taking place. Indeed, that actually happens. If the police wished to take out a prosecution, they would find it very difficult to do so. They would have to find out in advance where the legal activity was going to take place and how far it was from the pub. I can imagine that leading to very considerable difficulties.
It is quite clear to me that we need a very clear account of how the legal interpretation of the word "adjoining" will be taken. I have attached my name to Amendment No. 113B, which substitutes the word "neighbouring" for "adjoining", but I have to say that I do not particularly like it. It is an improvement on the word "adjoining" but, ideally, I should have thought that the word could and should be removed altogether.
I have one further alternative to suggest to your Lordships; namely, to specify a distance, say, five or 10 miles, or whatever. That might help to solve the problem. Either way, it is quite clear that we have a real problem. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to solve it for us.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that we have a problem and hoping that I will solve it for him. I know that both my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Peel have been worried about the degree of proximity which is required between the trespassers and the lawful activity which they are seeking to disrupt. I have had the privilege of talking to them after the Committee stage and before the Report stage to find out whether there is a way around the problem and what would be the best route to take. I have given some considerable thought to the matter myself as well as seeking advice.
The new offence of aggravated trespass is committed by someone who trespasses on land in the open air and who seeks to disrupt, obstruct or intimidate those people who are engaging in, or about to engage in, a lawful activity on that land or on adjoining land. That means that the offence can be committed where trespassers are near to the lawful activity but where they may not actually be on the same land.
My noble friends suggest that the word "neighbour-ing" is a better alternative to "adjoining". I can understand their reasons for so doing. However, I am advised that that is too imprecise for the criminal law. My noble friend Lord Renton says that "adjoining land" could mean adjoining ownership. But I am bound to say that I believe that to be considerably wider. If we meant to cover adjoining ownership, I should have thought that that would have been so described.
However, if one looks at the word "neighbouring", one must ask: where does neighbouring end? It could be the other end of the village or even the other end of a very small market town. Obviously, we have to keep the idea of proximity to the lawful activity. I believe that it would be wrong to draw the offence so widely that all

1498
land in the same locality would necessarily be included. Therefore, if the lawful activity was on a person's piece of land, even if it was a vast estate, the whole of the land would be covered.
I understand my noble friends' desire to ensure that "adjoining" does not mean just contiguous and that it must actually be contiguous land. Of course, it would be a matter for the courts to decide. But, depending on the circumstances, "adjoining" might not be restricted to absolutely contiguous land. For example, I doubt whether a river, or a road in between, would matter if it was clear that the behaviour on one side of the river or the road could directly affect the activity on the other. But, as I have said, "neighbouring land" as a legal expression would be too imprecise and that is the reason I am advised that "adjoining land" is better than "neighbouring land".
Lord Burton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope he can answer one question. What happens in the case of hunting, which may take place over quite a large area and where quite a large number of people may disrupt it in different places? Indeed the meet may be held quite a long way from where the hunting is to take place.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it depends what the lawful activity is. If the lawful activity is a meet which happens at one place and if people are coming to disrupt the meet, then, of course, they would be causing the offence where the meet takes place. If the meet then moves off and hounds hunt over some other part of the land some miles away and the offence happens over that part of the land where the hunt is taking place, then of course the offence will be created there.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister seeks to sit down again, I must say I am a little puzzled by his reaction. Here are two amendments moved by the same people which are in total conflict with each other. Amendment No. 113A would seek to limit the effect of Clause 63, because it restricts the offence to an offence "on that land" and takes out the words "or adjoining". Amendment No. 113B, on the other hand, seeks to extend the scope of the offence in Clause 63, because it seeks to replace "adjoining" by "neighbouring", which it is argued—the Minister has argued this—is wider than "adjoining". Which of the two is the Minister opposing?
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House just to answer the noble Lord? The point is that Amendment No. 113 A is merely a paving amendment to get rid of the words "or adjoining"; Amendment No. 113B is the effective amendment to leave out "adjoining" and put in "neighbouring".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is not in order in any case!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend is in order and I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is in order making an intervention from a sedentary position. But, with the

1499
leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me a question when he asked which amendment I was opposing. The answer is, I am opposing both, because I think the words of the Bill are right.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I, of course thank my noble friend for his answer and I have to say that I am even more confused now than I was when I started. To a certain extent I find myself—he will be delighted to hear—in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because the fact is that to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right when he said that in one amendment we are extending the offence and in the other we are tightening it. In fact what we are trying to do is to define it—either big or small or fat or thin or tall or short. We would just like to be reasonably accurate about it.
I think what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, succeeded in doing was demonstrating very ably to the House—he may have been stirring a little bit but I cannot believe he would ever really do that—that the measure is so imprecise that neither one side nor the other, nor anybody else, really knows exactly what it means. That is even more confusing. I believe that the most important thing my noble friend on the Front Bench said was that we should not include both provisions, but he did not say why we should not do so. There may be a very good reason why we should not make the provision as extensive as the first of the two amendments suggests. There may be a good reason for that but I am not quite sure that he told us what it is. Nor did he manage to tell us why it would not be possible to do what my noble friend Lord Peel suggested, which was to put a mileage limit—if that is the right phrase —round the provision. The summation of the matter is that I am a great deal more confused than I was. I am utterly convinced now that this matter is very imprecise. I simply do not know what is the difference between "neighbouring" and "adjoining". I shall read very carefully tomorrow morning what my noble friend has said and I may well have to come back to this, reluctantly, at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 113B to 116 not moved.]
Clause 65 [Trespassory assemblies]:
[Amendment No. 117 not moved. ]
Clause 67 [Violent entry to premises: special position of displaced residential occupiers and intending occupiers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 52, line 45, after ("occupier") insert ("who uses or threatens necessary violence against the property").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 117A and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 117B, 117C, 117D, 117E and 117G. The most important of those amendments, as will be obvious from the wording, is Amendment No. 117G.
We are concerned here with squatters and those who are entitled to regain possession of property by force on

1500
behalf of displaced residential occupiers or protected intending occupiers. We are concerned with towns. The countrymen can go home if they want to. I shall gladly pause in order to enable them to leave in an orderly fashion.
The concern which is expressed in the amendments relates to the extent of the power which is given not simply to displaced residential occupiers or protected intending occupiers themselves but to their agents. By agents we mean, in polite and legal terms, bailiffs. In realistic terms they could well be thugs. In other words, we could return to Rachmanism of the worst sort. The Bill provides that a degree of violence—and the word is used in the Bill—is permitted in order to regain access to such properties.
We do not suggest any fundamental change in the Bill. We do not suggest that there should be any diminution of the rights of displaced residential occupiers or protected intending occupiers or, indeed, that they should not be able to appoint agents to regain access for them. In Amendment No. 117G we propose that persons acting on behalf of displaced residential occupiers and protected intending occupiers should be legitimate. In other words, local authorities should keep a register of those people who are entitled to act on behalf of these displaced residential occupiers and protected intending occupiers, that the Secretary of State should issue guidance as to how the register should be maintained and the criteria under which persons may be excluded from it; and that persons should not be deemed to be acting on behalf of displaced residential occupiers or protected intending occupiers for the purposes of Sections 6 and 7 unless they are registered on that local authority register.
I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were he still here, could claim that this is a wrecking amendment. It is intended simply as a way of avoiding violence on the streets caused by thugs brought in by occupiers or intending occupiers in order to regain, by violence, properties which are occupied by squatters. We are not even attacking the violence principle with this amendment, much as I would like to, but we say that we should at least see to it that these persons who are doing the dirty work should be licensed by the local authorities and that there should be some control over their behaviour and the way in which they pursue their occupation. In addition, the Secretary of State should have the power to control the way in which the local authorities operate such a register. I hope that the Government will feel that this is not in any way a wrecking amendment but is a positive contribution to a difficult concept in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, at the Committee stage we had an interesting debate on the context of these provisions, which are set in the Criminal Law Act 1977. That context should be recalled.
"Violence" in this context includes violence to property, such as breaking a window. The fact that the would-be entrant is the owner of the property or is acting on his behalf does not constitute lawful authority. This enables squatters lawfully to exclude people from

1501
their own property which they require for their own use as a home. Our view is that we should not be prepared to tolerate this situation, and Clause 67 also is intended to exclude protected intending occupiers and those acting on their behalf from the scope of the offence provided for in the 1977 Act. However, they will remain fully subject to the ordinary law of the land, and if they commit assaults on, or wound, squatters or break the criminal law in any other way, they can be dealt with in the same way as anyone else.
Accordingly, our view is that the first of the amendments moved by the noble Lord is redundant. Further, it introduces a rather odd test of whether violence is necessary. A more usual consideration might be whether it is both reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. Whether something is necessary depends upon what one hopes to achieve. In order to open the entrance, for example, to a particularly well defended squat, it might conceivably be necessary to take seriously violent action when, from an otherwise objective standard, that would clearly appear to be manifestly unreasonable. The amendment therefore does not achieve the additional limitation on the use of violence which I understand is the noble Lord's intention.
As to the other amendments, I am not necessarily opposed to the use of private bailiffs, as the noble Lord may be. However, I am not clear whether he is aware that one of the effects of his amendments would be to make their use compulsory in all cases where a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier is not able or willing to act in person and alone since the only persons permitted to act on his behalf would be those registered to do so with the local authority. If a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier were either too frail or too sensible to confront squatters by himself, he might reasonably enough call on the services of family friends or a solicitor in order to require the squatters to leave. Under the provisions of the amendments such an individual would not be able to do so but would be permitted only to call on the services of a private bailiff registered by the local authority. Whatever else the noble Lord may wish to do in restricting violence, I cannot believe that he wishes to make such provision.
We are not convinced that there is any evidence that the existing provisions of the Criminal Law Act 1977 are abused or that displaced residential occupiers employ "heavies" to assault squatters while lawfully breaking into premises. We have no reason to suppose that by extending the legal protection of those occupiers against squatters we will be encouraging the use of thuggery or bully-boy tactics. We are at one with the noble Lord in rejecting that. I can only say that if there are any private bailiffs who believe that that is what we are intent on doing, and that they will be exempt from the ordinary law of the land, they will soon learn their mistake.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister makes a number of interesting points. He will recall that as recently as the Committee stage of the Bill, we sought to restrict the violence to that which was

1502
needed. Such an amendment was rejected by the Government. Therefore, the criticism that he made about "necessary violence" being an inadequate definition arises only because the Minister rejected what he now proposes.
As to the wider issue, I used the word "thugs" and the Minister used the word "heavies". I do not know that I can see a profound distinction between them. But the history of the regulation of private bailiffs is not confined to this Bill. I recall from my days of being responsible from these Benches for environmental matters that all attempts that were made by the Opposition to secure regulation of private bailiffs were resisted by the Government. They were resisted not for the reasons that the Minister gives now, but partly because they rejected the idea that any such people existed or behaved badly.
For the Minister now to suggest that the law is adequate to deal with bad behaviour on the part of these "heavies", these private bailiffs, flies in the face of experience—at any rate in my part of North London, I remember as a local councillor having personally to sit, and having to bring my sons to sit with me, on the doorstep of a house where the occupants were not squatters at all but tenants who were about to be evicted illegally by a landlord who was proposing to send in the heavies. My sons and I had physically to oppose—not violently, but by being there—the prospect of those heavies coming in. The law was called. The law did not turn up. The law is not adequate for these purposes, and a licensing system is necessary. At some stage we will have to achieve that.
I accept that my amendments may be defective in detail. On that basis I shall be withdrawing them. But I do not accept the arguments that the Minister has used in opposing them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 117B and 117C not moved.]
Clause 68 [Adverse occupation of residential premises]:
[Amendment No. 117Dnot moved. ]
Clause 69 [Protected intending occupiers: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 117E not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117F:
Page 55, line 11, leave out ("specifies") and insert ("states").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. If any noble Lords wish me to elaborate upon it I shall do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117G not moved. ]
Clause 70 [Interim possession orders: false or misleading statements]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117H:
Page 56, line 49, at end insert:
("( ) A person commits an offence if, for the purpose of resisting the making of an interim possession order, he—

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

(b) recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 117H, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 117J.
These amendments take account of the requirements of the civil part of the new squatting procedure. At an earlier stage I hope that I satisfactorily explained the interrelationship between the criminal provisions which are provided for in the Bill and at the same time the civil procedure that it is proposed to introduce which does not itself form part of the Bill but which will be introduced by amendment to the Rules of Court.
As I explained at an earlier stage, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is currently finalising the details of the procedure for making interim possession orders and I understand that the public consultation paper containing these draft rules will be issued shortly.
Clause 70 currently makes it an offence for someone who is applying for an interim possession order to make any false or misleading statement to the court. My noble and learned friend is considering modifications which would provide an opportunity for legitimate occupiers in limited circumstances to make representations against the making of the order. It is in contemplation of such prospective change that these amendments are made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117J:
Page 57, line 17, leave out ("for obtaining the order").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Interim possession orders: failure to comply an offence]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117K:
Page 57, leave out lines 23 to 29 and insert:
("(2) Subject to subsection (2A), a person who is present on the premises as a trespasser at any time during the currency of the order commits an offence.

(2A) No offence under subsection (2) is committed by a person if—

(a) he leaves the premises within 24 hours of the time of service of the order and does not return; or

(b) a copy of the order was not fixed to the premises in accordance with rules of court.

(2B) A person who was in occupation of the premises at the time of service of the order but leaves them commits an offence if he re-enters the premises as a trespasser or attempts to do so after the expiry of the order but within the period of one year beginning with the day on which it was served.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it will be seen that the Government have tabled two amendments to Clause 71, and one of them is starred. As noble Lords may have realised, the effect of these amendments is similar to that of an Opposition amendment, Amendment No. 230, in another place, which in the event was not called. They will make it an offence for anyone to trespass on premises which are subject to an interim possession order, provided that a notice to that

1504
effect has been posted in accordance with the rules of court. As Clause 71 is currently drafted, the offence applies only to those in occupation of the premises at the time the interim possession order is served.
On reflection, we saw a difficulty with the existing offence in Clause 71, which is that it would not cover the situation where squatters leave premises in obedience to an interim possession order but pass the keys on to another group of squatters who enter after the interim possession order has been served. That second group of squatters would then not be subject to the interim possession order and would not be guilty of any offence. The lawful owner or occupier of the property would then have to start proceedings all over again. That would clearly not be right, and the amendment will ensure that the property is protected against all trespassers during the currency of an interim order.
Because of the amendment we propose to make to the offence in Clause 71(2), we can dispense with the definition of who is subject to an interim possession order in subsection (4) and the presumption in subsection (5) that a person found on the premises within a month of service of the order is subject to the order. However, in order to preserve the full scope of the offence it is necessary to insert a new subsection (4), which will provide that those in occupation of the premises when an interim possession order is served are to be treated for the purposes of this section as trespassers—that is to say, they must leave within 24 hours or be guilty of an offence.
If this new subsection were not inserted it might be possible for some squatters to frustrate the purposes of the new procedure by claiming to have leases or to be licensees. Under our proposals, squatters will have the right to a full hearing of the case, but only after they have left the premises. It will not be open to them to disobey an interim possession order and they will be guilty of an offence if they do so. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these seem such obvious ways for squatters to get round the legislation that it is almost incredible to have reached Report stage in the second Chamber before the department and the Government have discovered these difficulties—unless the idea that squatters would have been able to hand over the keys to somebody else and the proceedings would have to be started over again was discovered at the last minute. It beggars belief.
What assurance do we have that such last minute recognition of rather fundamental flaws in the legislation are the last of the flaws that remain to be discovered?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that the noble Lord describes these as fundamental flaws. I do not accept that definition. I suggest to him that we have properly at this stage in the Bill tidied up some detail. We have ensured that if there are particular circumstances in which the purpose of these clauses, which I should have thought would be generally welcomed, were evaded, we can take steps to eliminate them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117L:
Page 57, leave out lines 33 to 38 and insert:
("(4) A person who is in occupation of the premises at the time of service of the order shall be treated for the purposes of this section as being present as a trespasser.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendment; and with a privilege amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS
  NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS
  CIVIL CASES: LATE SETTLEMENT
  CIVIL CASES: LATE SETTLEMENT
  BRIEF FEES
  BRIEF FEES
  NHS DENTAL SERVICE: FUTURE
  NHS DENTAL SERVICE: FUTURE
  CAEN: LIBERATION ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS
  CAEN: LIBERATION ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS
  GIBRALTAR GARRISON
  GIBRALTAR GARRISON
  ARMY TRAINING
  ARMY TRAINING