Sitting of 12 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]
    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
    HILL SAMUEL BANK AND UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [Lords]
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Pre-school Age Children
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he last met representatives of the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations to discuss Government education policies for pre-school age children.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): My right hon. Friend has not met the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations recently to discuss education policies for pre-school age children. Arrangements are in hand for the Minister of State to meet the NCPTA shortly. The NCPTA has requested that the meeting cover issues other than education provision for under-fives.
    Ms Corston: As this may be the last appearance of the Minister and the Secretary of State for Education at the Dispatch Box, will they agree as a matter of urgency to meet parent-teacher representatives to discuss the report from the National Foundation for Educational Research which supports Labour's policy of offering nursery education to all three and four-year-olds, and which flatly rejects the Government's inadequate compromise of putting children into school a year early? What is the Government's policy on nursery education?
    Mr. Squire: I am sorry that on my 50th birthday and feeling like a mere boy I should be so dismissed by the hon. Lady. We shall wait and see.
    On the issue of slightly greater substance, we note that the hon. Lady has committed her party to that policy on pre-school provision without seeing the bill for it. Our policy remains clear. We wish to see an expansion of the provision for under-fives across the range of different sorts of education as and when resources are available. We shall be coming up with more developments in the near future.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Minister—
    Mr. Dicks: Wish him a happy birthday, then.
    Mr. Griffiths: Not only do I wish the Minister a happy birthday, I wish him many more. I was pleased to hear that there is some inkling of support for nursery education and expansion from the Government. Why will not the Government introduce targets for developing the expansion of nursery education? Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the article in the Evening Standard on 29 June where Sheila Lawlor said that she feared that the introduction of universal nursery education could be one of the most disastrous social experiments of our time? I hope that he will reject that and support Labour's policy for expanding nursery education.
    Mr. Squire: My understanding is that Sheila Lawlor is not currently a member of the Administration, although—referring back to the question of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston)—who knows? I think that it is most unlikely. The fact remains that there are Conservative councils with a proud record on nursery education and in other areas of providing playgroups, which, I remind the hon. Gentleman, some 40 per cent. of three and four-year-olds currently attend. Many of those playgroups provide an excellent service for under-fives.

    Parental Choice
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the extension of parental choice of school.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): The Government have given parents the right to express a preference for their choice of school, to a great deal more information and to a wider choice of schools through, for instance, the expansion of the self-governing grant-maintained sector, city technology colleges and technology colleges. Even greater diversity and choice is on the horizon with the possibility of schools specialising in other areas of study, such as languages or the arts, or selecting on grounds of aptitude and ability wholly or in part—including more grammar schools.
    Dr. Wright: Does the Minister recall that, in each of the past two years, Five Ways primary school in my constituency, a successful and popular school, has had its application for expansion rejected by the Department on the ground that there are surplus places in schools within a two-mile radius? Parents and governors, having heard about the circular issued by the Department on 22 June—typically, replies were invited by 5 August—now believe that this successful school is to be allowed to expand. Are they right?
    Mr. Patten: I cannot limit my discretion in the case of any school before considering it. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. I recall his raising it at least twice before during questions, and I believe that, in an Adjournment debate, he discussed the desire of the parents of Five Ways school to have it expanded—even though there are surplus school places and other, less popular, schools within a reasonable distance.

    813
    We shall consider any future application purely on its merits, but I applaud the way in which the hon. Gentleman is bringing to the attention of the House the fact that local parents want popular schools to expand.
    Mr. Butterfill: When he next visits Bournemouth, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to see the wide variety of schools there? We have traditional grammar schools and comprehensive schools that are gaining better results than any others in the country, but we also have grant-maintained schools and secondary schools that offer a wide variety of vocational courses. There is also a thriving independent sector. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the sort of choice we need to offer parents? Will he condemn the Liberal Democratic and Labour parties for trying to close down that choice?
    Mr. Patten: I have always condemned both those parties and, for good measure, I will include Plaid Cymru for wanting to close down the range of opportunities the other side of Offa's dyke. I am happy to condemn anyone else whom my hon. Friend wants me to condemn.
    I am sorry to say that it is at least three weeks since I last visited my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that there is an excellent and wide range of schools in Bournemouth. Ideally, most towns would have the same range of choice. That is a great deal more difficult in rural areas, and we must bend our thoughts more towards how we can expand variety and choice in those areas and look after the small rural primary schools.
    Mr. Pike: How does parents' choice square with the fact that a certain school in my constituency has to determine which children get places by drawing lots?
    Mr. Patten: Nine out of 10 parents get their children into the school that they want—an extremely good piece of news—and there is an appeals mechanism for those who are dissatisfied. The hon. Gentleman is on to a good thing, however. I hope that he will lead other members of his party, including the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who represents the NUT, to swing in behind our policy of allowing popular schools to expand and to deliver local excellence.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure he has for the number of schools that have now voted in favour of grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Patten: I am pleased to report that, to date, parents at 1,134 schools in England have voted for self-governing GM status, compared with about 350 at the time of the previous general election. Unfortunately, parents at nine out of 10 schools have not yet had the opportunity to vote in a ballot.
    Mr. Brown: Is not it true that there have been few successful ballots in south Humberside because of intimidation by the NUT and by Humberside county council? Until my right hon. Friend persuades the Secretary of State for the Environment to abolish the county of Humberside, we shall have much more work to do on this score in south Humberside.
    Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says about the unfortunate situation in his area. I will convey his views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    I agree that we have a lot more work to do—although I welcome the support for our policies that is emerging from the Opposition. For instance, I understand that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is sending her son to a grant-maintained school in London in two months' time. That must make for interesting discussions in the shadow Cabinet, in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is firmly in favour of abolishing grant-maintained schools, serves.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Northumberland, the metropolitan boroughs of Tyne and Wear and Durham, only one school has opted out, and that was by a dubious two votes? Does not that reflect the good sense of the people of the north-east of England?
    Mr. Patten: As the late Sir Winston Churchill said, one vote is enough in all circumstances, including parliamentary elections. I regret the fact that there are not more grant-maintained schools in the north-east among the 1,134 that have voted to become grant maintained, but it is entirely right and proper that parents should have the chance to express their views. If, however, those parents and those schools are subject to the type of intimidatory action, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred, which took place in Humberside, in County Durham and in Newcastle, supported by the National Union of Teachers on every occasion, it is not surprising that that intimidation has sometimes worked.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the large number of schools that have become grant maintained. Will he, as a matter of urgency, consider Prospect school in my constituency, which had an outstanding ballot by the parents, and whose application the Labour party has done all that it can to block?
    Mr. Patten: I shall consider the prospects for Prospect school as soon as I leave the Chamber.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State accept the thanks of the Opposition for his attempts to trail the Labour party's education document—a document agreed by all three leadership contenders—which says that we must end GM status and abolish the Funding Agency for Schools? Will the Minister also confirm that, of the 24,706 primary and secondary schools in England and Wales, there are only 944 grant-maintained schools, which is about 4 per cent? Is not it a fitting symbol of the failure of the Secretary of State and his GM policy that, last month, not a single secondary school in the country decided to become grant maintained?
    Mr. Patten: The mystery deepens, Madam Speaker. I am becoming more and more perplexed as to how it is possible for the hon. Member for Peckham, who is sending her boy to a grant-maintained school this September, to sit in the same shadow Cabinet as the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who wishes not only to abolish grant-maintained schools, but to abolish A-levels, city

    815
    technology colleges, performance tables, grammar schools, selection and almost everything else that has led to advances in children's education.

    Education Association
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce the use of the first education association.
    Mr. Patten: I will not hesitate to transfer failing schools to education associations when appropriate. About 10 schools have been declared failing so far. A number of cases for the use of educational associations are under active consideration.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of poorly performing schools has been swept under the carpet for too long? Can he assure me that he will be resolute in taking action against schools that fail pupils and parents, and introduce education associations as and when necessary?
    Mr. Patten: When and if necessary, I will not hesitate to do so. I entirely agree that for too long information about schools was swept under the carpet. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and her Labour team oppose the regular and open inspection of schools and the publication of results. They oppose the publication of performance information for schools. They oppose giving parents the information that they need to help to promote the welfare of their children.
    Mr. Jamieson: If the Secretary of State genuinely believes that education associations can combat low standards in schools, why does not he send an education association in to some of the private schools, such as Finborough school in Suffolk or Rodney school in Nottinghamshire, which receive a large proportion of their funding from the taxpayer through the service children's boarding schools allowance, and yet have the most damning inspectorate reports?
    Mr. Patten: I am not aware of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall take the trouble to inform myself about them when I return to my Department this afternoon, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is a serious player in the education world. He is a member of the Education Select Committee which, as recently as a few weeks ago, heard a number of distinguished professors, including Professor Michael Barber, until recently a fully paid member of the NUT's team and now the professor of education at Keele, and Professor Mortimer, who said that we have to expect and demand more from children. Professor Mortimer, who is not exactly a running dog of mine and who is professor of education at the university of London, also said that, at long last, educators were looking at teaching in schools rather than at peripheral issues.

    School Discipline
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to help improve levels of discipline in schools.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): In May, my right hon. Friend
    816
    issued to all schools guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline based on existing good practice. The guidance aims to help them to maintain and improve discipline.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the added emphasis on the important role of parents in disciplinary matters has been widely welcomed? How does he envisage that role being expanded? What experience does he have of other European Governments' attempts to tackle the important problem of maintaining discipline in schools so that children have the right environment in which to learn?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes two valuable points. We should always learn from others when that is appropriate, but I suspect that in this area, where so much is bound up in tradition and custom and in the approach of individual countries, what is done in other countries—no matter how excellent it may seem—may not in any sense be directly transferable to this country, but I would never rule it out.
    My hon. Friend's point about parents is good. We have done everything possible to encourage parental involvement in schools, whether through parents being governors or through joining parent-teacher associations and so on. Their involvement in discipline is the key. We cannot expect teachers and head teachers to deal with discipline without the support of parents. Unless parents are whole-heartedly prepared to support what goes on in schools, we shall win only half the battle.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does not good discipline start at the top? What is the world of education to make of a Secretary of State who plays truant during major stages of the Education Bill, who shows such a lack of self-discipline that he ends up in court, and who is rapidly becoming the Maradona of British politics? Is not it about time that he was shown the red card and sent home?
    Mr. Forth: That ill-conceived question shows the absolute and desperate paucity of the Opposition's thoughts on education. We hear nothing from them about policy, about their thinking or anything else. The hon. Gentleman's disgraceful question sums up their attitude all too well.

    Education SSA (Dorset)
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education by how much Dorset's education standard spending assessment has increased in 1994–95 over the previous year in percentage terms.
    Mr. Forth: Allowing for local authority changes of function, Dorset's education standard spending assessment is 4.2 per cent. higher in 1994–95 than it was last year. That is a higher than average increase across the counties.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 4.2 per cent., which follows the 27 per cent. increase for the previous three years and which is well ahead of the rate of inflation, will come as some surprise to primary school teachers in my constituency and to those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who were led to believe by Dorset local education authority that the fact that they have to face classes of up to 35 is due to a lack of Government funding? Will the Minister join us in welcoming the recommendation of the Local Government

    817
    Commission that Bournemouth should once again be responsible for its own schools? Will he assure us that any future Bournemouth education standard spending assessment will better reflect the needs and costs of an urban area rather than those of the west country, which is currently the case?
    Mr. Forth: I am sure that, guided by my hon. Friends who so ably represent Bournemouth, the people of Bournemouth will make known to the commission their support for the recommendation. That is the best thing that they can do at this stage, following what my hon. Friend said. I agree that it is disgraceful that a large number of local education authorities pretend that, somehow, cuts in the money given to them by central Government are responsible for their mismanagement of local education. I join my hon. Friend in alerting people to the fact that under many of the new administrations that people so innocently elected a year ago something is rotten in the state of education.
    Mr. Don Foster: In view of that answer, can the Minister explain why the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), told a delegation from Dorset on 9 March that there were insufficient funds available to meet the educational needs of the children of Dorset?
    Mr. Forth: I shall have to discuss that matter with my hon. Friend to find out whether what the hon. Gentleman says is true. Knowing my hon. Friend as well as I think I do, and even allowing for his age increase since that meeting, I doubt whether what the hon. Gentleman says is the case.
    Every local education authority in the country is funded on exactly the same basis, derived from the same formula, in an even-handed way. One point on which I do agree with the hon. Gentleman is that there is an enormous variation in the efficiency and effectiveness with which local education authorities deploy the funds given to them.

    Nursery Schools (Rotherham)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of three to five-year-olds in Rotherham attend state-funded nursery schools.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): In January 1993, 44 per cent. of children under five were being taught in maintained nursery schools and classes in Rotherham local education authority, of whom 6 per cent. were in nursery schools.
    Mr. MacShane: Will the Under-Secretary of State convey to the Secretary of State our objection to the unnecessary and offensive references to the children of hon. Members? Children of hon. Members, from both sides of the House, should not be used as political footballs.
    On the question of nursery education, will the hon. Gentleman invite Conservative councils to achieve the same target as that achieved in Rotherham for three to five-year-olds?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman has asked us not to pursue personal references, but the judgment of parents, including hon. Members, is the most eloquent possible
    818
    testimony to the worth of the Government's education policies. Some 90 per cent. of children aged three and four enjoy some sort of pre-school nursery provision, which exemplifies the virtues of choice and diversity and the excellent provision of places according to need. We are anxious to build on that as resources allow.

    Primary School Teachers
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the Warwick university research into pressures on primary school teachers.
    Mr. Forth: I pay tribute to the conscientious commitment of most teachers to the principle and implementation of the national curriculum for the benefit of pupils, as confirmed by that research. The findings of Warwick university's report on teachers' workload have been overtaken by the Dearing review and the Government's subsequent proposals for reductions in the content of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Minister appreciate the seriousness of much of what is in the Warwick university report, which shows that large numbers of primary school teachers suffer from what it calls burn-out from increased illness, increased drinking and an average 56-hour week? As that follows years of incessant change and increased bureaucracy, do the Government accept responsibility?
    Would not it be a good idea if the Minister or one of his ministerial colleagues spent a month teaching a year six class in a primary school? They would then realise the Herculean task that faces teachers in that sector.
    Mr. Forth: I counsel the hon. Gentleman against what the authors of the report described as premature extrapolation—taking some of its findings and drawing unmerited conclusions from them. If the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that unqualified teachers should be allowed into classrooms, for whatever motive, he should ask the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is sitting at his left hand, whether he would approve.
    The report contains much that is worthy of thought and consideration and I would not want to dismiss it in any way. However, the picture that the hon. Gentleman portrays of our schools is wholly at odds with that which I and my ministerial colleagues see when we visit schools, as we do so often.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Does my hon. Friend accept the evidence that has come before the Education Select Committee which shows that much of the work done by the Dearing review has resulted in a decrease in the workload in our schools? However, much remains to be done, especially in the area increasingly being called non-contact time. I refer my hon. Friend to the excellent Select Committee report, due to be published tomorrow, which deals with those very problems.
    Mr. Forth: Lest prematurity become rampant, I—and I am sure my hon. Friend, who chaired the Select Committee so ably—would not want to reveal the contents of the Select Committee report at this stage. However, I very much look forward—as do we all—to studying it carefully, as I am sure that it will add greatly to our knowledge and inform us as to the way ahead.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister acknowledge that the report shows that all the Government's changes over the past few years have not succeeded in raising standards among young people; that they have increased stress and anxiety for many dedicated teachers; and that the picture is far from the rosy one that he was painting a moment ago? Will he confirm that early retirement of teachers on health grounds is now at record levels and costing taxpayers record amounts of money and that our schools are losing valuable and dedicated staff? Will he now accept that the frequent chopping and changing and the constant experimentation that have been the hallmark of the past two years have been costly to the taxpayer and, more important, have done great educational damage to our children?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me to look closely again at the terms on which teachers are allowed to retire early, whether on health or on other grounds. Some of the schemes would bear closer examination than they have received until now. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of the matter and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would say, I shall look at it as soon as I get back to the Department.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have gone grant maintained.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Nine hundred and thirty schools educating well over 500,000 pupils are currently self-governing. A further 125 schools have already been approved for grant-maintained status or have applications in the pipeline.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Is the Minister aware that parents at Whitefield school, which is a special school in my constituency, have voted to go grant maintained as a result of recent legislation giving them the power to do so? Does he agree that, despite the opposition of Labour-controlled local authorities, we should encourage all the other special schools to do exactly the same?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend no doubt accepts that I cannot give him from the Dispatch Box this afternoon a firm announcement on the outcome of that positive ballot. With regard to his other comments, I can assure him that we shall endeavour to meet the tight deadlines and guidelines on that particular application as soon as possible. I entirely endorse his recommendation that all schools—special and mainstream—should be considering grant-maintained status as a way forward.
    Mr. Steinberg: I thank the Secretary of State for his constant references to the National Union of Teachers: they help us to maintain our high profile. I appreciate his constant mention of the NUT. Does the Minister accept that his predecessor was totally wrong when he said that there would be an avalanche of schools opting out, and that the whole system has now become a complete failure? Why cannot he be magnanimous in defeat and accept the policy as a highly expensive failure?
    Mr. Squire: The House and the country will note that the hon. Gentleman writes off one in six secondary school
    820
    children who are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools—and, of course, the number will be rising in September.

    Further Education Charter
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new rights and entitlements are being given to students and employers under the charter for further education.
    Mr. Boswell: The further education charter sets out, for the first time, the information and services that students, employers and others have a right to expect from the sector. It explains what is being done to ensure high standards and what to do if things go wrong. Colleges are now preparing their own charters to reflect local circumstances.
    Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that local colleges prepare their charters based on local needs and assessments of local conditions? Is my hon. Friend aware that that is precisely what West Suffolk college in my constituency has done, and that that college's approach is reflected in the excellent grades awarded to it by the Further Education Funding Council in its recent inspection?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The charters are extremely important. They should be firmed up locally to meet local needs, just as colleges' delivery of education should be appropriate to local needs. I join him in paying tribute to the excellent work of the college, which in a recent inspection had grades 1 or 2 for all subject areas but three—a fact which reflects very well both on the college and the quality of the systems that we are putting in place.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister acknowledge that competition between colleges of further education and between those colleges and sixth forms can sometimes give rise to bad feeling and duplication of courses and provision? Will he advise such institutions to have a collaborative relationship, to minimise misuse of resources and encourage co-operation of the best kind?
    Mr. Boswell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. Essentially, I see no reason why collaboration cannot co-exist with a degree of competition in particular areas. In that spirit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought forward proposals earlier this year for a framework for the assessment of new sixth-form provision, to be considered alongside the overall need for post-16 education.

    School Repairs
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will allocate extra funds for the repair of schools.
    Mr. Forth: Total central Government support for capital and repair work at schools in 1994–95 is more than £600 million. Local education authorities can and do add to that substantial sum. In 1992–93—the latest year for which figures are available—LEAs spent an additional £550 million on school repairs and maintenance and a further estimated £140 million on capital works. Subject to

    821
    the outcome of current public expenditure survey discussions, Government support is planned to rise in 1995–1996 and 1996–97.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that a great number of schools throughout the country are in a disgraceful state of disrepair, largely because local authorities do not have the money to add to central grants to put their schools in a fit state to receive our children? Will the Minister consider that matter and especially the cost of repairs caused by vandalism, which is causing chaos in Leicester schools? One school may have to close because the LEA cannot meet the cost of repairing it.
    Mr. Forth: The last detailed study by the National Audit Office in 1991 described many schools as being in a better or acceptable state of decoration and repair and stated that schools were safe places in which to learn and work. I concede that many schools require repairs, which is why so much money is allocated by the Department to LEAs. They have the discretion that I mentioned in my original reply, and I expect them to be sensitive to the kind of problem that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised with me on a number of occasions.
    LEAs determine their own priorities, and even schools determine their priorities under local management of schools and budget allocations. They are often able to take their own steps. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that that is a better way of dealing with the issue than the Government's determining from the centre the priorities of 24,000 schools.
    Mr. Forman: Will my hon. Friend consider including under the rubric of school repairs the equally important task of upgrading facilities that are much in demand? Will he consider with his officials the reasonable capital bid by Wallington county grammar school for boys for a new integrated science block, which would help that school maintain its high standard of science studies?
    Mr. Forth: I should have been surprised if the question had not prompted just the sort of reasonable request that my hon. Friend made. I undertake closely to examine the case that he has raised. I am delighted that many schools that my colleagues and I visit have work in train and are doing precisely as my hon. Friend says—building new facilities and providing new equipment. I welcome that—as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend
    Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister agree that, with so many pupils being educated in a substandard educational environment, and even if the Government come up with a decent capital programme, LEAs should be at liberty to borrow freely against their entire asset bases to guarantee a decent school environment for every child?
    Mr. Forth: That is all very well, but the hon. Gentleman should consider the extent to which some authorities—I will not name them on this occasion—frittered away on other things money that was supposed to be spent on education. We need a lot more persuading that they can be trusted to do as the hon. Gentleman says before we go down that route.

    School Performance Tables
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to publish additional material in this year's school performance tables.
    Mr. Patten: This year's tables will include more information than ever before under the parents charter. There will be additional information on achievements in vocational qualifications, including successes in the new vocational A-level. We shall also provide for the first time information on levels of authorised as well as unauthorised absence, and on classroom teaching time, in every secondary school.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of league tables is that they do not simply measure outcomes, but measure what has been added? Does he share my expectation that schools in all areas, whatever the social background, should be able to achieve excellent results?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the post-war years we have been totally taken up with the inputs into the education system. We should be much more concerned with the outputs. It is the value added by education in schools that should concern us. That is why I was so pleased to see the recent evidence laid before the Education Select Committee, in which learned witness after learned witness said that what was really important was a combination of higher expectations and a greater concentration on teaching and learning. It is odd that some of the learned professors have not been doing that for the past 25 years.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State publish figures showing the schools where teaching staff have been made redundant as a result of the loss of section 11 funding? In his last few days in office, will he do everything possible to ensure that section 11 funding is available to give children of ethnic minority origin the maximum support in understanding, speaking and writing English?
    Mr. Patten: I know of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in matters affecting people from ethnic minority backgrounds in his constituency in Bradford, and I appreciate his attention and care for them over the years. However, I am extremely concerned that some section 11 money may be used to carry on the teaching of second languages—the languages learnt at home—when really, if we want all our children to be good, high-performing British citizens, the most important thing is that they be taught the English language.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children aged under five years are currently in (a) nursery education and (b) other forms of child care; what percentage of children under five years this represents; what is the cost; and what were the equivalent figures in 1986 and 1976.
    Mr. Robin Squire: In January 1993, almost 340,000 under-fives were in nursery schools and classes—26 per cent. of the population. Equivalent figures were 272,500—23 per cent.—in 1986, and 158,000–11 per cent.—in 1976. Separate expenditure information on nursery schools

    823
    and classes has not been collected since 1986–87. Responsibility for day nurseries and other forms of day care lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
    Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on that considerable progress in the important area of nursery education? Is he aware that in the London borough of Ealing the previous Conservative council increased the number of places in nursery schools by 400 over four years, to almost 3,000, making Ealing council's provision the fourth best among the London boroughs, yet that the Labour council refuses to implement its promise to provide more nursery education? The Labour party promised to do that if it won the local election, which, unfortunately, it did. Does not my hon. Friend think it a disgrace that Labour councillors do not know about keeping their promises? Is not it the children who suffer?
    Mr. Squire: I am sure that my hon. Friend has already found many people in Ealing who look back with fond memory on their recently removed Conservative council, not least because of its tremendous performance on nursery education. My hon. Friend does the House a good service in reminding us to treat with great care promises that emanate from the Opposition, not least on nursery education.
    Mr. Hardy: If the Minister congratulates Conservative councils that provide care for young children, will he condemn the many Conservative councils that do not?
    Mr. Squire: Local education authorities' responsibility is to provide for the range of needs of the under-fives. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the properly elected council in Ealing determined that it should make significant provision for nursery education. It is possible that other councils elsewhere will choose different priorities—but they must make provision for the under-fives to meet the demand in their localities. That is their responsibility.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools are grant maintained in the north-west.
    Mr. Boswell: At present, there are 72 self-governing schools in the north-west region and a further 13 schools have been approved for grant-maintained status or have applications in the pipeline.
    Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend send his congratulations to Salesbury primary school in my constituency which will become grant maintained in September, joining two other grant-maintained schools in my constituency, the very popular Clitheroe Royal grammar school and Archbishop Temple school? Does my hon. Friend agree that the best antidote to the scepticism of those who have not quite made up their minds about the success of grant-maintained schools, such as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), is for them to come to the north-west and the Ribble valley to see how those successful schools are operating?
    Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to send my congratulations to Salesbury primary school alongside those for Clitheroe Royal grammar and Archbishop Temple school, a school
    824
    which I have visited and by which I was immensely impressed; it is a good example of the benefits of grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Miller: The Minister is fond of blaming local education authorities, but, in the context of the north-west, will he acknowledge that there is no greater trend towards grant-maintained schools in Tory and Liberal-controlled Cheshire than there is around the rest of the north-west? Does not that mean that parents have made the right judgment and that the Tory party has got it wrong?
    Mr. Boswell: There is a growing demand for grant-maintained schools. I have already referred to the 13 in the pipeline in the north-west and I have every confidence that that overall number will grow.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. MacShane: Can the Prime Minister name one candidate for the presidency of the European Union who does not support the social charter aspects of the European Union?
    The Prime Minister: Well, I do not know—no one yet knows—who all the candidates will be.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key plank of Government policy is to widen choice and opportunity as much as possible to all? Does my right hon. Friend think that widening choice and opportunity would be enhanced by extending VAT to private health care and education and is he surprised that that suggestion is being mooted by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: The whole purpose of the Government's education policy is to extend choice and opportunity as widely as possible. I cannot speak for the policies of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—and nor, it would appear, can he this afternoon. It is certainly the case that the Labour party is opposed to the assisted places scheme, city technology colleges, A-levels—and, I had thought until a few moments ago, grant-maintained schools, which I understand a number of prominent members of the Labour party now seem to favour for their own families.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister accept what every national newspaper is saying this morning about the effects on ordinary British families of water privatisation—that it is a swindle, licensed theft and legalised robbery?
    The Prime Minister: Would the right hon. Lady renationalise?
    Mrs. Beckett: I think that the Prime Minister has forgotten why we are here. These are questions asked of the Prime Minister, not by the Prime Minister.
    Does not the Prime Minister realise that what makes British people even more angry is that the only thing that is rising faster than their water bills is the pay of water bosses? How can he defend the fact that that chairman of North West Water received £47,000 a year before privatisation and now receives £338,000 for doing exactly the same job? Is not that a disgrace at a time when water bills are rocketing?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that the assumption must be that the right hon. Lady does not know whether she would renationalise or not. On the substantive part of her question, as she knows, Parliament has provided for an independent regulator whose responsibility it is and who is statutorily required to protect customers' interests while ensuring that they can finance their obligations. She may care already to acknowledge the change in the quality of bathing water and other European Community standards that have been brought about since privatisation and that were not apparent under any Government prior to privatisation.
    Mrs. Beckett: I notice that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to condemn that pay rise. I hope that he realises that it is those double standards that are bringing his Government into disrepute. Is not it now the case that when people turn on the tap, when they turn on the light—in fact, every time they turn around—under this rip-off Government they are hit with higher taxes and higher charges, and that people are paying more to get less?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Lady could explain why British Telecom's prices are down 30 per cent. since privatisation, why the prices of telephones are down 60 per cent., and why the price of gas is down 21 per cent. It is absolutely clear that the right hon. Lady will protect anything that is in public ownership and attack anything that is in private ownership.
    On the pay of water company directors, I have made it clear in the past that they should follow the lead that the Government have set for pay in the public sector and elsewhere, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will make it clear whether she would renationalise those privatised industries and see the prices go back up again, as they used to under nationalisation.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in 1989, 11 bandsmen died in the IRA bombing at the Royal Marines establishment in Deal? Will he recall also that that established a very strong relationship with the people of the town of Deal, who appealed for the music school to be kept in Deal? It was such that 12,500 people signed a petition, which I handed in to the House last Thursday. Will my right hon. Friend take note, therefore, of the strength of feeling that exists between the townspeople of Deal, the Royal Marines school of music and those people who work in it, and will he also recognise that unemployment in Deal is higher than unemployment in the area surrounding Rosyth?
    The Prime Minister: I recall, as I am sure many hon. Members will recall, that dreadful deed of many years ago, but I cannot anticipate the substance of statements not yet made.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister reassure us that he has no intention of doing a U-turn on his policy to favour the lifting of the arms embargo if the peace talks in Bosnia fail? Is not that the single act best calculated to ensure that the position of United Nations troops in Bosnia becomes untenable? Surely, that cannot be what the Government wish to see. Is not it illogical to say to the warring partners in Bosnia, "If you will not make peace, then we will help you to make a bigger and more bloody war?"
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman sets out a policy that is not ours. He knows the strong opposition that we have consistently had to the unilateral raising of the arms embargo. That remains.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he is taking to improve the competitiveness of British business.
    The Prime Minister: The Government are determined to build on the world-class industries that the United Kingdom already has. The White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" sets out the most comprehensive agenda ever right across Government to improve the competitiveness of British business.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he accept that perhaps the greatest contribution to the increased competitiveness of our economy has come from the privatisation of loss-making nationalised industries such as British Steel? Does he accept that today British Steel is the world's most efficient producer of steel, and will he ensure that that hard-earned and strong reputation in the world will not be blunted by state-subsidised, inefficient European competitors?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly continue to do all that we can to bring pressure to bear on our European partners to ensure that British industry is not damaged by unfair competition.
    Since British Steel moved from the public to the private sector, it has transformed itself into an efficient, integrated, profitable producer. Exports have doubled in recent years, and British Steel is now one of Britain's largest exporters.
    Mr. Clelland: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the biggest danger to manufacturing industry in the northern region is the loss of previously privatised industries such as Swan Hunter? What will he do to protect that industry?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman would have noted from the White Paper on competitiveness, the only way in which to protect any industry in this country—or, indeed, any other—is to ensure that it can compete, and is producing something that people wish to buy at the time when they wish to buy it and at a price that they can afford. That is the Government's policy; I wish that it had the whole-hearted support of the Opposition.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) for last week's recommendation by the Local Government Commission that the borough of Bournemouth should return to unitary status after 20 years of county council control? Is not that a clear demonstration of Conservative commitment to strong local government, in complete contrast to the unwanted policies of remote regional government favoured by Labour and the Liberal Democrats?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his views known to the commissioners. We certainly wish to put decision making at the lowest possible level, so that it is close to the people who vote and pay local taxes; unlike other parties in the House, we do not want an extra layer of expensive regional government.
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency are desperate for his Government to place orders for the future large aircraft? Bearing in mind the magnificent achievement of the Airbus project, can he tell us when British Airways might buy aircraft of the Airbus marque? Does he agree that aerospace is now the greatest industry in Britain, and that it requires more support and encouragement from his Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an indication of the question that he was going to ask on this specific subject.
    As for the future large aircraft, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received details from. British Aerospace, which he is now taking into account in assessing the options for replacement or refurbishment of the present Hercules flight.
    I wholly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern to protect jobs in his constituency. Commercial decisions must be a matter for British Airways rather than for my right hon. and learned Friend, but the hon. Gentleman will know that Airbus has competed very successfully. It has attracted customers from airlines around the world, most recently winning a very significant order from Singapore Airlines. I have no doubt that the quality of the product means that that success will continue.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend. During his busy schedule, will he find time to visit my constituency of Erith and Crayford and see at first hand the improving economic situation and, in particular, the improving job situation in Bexley? Furthermore, will he reaffirm his commitment to lower taxation when the time is right—[Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh because they do not like the truth. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm his commitment to the fact that Conservative Members believe in lower taxation? Opposition Members want to spend more and tax more.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the improving economic circumstances, and about the need to bring unemployment down further. I am delighted that it is falling, although it clearly has a long way further to fall.
    As for taxation, of course Labour Members dislike the prospect of lower taxation: they would like to get their hands on people's money and spend it. As the former hon. Member for Dagenham said before defecting back to New Zealand,
    "I think the Labour party ought to accept that…we"—
    that is, the Labour party—
    "will always be likely to have a higher tax burden than our opponents."
    That is undoubtedly true, and there is no instance in recent years of Labour Members' voting for a tax reduction.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: We have seen the plunder of the water industry and the electricity industry by chief executives and others, who often came from public services. The chairman of the Post Office is now pressing for the privatisation and plunder of his own service. What has happened to standards in public life and to the notion of public service?
    The Prime Minister: The Post Office management has said that it believes that the best way to protect jobs, to continue to improve services and to compete is for the Post Office to have the freedoms of the private sector. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned only with the qualities of envy which activate the Labour party, but the fact is that the private sector provides a better service than the public sector; it is more efficient than the public sector; and, over years, it is less costly than the public sector.

Privilege (Madam Speaker's Statement)
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make arising from a number of privilege complaints that I have received from Members based on an article which appeared in The Sunday Times newspaper of 10 July. My inquiries went wider than simply accepting the account of matters as given by the newspaper itself.
It is relevant to the issue that I should remind the House of a paragraph in the first report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests of the Session 1991–92, which reads as follows:
"There is a danger that some Members may make the mistake of believing that correct registration and declaration adequately discharge their public responsibilities in respect of their private interests. Such a mistake could have serious consequences both for the Member concerned and ultimately for the House. As the Speaker reminded the Committee, 'a Member must be vigilant that his actions do not tend to bring the House into disrepute' and, in particular, 'Members who hold consultancy and similar positions must ensure that they do not use their position as Members improperly'. A financial inducement to take a particular course of action in Parliament may constitute a bribe and thus be an offence against the law of Parliament".
It is because I consider that there is an urgent need to clarify the law of Parliament in that area that I am prepared to grant precedence to a motion on that complaint, and I do so without having the need to pass judgment on the particular actions of any of the several Members referred to in the newspaper article.
I now turn to the conduct of the newspaper itself. "Erskine May", at page 128, states:
"the offering to a Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as a Member, or of any fee or reward in connection with the promotion of…any…matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the House…has been treated as a breach of privilege."
This, too, is an aspect of the affair which I believe merits further examination, as well as the subsidiary matter of the clandestine recording of Members' conversations within the precincts.
If, as a result of a motion based on those issues, the matter is referred by the House to the Committee of Privileges, I should like to make it clear that the Committee will have power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege which are concerned. I hope that it will use that power for the assistance of the House in a difficult area.
The procedure now is for a motion to have precedence at the commencement of business at 3.30 tomorrow. As I said, I have received a number of complaints, including one from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). He will now be able to table a motion in the proper form for tomorrow's debate.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I went before the Select Committee on Privileges in 1974 as the Member of Parliament who originally raised the question of "MPs for hire". I was severely censured for contempt of the House, although I was the whistleblower and not the man who was taking the money.
One of the grievances about this procedure, which I have borne for 20 years, is that there are no Hansard records of the Privileges Committee. The Committee can
830
decide to meet in private—and it did. It can decide to ask the people who come before it whether they wish to write to the Committee, and then various communications channels advise the Member to write to the Committee, because, if hon. Members go before top Attorneys-General, they are likely to face severe questioning.
There is no guarantee that the report is ever brought back to the House to be debated. It certainly was not in my case, even though Reggie Maudling and the other two guys—
Madam Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman please come to his point of order?
Mr. Ashton: I am coming to my point of order. Is it possible for you, Madam Speaker, to make a ruling now, especially with regard to The Sunday Times, that the Hansard report must be printed in full and that the Committee must sit in public? If not, there will be a great deal of disagreement about the recommendations.
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman understands that Committees are in charge of their own proceedings. The hon. Gentleman's point is not a point of order, but it is very much a matter for debate tomorrow. I hope that he will catch my eye in tomorrow's debate. As he knows, the Committee itself must determine how it proceeds.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to paragraph 24 of the first report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1991? It deals with occasions when an hon. Member should withdraw from Committee proceedings. In this context, I refer to the proposed Privileges Committee. The Select Committee on Members' Interests said in its report:
"We feel that it is right that when a member of a committee, particularly the Chairman, has a pecuniary interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, the Member should stand aside from the committee proceedings relating to it. This convention is so fundamental to the proper conduct of select committee business that we recommend that it should be reinforced by an appropriate resolution of the House."
In column 945—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order for me?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. It is a vital point.
In column 945 on 13 July 1992, that recommendation was enshrined as a rule of the House. It was ordered:
"That this House takes note of the First Report"
and in particular paragraph 24, dealing with
"withdrawal from Committee proceedings."—[Official Report, 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 945.]
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the business of this Committee is consultancy. It is examining the future of consultancy. If the Privileges Committee is to comprise the great and the eminent in our ranks—that is, Privy Councillors who, in the main, have sat on all previous Privileges Committees in the House while I have been a Member—who are Members of Parliament who have directorships and consultancies in abundance, inbuilt in the Committee will be a conflict of interest which will prevent the Committee from properly deliberating on these matters. I believe—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I finish my point of order, Madam Speaker?
Hon. Members: No.
Madam Speaker: Order. I want to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, as does the House. However, he is anticipating a Committee that has not yet been established. We have not even had the motion tabled on the Order Paper; we are not into debate. Although these are very valuable points, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make them in the debate tomorrow. Would he come to the point that he is putting to me as a point of order?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will come to the point, Madam Speaker.
I wonder whether you can give the House an assurance that the conflict of interest to which I referred, in so far as the Privileges Committee will be dealing with the issue of consultancy, will not be allowed to happen in this case, or its report will be discredited? The public outside expect an objective assessment about what is in the public interest and what is good for Parliament. We need that assurance, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Of course all the rules of the House will be respected. It is for the House to decide who will be members of that Committee.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I want no further points of order on this matter. I have made a very considered statement on this issue, and I hope that hon. Members will consider that it is a full statement. There is nothing further I can add. The points of order that hon. Members are now raising are matters of debate. They are for the debate tomorrow; they are not points of order for me.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have just made my point about my considered statement. I cannot add further to it now. I ask those hon. Members who still persist in seeking to raise their points of order to reflect on the important statement that I have just made. They should not pursue those points of order now, but should seek to make them in the debate tomorrow.
Mr. David Jamieson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Education Question Time, I raised the matter of an OFSTED report on Finborough school in Suffolk. The Secretary of State claimed to have no knowledge of it, but earlier this year I wrote to him about it. On 17 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replied to me; he named the school and noted my concerns. Can the Secretary of State be brought back to the House to correct his misleading statement?
Madam Speaker: Not while I am in the Chair, but I believe that the hon. Member may well find other parliamentary opportunities to make his point.
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to be called. During Education Question Time, the Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) of sending her children to a private school, but grant-maintained schools are state schools. What is more, that child is going to the school that his father attended—the local state school. Is it not scandalous that that sort of—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is totally outrageous that Members' children, on whichever side of the House their parents may sit, should be used in politics across the Floor of the House.
Sir John Gorst: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It does not relate to my statement, presumably, because I have made myself quite clear about it.
Sir John Gorst: The point of order that I wish to put to you, Madam Speaker, is about the question of sub judice with regard to the matter on which you made your statement. The suggestion has been made that a Select Committee which is considering the conduct of the press might examine this issue. Where the matter now stands, are the press precluded from any discussion on the basis that it is sub judice? That is the sole point I want to make.
Madam Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. If the hon. Gentleman would care to examine my statement in detail, he will see that it covers his points.
Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I need some clarification of your statement, as a member of the hard-working Select Committee on Members' Interests. Do you think that that Committee has any interest in this case? As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said, given that the Committee has dealt with lobbying before, I hope that it will not be ignored on this occasion.
Madam Speaker: I think that that question might be put in tomorrow's debate. It is not a point of order for me today.

BILL PRESENTED
  TRADE BOYCOTTS
  Mr. Spencer Batiste, supported by Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. Greville Janner, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. David Alton and Mr. Mike Gapes, presented a Bill to prohibit companies from giving information for the purposes of a trade boycott which has not been approved by United Nations or European Union agreement; and for connected purposes: 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 147.]

Unfitness to Drive on Medical Grounds
3.43 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require medical practitioners to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in cases where they consider that their patients are unfit to drive on medical grounds.
The Bill's purpose is direct and simple. It would place a statutory obligation on medical practitioners, whether hospital based or in general practice, to report to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency any cases in which they consider a patient to be medically unfit to drive.
I took up this case because one of my young constituents, Paul Scarisbrick, was killed in an incident on the M62 in circumstances which, had the Bill been in force, would not have occurred. To put it bluntly, if the doctors involved in treating the man responsible for causing the incident had reported his condition to the DVLA, he would almost certainly not have been allowed to continue driving, and Paul Scarisbrick would still be alive today.
Let me explain the circumstances. Two years earlier, the elderly gentleman involved in the incident, whom I will not name here, had been advised by a consultant psychiatrist not to continue driving, as he was suffering from the progressive disorder commonly known as Alzheimer's disease. However, as there was no statutory requirement to take the matter further, neither the consultant nor the GP who was also aware of the situation saw fit to communicate that information to any third party. The man accordingly ignored the medical advice, and the result was that which I have already described.
Why did not the doctors involved take the matter further? They claim that the requirement for confidentiality between a doctor and a patient prevents them from passing on such information. Interestingly, in a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick's solicitor, the Liverpool district coroner, Mr. S.R. Barter MBE, said:
"I am in no doubt in my own mind that the existing law should be changed by statute. Once a doctor has made a clinical judgement, following full investigation, that a patient is suffering from a disease which makes him a danger to himself and the public if he continues to drive, then he should be under a statutory obligation to inform the DVLA of his opinion."
Coming from such an experienced and distinguished source, that is proof positive of the need for a change in the law along the lines that I am proposing.
I also have a letter from the director general of the Association of British Insurers, Mr. Mark Boléat, in which he says unequivocally:
"ABI agrees with the purpose of your Bill to require medical practitioners to report to the DVLA a case where they consider a
834
patient unfit to drive, either for physical or mental health reasons."
Once again, that shows support from an important body.
The medical profession, through its professional body, the British Medical Association, is opposed to the Bill. It is jealous, perhaps understandably, of the doctor-patient relationship with regard to confidentiality. I shall make two points on that: first, to some extent, doctors already breach that particular requirement with, for example, the reporting of notifiable infectious diseases; and, secondly, such confidences should, in my opinion and that of many others, be subjected to a simple but overriding test—that the wider public interest should be taken into account.
A motor vehicle in the wrong hands is a potentially lethal weapon. It is much more lethal than a gun, for example, yet the rules governing the licensing of guns are rightly much more stringent, and require proper medical certification. Although I realise that I am not entirely comparing like with like, I feel that it is nevertheless a useful analogy to compare not a gun with a car but a potential gun user with a potential car user.
Finally, some people have objected to the Bill on the ground that it is the thin end of the wedge—a bridgehead towards the compulsory re-testing of elderly people. It is not. Different people respond in different ways to the aging process. I know many people well into their 70s and beyond who are fully capable of living a full life, including driving a car. As a forty-something myself, however, I sometimes feel that I have already started to disintegrate, so there is no clear comparison between people at different ages.
Far from being the thin end of the wedge, the Bill could halt the movement towards compulsory re-testing in its tracks, as it would deal with many of the problems by medical means, rather than by the remorseless march of the calender. I am convinced that public interest and public safety now require that we legislate to ensure as far as is reasonably possible that those whom we license to drive are medically fit to do so. It is a small measure, which could have a giant effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Joe Benton.

Unfitness to Drive on Medical Grounds
  UNFITNESS TO DRIVE ON MEDICAL GROUNDS
  Mr. George Howarth accordingly presented a Bill to require medical practitioners to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in cases where they consider that their patients are unfit to drive on medical grounds: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
Opposition Day
[18m ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Post Office
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House rejects the options in the Government's Green Paper 'The Future of Postal Services' for whole privatisation or part privatisation of Royal Mail and Parcelforce; records its concern that in order to achieve these options Her Majesty's Government proposes to break up the Post Office, putting at risk the close co-operation and mutual support of Royal Mail, Parcelforce and Post Office Counters; recognises the vital role of post office branches within their local communities and is concerned that the survival of branches in small communities with low turnover will be threatened by the break-up of the Post Office; believes that the best way to safeguard the continued provision of universal access and uniform affordable pricing by Royal Mail is to keep it in public ownership as a public service; congratulates the Post Office on its efficiency while a public corporation in providing the most reliable mail service in Europe at one of the cheapest prices without calling on any public subsidy; is of the view that the future of the Post Office and of its service to its customers can best be secured by providing it with commercial freedom as a single corporation within public ownership; and calls upon the Government to adopt that option.
  The Opposition thought it would be desirable that the House should have an opportunity to debate the Government's Green Paper on the Post Office before the Government produce their response to the consultation on that paper. Had the Opposition not initiated this debate, the House would not have had an opportunity to debate the Green Paper before the President made up his mind on it.
  As it is, we are holding a debate without the President. He is missing, just as he missed the last DTI questions—when I was informed, with remarkable appropriateness, that he was attending an invisible seminar. Today I am informed that he is in Cape Town, so instead we have with us the Minister of State.
  The Government's reluctance to debate these proposals brings me to my first question for the Minister of State. As the Green Paper was not thought of sufficient constitutional importance to justify a statement to the House when it was published, and as the views of the House do not merit a debate in Government time, may we at least have an assurance that the outcome of the Green Paper will be first announced to Parliament?
  I ask because I notice that the consultation period ends on 30 September. In view of the timing, may we have an assurance that the House will be the first to hear of the result, and that we will not first learn about it at the Tory party conference in October—not that we would want, or be allowed, to get in there, and I am sure that no Conservative Member with doubts will be called to air them there?
  I repeat: can we have an assurance that the fate of the Post Office will first be announced in this Chamber and not in Bournemouth? I notice that the Minister is not leaping to his feet to provide us with that assurance. I appreciate that he does not have much discretion in the matter, but
  836
  perhaps, before he comes to reply, he will set the telex wires between here and Cape Town humming so that, when he rises, he will be able to give us the assurance.
  While the Minister is thinking about that, may I try another question on him? I notice that the Government amendment
  "welcomes the opportunity of consultation on the range of options"
  in the Green Paper. I must therefore ask the Minister the question that the Under-Secretary appeared to have so much difficulty with a fortnight ago. How real will the consultation be? Are the Government prepared to listen to the views expressed during it?
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend supplies us with a candid answer, of a kind with which we may not be favoured when the Minister replies; but she voices my own suspicions.
  If the consultation shows that the great majority of the British public do not want their Post Office privatised, will the Government accept that verdict?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Cook: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was again going to anticipate the answer. If so, I suspect that she would again have been correct.
  The Minister owes it to the House to answer the question, and he owes it to the public to listen to what they want done with their Post Office. I say that because the Government have no mandate to privatise it. There was not a word about privatisation of the Post Office in their manifesto. It included a passage about the Post Office, but it gave no hint of privatisation. One can try sprinkling water on it, but the wording still does not appear. I have found no word of privatisation in any election statement of the Government in the most recent general election campaign.
  The only reference to the privatisation of the Post Office that I have been able to find in any general election campaign was the ruling out of privatisation of the Post Office by the noble Lady Baroness Thatcher, in the 1997 general election, the week before polling day. She said:
  "I have indicated that the Royal Mail would not be privatised. People feel very strongly about it and so do I."
  The Royal Mail, in her words,
  "would remain inviolate."
  I cheerfully concede to the Minister that that was 1987. It was an assurance that apparently joined the list of invisibles in 1992, but no one in 1992 told us that the Post Office was now ready to be privatised or violated.
  I will happily give way to any Tory MP who can produce his election address from 1992 in which he told his electorate that he thought that privatisation of the Post Office would be a terrific idea. I shall not be surprised if there are none of them. It is very wise of them, too, because the most recent opinion poll, in June, showed that 71 per cent. of the public opposed privatisation. The numbers of people opposed to privatisation have actually increased since the word got out that the Government were thinking of privatising the Post Office.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: Yes, and I shall look forward to reading the hon. Gentleman's election address in the Library tomorrow.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Conservative manifesto in 1992 included a commitment to maintain an affordable and uniform pricing structure, a commitment to a national delivery service and a commitment to maintain a large network of post offices. Did the Labour party's manifesto contain those commitments or not?
  Mr. Cook: Of course, those issues become matters of question only when the Government proceed to privatise the Post Office. There is no suggestion in our minds that we would seek to privatise the Post Office or put at risk the uniform postage, the chain of local branches or the right of any customer of the Post Office to post a letter from any address in Britain to any other address in Britain at the same low price.
  Those things are put at risk only because the Government are now seeking to privatise the Post Office. That is why they have to give the assurances—why give an assurance when those things are not at risk?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I give way to seniority.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The burden weighs heavily on me, but will the hon. Gentleman consider that the Select Committee and all the people involved in the Post Office have recognised that time has passed? It is not a question of what we promised years ago. The fact is that—
  Mr. Cook indicated dissent.
  Mr. Taylor: No. The fact is that there is a commercial threat to the viability of the service if the status quo is preserved. What is the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to ensure that we have a uniform national Post Office that is excellent in its delivery of service, and which gets access to capital—which it will not if it stays entirely in the public sector?
  Mr. Cook: No one is defending the status quo; nor was the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that: no one wants the status quo. Everyone wants to find a formula that would provide a stable consensus solution for the Post Office. As the hon. Gentleman asked, we produced 13 pages in our plans for a modern Post Office, in which we went for the option of commercial freedom in the public sector. Later, I shall spell out exactly what that means and how it can be delivered, and how even the current Government believe, in another context, that that can be delivered.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs rose—
  Mr. Cook: No; I must carry on.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider this. Although I referred earlier to the opinion polls which showed that 71 per cent. of the general public opposed privatisation, I must warn the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that 56 per cent. even of those people who last month owned up to voting Tory opposed privatisation of the Post Office. The people who voted Tory last month in the European elections are the bottom bedrock of the Tory vote. Not even a majority of the last 27 per cent. who turned out to vote Tory would vote for privatisation of the Post Office.
  Mr. Michael Bates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a second.
  838
  The reason why those people will not buy privatisation of the Post Office is straightforward: they have more common sense than the dogmatists and ideologues who now rule over them.
  Mr. Bates: During that poll, were people asked whether they would be in favour of renationalising British Telecom? Is that still Opposition policy?
  Mr. Cook: That has not been the policy of the Labour party since 1987, and there is no great secret about that. If the hon. Gentleman would read our manifesto with the same care that we read the Conservative manifesto, he would know that.
  I should like to return to the question why the public have more sense than to swallow the proposal in the Green Paper. It is because they have more sense than to believe that the Post Office would work better if it was broken up, which is what the Green Paper proposes.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs rose—
  Mr. Cook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech rather than carry on a dialogue. I am sure that I can find an opportunity later to let him intervene.
  To privatise the Post Office, the Government first have to carve it up. Their only reason for proposing to separate Royal Mail from Post Office Counters and put them under separate ownership is so that they can privatise the Royal Mail, which is the profitable part. If privatisation was not on the agenda, no one in his right mind would propose to divide the Post Office and place the parts under separate ownership.
  As the Minister knows, the Government held a two-year review, during which they invited views on the future of the Post Office. Not one of the published submissions suggested that it would be a good idea to break it into two separately owned companies.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish this point. After that, I owe it to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) to give way.
  We are repeatedly told that it is important to privatise the Post Office and to move it with the times, so that it can meet the challenge of the international market and beat off the Dutch raiders. Not one post office in the world has split its counter service from its delivery service, and the Dutch post office, which is held up to us as the threat to our postal services, has not only kept them integrated but said last month that separating counters from delivery would hamper their management.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: The vast majority of people would agree that the dogmatism and lack of common sense are entirely on the hon. Gentleman's part. Is he not peddling the sort of scare stories that we heard in 1983 when British Telecom was being privatised? But since then the cost of telephone calls has fallen by 30 per cent., there is more investment and the privatised BT is providing a better service for the customer than ever before.
  Mr. Cook: I am astonished that, in the week in which the National Consumer Council produced a blistering report on how water charges have increased by three quarters since privatisation, hon. Members have the nerve to claim that privatisation has been the source of lower

  839
  prices. The hon. Gentleman should try telling that to the consumers of South West Water, who have seen prices double.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to take his stand on prices, let us argue prices. During the period since British Telecom was privatised, postage prices have gone up by less than the rate of inflation. BT prices overall have dropped by over 12 per cent. compared with inflation, and the price of the postage stamp compared with inflation has gone down by 2 per cent. The percentages would have precisely matched those of BT if the Treasury had not perpetually insisted on increasing payments to the Treasury. That forced the last increase in the price of postage stamps.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Dutch example. Does he agree that the competition about which the Government complain from the Dutch post office comes from an organisation that has exactly the degree of commercial freedom that the Government say is unacceptable here? It has enabled the Dutch to compete with our Post Office. Why cannot we have the same kind of operation here?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a matter to which I shall turn. The exact model that we are invited to be threatened by, and because of which the Post Office should be privatised, is a model of commercial freedom in the commercial sector.
  I was speaking about the division that is proposed in the Green Paper between the Royal Mail and Post Office Counters. That division will leave them no longer accountable to one board and under one owner. Accountability to one board has been important in the history of those two distinct businesses, because it makes sure that they pull together. The danger under separate owners who are no longer accountable to the same board is that they would pull against each other.
  I shall give an example. The Royal Mail has now established callers' offices at more than 3,000 Royal Mail sorting offices to provide a limited service direct to business clients. The service is kept limited because, while there is common ownership with Post Office Counters, the Post Office board rightly recognises that that service would provide direct competition to Post Office Counters.
  Once the Royal Mail is a separate company with private owners, there is nothing to hold it back from marketing those callers' offices, providing the full range of Royal Mail services. It will be under pressure from its private owners to do so, because the one advantage of breaking Royal Mail away from Post Office Counters is that it could open its own outlets and bypass post office branches.
  Those callers' offices are all in delivery offices. By definition, they all have large car parking spaces. It would be easy to market them to businesses as the Royal Mail equivalent of the out-of-town Sainsburys. That would do to high street post offices what Sainsburys superstores have done to village shopping.
  That brings me to the confidence trick at the heart of the Green Paper. It contains many assurances, and I am willing to accept one of them in full. I unreservedly accept the assurance on page 22 that children will still be free to write to Santa Claus after privatisation. It is good to know that the Government retain a human and delightful touch. It is also good to know that Santa Claus remains inviolate, at least until the next election.
  840
  However, we really have to believe in Santa Claus to believe the financial arithmetic of the other assurances. The big con trick practised in the Green Paper is that, by keeping Post Office Counters in the public sector, we will keep open the network of post office branches.
  They will stay open only if the Royal Mail keeps up its payments. Currently, it pays £250 million a year for the handling of its services by Post Office Counters. That payment is related to the volume of its business so handled. Suppose the Royal Mail seizes its freedom to handle more of its own business in the way that I have described—how much will it be willing to pay Post Office Counters then? If its volume goes down, how much will its payment go down?
  There is not much of a margin in the books for a reduction. Post Office Counters made a profit of only £25 million last year. It would take only a 10 per cent. drop in its business from Royal Mail for it to end up making a loss. What would happen then? It would have to make cuts. Where would those cuts fall? We can all predict that. The point that should worry Tory Back Benchers is the fact that it is the small village sub-post offices that get the vast cross-subsidy from the Crown post office.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt worried about his village post office, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Brandreth: Of course I am concerned about the future of my village post offices.
  Is not the hon. Gentleman indulging in exactly the same scaremongering tactics that the Opposition indulged in a decade ago, when they told us that a privatised British Telecom would result in vastly increased charges and the ending of rural services and rural telephone provision? In fact, the number of telephones in the rural communities that work has increased. The hon. Gentleman is simply repeating scaremongering tactics. Why should we believe him now, when what his colleagues were saying 10 years ago has been shown to be untrue?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman should be quiet and listen, because he obviously needs to do so. If he and his hon. Friends have not grasped one fact, the future of rural post offices is in deep trouble.
  That fact is that the difference between telecommunications and the postal services is that, with new technology, it is now a matter of indifference how far a telephone call is going, but with the postal service the cost of delivering a letter is directly proportionate to the distance that it travels. That is why privatisation of the Royal Mail raises the problem of protecting rural post offices and remote deliveries.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I want to continue with the argument. If Conservative Members are really interested in village post offices, they had better listen to it.
  If the payment to Post Office Counters goes down, and if the Crown post office is unable to maintain the cross-subsidy, how long will it be before we begin to see a retreat from the post office network?
  How many post office branches would close if the cross-subsidy between Crown and village post offices were

  841
  cut? I accept that rural areas which the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) claims to represent are increasingly represented by Labour MEPs in Strasbourg, but they are still represented by Tory Members of Parliament, who may well go the way of their local Tory MEPs and disappear if privatisation results in the closure of their village shops.
  Hon. Members should not think that the regulator will help if that problem arises. In the Green Paper, the regulator is the regulator of the Royal Mail, not Post Office Counters. In the Green Paper, the role of the regulator has been carefully structured so that, on the most contentious issue—the closure of a rural post office branch—the regulator will have no role.
  In any case, the real job of the regulator—as with so many of the regulators appointed by the Government when they privatise utilities—has nothing do with protecting services and everything to do with promoting the interests of competitors and reducing the market share of the utility.
  Lady Olga Maitland: We have been hearing constant jeering about the Government's plans for the Royal Mail, but will the hon. Gentleman not tell us what his policies would be for the Royal Mail? Would he invest in it? If so, is this a spending pledge, and would he sustain it?
  Mr. Cook: I do not know whether the hon. Lady was here when I answered precisely that question. I gather that she was not here, so I should stress that it is a waste of the House's time if hon. Members feel free to intervene without having listened to a speech.
  The hon. Lady asked about investment. The Post Office would have no problem meeting its investment plans if the Treasury were not constantly increasing the amount of money that the Post Office has to hand over; it has trebled over the past three years.
  There is a paradox before the House. We are invited by the Green Paper to believe that, in the public sector, the Post Office faces slow decline, but the public expenditure White Papers say that the Treasury expects rising profitability in the public sector. That is why the Post Office cannot invest.
  The hon. Lady asked about the spending commitment. If the Treasury did not demand so much in profits from the Post Office, there would be no need for any spending commitment. [Interruption.] No, there would not. That money would provide the investment.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. I said on the last occasion that I would not give way again.
  The Green Paper opens up the Post Office to competition; it opens up every part of the operation of the Royal Mail except the last bit, where the letters are pushed through the letter boxes. It is understandable that the Green Paper does not propose to open that up to competition. Door-to-door delivery is the labour-intensive part of the operation. It is high in costs, and it is impossible to find anybody who wants to take it over, but it is the only part of the monopoly that will be left.
  Under the Green Paper, Royal Mail will be forced to accept competitors collecting bulk mail from big clients,
  842
  sorting it out in their own mail rooms, transporting it to the city of destination and then dumping it at the Royal Mail delivery office for the postman to cart round the streets.
  It will not save the Royal Mail much in costs. Even if the competition cuts out all the large clients who are easy to handle at a profit, the Royal Mail will still be obliged to collect from every collection box, run vans between every town and maintain all 80 mechanised sorting offices round Britain. The fixed costs of its network will not decrease in step with the volume that is passing through it, but the revenue will fall with that volume.
  The problem for the public is that, as the competitors skim away the profitable parts of its operation, Royal Mail will not have the same profits to cross-subsidise the domestic customer who wants to post a single letter—particularly the expensive domestic customer who wants to send it a long way.
  I refer to it as a problem. I am not sure that everyone sees it as a problem. In the early 1980s, one Tory MP advocated that we should have a Royal Mail in which people paid for the distance they wanted their letters to go. As he rather cheerfully argued,
  "There does not seem to be a case for massive subsidisation of all those living in the outer Hebrides who also choose to have all their friends in London. The introduction of distance pricing for the mail service could be crude but still effective."
  Just how crude can be seen from the estimated cost of sending a letter from the Hebrides to London, which would produce a distance pricing of £10. Certainly crude, and only effective in relieving the Post Office of any need to provide the service.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Scaremongering.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of scaremongering, but the Member of Parliament that I quoted was no ordinary Tory. He is now a Cabinet Minister—the Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes, but that was said by the Secretary of State for Wales. My Welsh colleagues may also shake their heads in disbelief, but he is unfortunately still the Secretary of State for Wales. He may not have stayed overnight in Wales, but every week he sits in the Cabinet that will decide the response to the Green Paper and that invites us to believe their assurances that a uniform, affordable tariff will remain.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I am worried by my hon. Friend's remarks about possible charging. What would happen at Christmas? Would the poor and pensioners no longer be able to send Christmas cards?
  Mr. Cook: I will answer my hon. Friend by considering the one example in the world of a country that has opened up its postal services to outside competition in the way that the Green Paper envisages for the Royal Mail after privatisation. Since New Zealand liberalised its postal services, the average postal charge has increased 50 per cent. to compensate for the loss of profitable business. Tory Members might like to note that rural residents in New Zealand pay an annual fee of 80 dollars if they want their mail delivered to their door.
  One hundred and fifty years of public ownership has given Britain one of the best postal services in the world. It has more deliveries than, for example, the Dutch postal service can manage. There is no second delivery or

  843
  Saturday delivery in Holland. London enjoys 11 deliveries a week, but Amsterdam has only five. Anyone who reads the Green Paper's tepid paragraph on second delivery will know that there is no assurance that delivery will join Santa Claus in surviving privatisation.
  The UK postal service is also cheaper. Since the mid-1980s, its charges have fallen against inflation, and they are now one fifth lower than those of the Dutch postal service. The Post Office has also made bigger productivity gains. Since the mid-1980s, it has achieved higher productivity while in public ownership than gas or electricity under privatisation.
  I grant that the Post Office is not top of the table. If one considers all the energy and utility industries, whether public or private, top of the table for productivity is British Coal—not that it receives any reward from the Government. The Post Office comes in higher than many industries that the Government have already privatised.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: What is happening already in rural areas is bad enough. Not only are small country towns losing Crown post offices, but many rural post offices are under such pressure that they too will soon lose their trade.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend emphasises that many Members of Parliament on this side of the House represent rural areas, and understand perfectly well the anxieties felt by people living in them. They know precisely why strong public opinion is registered against privatisation.
  Ours is also the only postal organisation in the world that makes a profit on its mail services.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments against privatisation, and I am particularly concerned, as is the hon. Gentleman, about rural offices. Does he realise that 19,000 out of 20,000 offices are currently in private ownership? As he is so keen to reverse privatisation of the Post Office, will he pledge here and now that his Government will find the funds to renationalise the Post Office if we privatise it?
  Mr. Cook: I have already answered that question. If the Government are daft enough to proceed with privatising the Royal Mail, we will look at ways of restoring it to where we believe it belongs—in public control, where the bulk of its customers want it kept.
  As for the 19,000 sub-post offices in private ownership, it is perfectly correct that they have private sub-postmasters. Those people are working to a contract with Post Office Counters, and the money they receive under the contract depends critically upon the money that Post Office Counters receives from Royal Mail.
  If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about the future of his village post office, he should ask himself whether it makes sense to do as the Government propose and to break Post Office Counters, a company making a £25 million profit, away from Royal Mail, a company making a £280 million profit. If I, as a constituency Member for that village, were interested in the hon. Gentleman's village post office, I should seriously doubt the wisdom of that separation of Post Office Counters from its major source of revenue.
  As I was saying, we have the only Post Office in the world that makes a profit. It gets not one penny in subsidy. On the contrary, it subsidises the Treasury with the profits that it hands over—and those demands have trebled over the past three years. This year, the Post Office will pay the
  844
  Treasury £230 million—almost as much as Post Office Counters receives from Royal Mail for handling charges and for keeping open the entire post office network throughout Britain.
  Of course, the reason why that sum is demanded from the Post Office has nothing to do with an estimate of its profitability and everything to do with the Treasury's calculation of what it desperately needs. That is the real reason why the "For Sale" sign is going up outside the Post Office: the Treasury needs the money. After 150 years of public stewardship of the Royal Mail, the threat is that it will be brought to an end to pay for 15 years of economic incompetence by the Government.
  The Post Office need not be privatised. There is an alternative. Let me answer the hon. Members who have asked about it. There is an alternative that would provide the commercial freedom that the Post Office needs to meet the new competition while keeping it together and keeping it in the public sector. The Post Office would have the commercial freedom to allow it to expand its commercial activities, to form joint ventures with private sector companies, to raise capital for investment from private sources, and to compete in the new global communications markets.
  It is true that commercial freedom in the public sector is included as an option in the Green Paper—I hope to hear something from the Minister about that. However, I have never read any Green Paper with so little faith in one of the options that it lays before us. Indeed, even before the rest of us can express a view, the Green Paper tells us that the Government have concluded that that option will not work.
  It is not entirely clear why Ministers have come to that conclusion. I was perplexed by the reasoning used by the Under-Secretary of State for Technology on the "Today" programme last week, when he said that the Post Office could not have commercial freedom in the public sector because there is
  "always the knowledge that so long as it remains in the public sector then it can't go bankrupt".
  That seems to me a good reason for keeping it in the public sector. The idea of the freedom to go bankrupt seems an excellent argument against privatisation.
  The Green Paper that the Minister was discussing says that public ownership would condemn the Post Office to "slow decline". That is an appalling admission. Ministers are effectively saying that, if they remain responsible for the Post Office, the best they can offer it is slow decline. If that is true, it is an argument not for taking the Post Office out of the public sector, but for putting that lot out of government, so that they are no longer responsible for the public sector.
  The Minister is now in a difficult position, because last week his argument that there cannot be commercial freedom in the public sector was demolished from the Government Dispatch Box, when the White Paper on the BBC was introduced. That offered the BBC commercial freedom within the public sector—the freedom to expand its commercial activities, to form joint ventures, to raise capital for investment from private finance and to compete in the new global communications network. The BBC will be able to do all that, and still stay in the public sector.
  Why is that possible for the BBC, yet we are told that it is not possible for the Post Office as a public corporation? When the Minister comes to speak, he cannot

  845
  pretend that that option is now not available to the Post Office, unless he intends to vote against the Government's White Paper on the BBC.
  But there is another reason why the Government should embrace the option of commercial freedom within the public sector. If they are to be responsible about the future of a major public corporation, they should build that future on consensus. Every party on the Opposition Benches would support the option of commercial freedom in the public sector; that would make it a firm and stable option, which would take the Post Office into the next century. That does not need legislation. It does not even need consultation. It is an option on which we could go snap this afternoon.
  But of course, I know that the Minister will not do that. I know that the Government will not do it. They will not do it, because they have been in power for so long that they have forgotten that they are there only as the trustees of public corporations, not the owners of those corporations, to sell them off whatever the rest of us think.
  This Government are at the fag end of their days, marking their time until the day that they return to their community. Yet this Administration, on borrowed time, claim the right to end the public status of the Post Office, which goes back 150 years and is supported in public opinion polls by three times the number of members of the public that were prepared to support the Government.
  Moreover, the Government claim the right to sell the Post Office without any mandate from any election. If they proceed on that basis, they will make a mockery of parliamentary democracy. They have three months in which to reconsider—the three months that they have given themselves for consultation on the Green Paper.
  I asked at the start of my speech whether the Government would listen to the overwhelming majority of the customers in that consultation who will not want the Royal Mail privatised. It was no trick question. It is the real test of whether they will govern according to the wishes of the people or rule by imposing their own political prejudices on the nation.
  We will ensure that, during the next three months, the public are given every chance to express their views on the Post Office loud and clear. [Interruption.] The public will notice that, when we refer to that, Tory Members of Parliament already laugh at the idea of listening to the views of the public. I warn them that, if they choose to laugh rather than listen to those views, we shall make their contempt for the views of the public one of the main issues of the next parliamentary year, and we will fight to keep the Post Office where it belongs—in the public sector providing a public service.
  4.27 pm
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'agrees with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the Post Office cannot be retained in its present form; therefore welcomes the publication of the Government's Green Paper on the future of postal services which acknowledges the need for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office and provides increased opportunities for sub-post offices; recognising the importance to communities of Post Office Counters and the Royal Mail, supports the Government's commitment to the universal service at a uniform and affordable tariff, with a nationwide
  846
  network of post offices; condemns the approach that the only possible solution is 100 per cent. public ownership; and welcomes the opportunity of consultation on the range of options.'.
  Before I respond to points on the Green Paper, I remind the House that I have a declared interest as a shareholder in J. Sainsbury plc. Recently, the Post Office has transferred a number of its Crown offices to agency or franchise status. Those franchise arrangements are made with a number of stores, including those of the Co-operative movement, and I understand that five of them have been established in Sainsbury stores.
  I should make it clear to the House that the choice of private sector franchisees in individual cases is wholly an operational matter for Post Office Counters. Ministers and officials of the Department of Trade and Industry are neither involved in nor informed about such decisions.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: That was the best part of the Minister's speech.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I now come to the most important part of my speech.
  We welcome the Opposition's choice of the Green Paper on the Post Office as the subject for today's debate because it gives us an opportunity to publicise the options in it and the guarantees that it repeats. It also enables us to expose once again what I could almost call the Opposition's North Korean approach, exemplified so splendidly by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The motion is based on the Opposition's simple proposition which the Government totally reject: public sector good, private sector bad.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Livingston exposed his failure to recognise the opportunities that technological change is bringing to the Post Office and, indeed, could bring to Post Office customers if we were to respond positively. It was fairly predictable. We know the style—a nice snappy start and some good knockabout stuff. It reminded me of an England batting performance these days. The start was followed, I am afraid, by a middle order collapse. There were some wild, ill-judged strokes—exemplified by the hon. Gentleman's usual scare stories—an absence of runs scored and an absence of content. There was a little flourish by the tail, but the end verdict has to be that it was another very unsatisfactory performance.
  Most of all, the hon. Gentleman's speech was a missed opportunity to be positive and to put clause 4 out of his mind for a change, although that may be too much for the hon. Gentleman. It is no wonder that, like the England cricket team, he has such a consistent record of losing.
  Hon. Members have been reminded that on 30 June we published a consultative document entitled "The Future of Postal Services". Let me stress straightaway the word "consultative". The Green Paper sets out the issues surrounding the future of postal services and discusses a number of options for the future of the Post Office. It invites comments by 30 September and all members of the public and organisations with an interest are invited to comment on the proposals. The Government will form a view in the light of all the comments received.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to the MORI poll. The Minister should be aware that 70 per cent. of the people who took part in the poll were against the privatisation of the Post Office

  847
  and that 57 per cent. of the people who took part were Conservative voters and were against privatisation of the Post Office. Furthermore, 70 per cent. of the people who took part came from the constituencies of Tory Members. Does not the Minister agree that the poll shows that there is enormous public pressure for keeping the Post Office public rather than privatising it? Should not he be acting on that consultation process?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman has a touching faith in the accuracy of opinion polls, which he might have found disappointing in the last two elections.
  As I said, the point of the Green Paper is to have an informed consultation period, which, I regret, will not be helped by the hon. Member for Livingston giving publicity again to his usual scaremongering stories.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The Post Office put out for consultation over a three-month period the proposal to close the main post office in Nantwich, which has had a post office almost since the 1700s. It received a large volume of letters, postcards and petitions, all of which opposed the closure of the post office. The Post Office, however, has carried out a decision that it took three months earlier and our post office will now be located in a store somewhere else, which is deeply resented by many people and is certainly not the result of proper consultation.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Lady refers to the Crown conversion programme and, interestingly, to what is clearly a commercial decision of the Post Office. One of the many points left unresolved by the hon. Member for Livingston is the extent to which he would seek to interfere with the existing freedoms of the Post Office.
  The Government are not consulting on certain aspects of the Green Paper. Those involve the Government's absolute commitment to a number of basic postal services, which we have described as the non-negotiables. The three important commitments are: a universal letter and parcel service; a uniform and affordable tariff structure; and a nationwide network of post offices.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scaremongering stories whipped up by Labour have only served to worry and frighten elderly people all over the country? Will he confirm that the services provided by Post Office Counters will continue? In particular, how does he propose not only to maintain a uniform stamp price—regardless of where the letters are being sent—but to ensure that that price remains affordable?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I shall come to the last point in a moment. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the scaremongering: it has a long and well-established history, which is presumably approved of at the very top—or, at any rate, what we expect to be the very top soon. I note that, in December 1988, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said:
  "…the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 683.]
  I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks about that particular scare story now.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I think that I ought to make a little progress. I have given way three times. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  The commitments of which I have just reminded the House were first made in the citizens charter, were repeated in the Conservative party manifesto and the announcement of the Post Office review, and have been reiterated many times in the House. The hon. Member for Livingston, however, has never been one to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
  Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent. All right, I will give way.
  Mr. Grocott: I am grateful to the Minister. Will he answer a simple question? Should the British public give more or less credence to the "absolute assurances" that he has just given about the universal provision of the Post Office than to the "absolute assurances" that he and his colleagues gave before the last election that they would not raise taxes?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's fairly predictable question has been covered in the House so many times that I think we would do better to get on with the matter in hand. Undertakings on taxation are a familiar topic, but not one that need concern the Post Office.
  Let me deal with the substance of the Green Paper. One fact about which the hon. Member for Livingston and I may agree is that the Post Office is a very successful business, providing a daily letter service throughout the nation at a uniform tariff and with ever-improving standards. It supports 20,000 post offices, providing pensions and similar public services from city centres to the remotest parts of the country. It has just announced its 18th year of subsidy-free profit. It is thus no surprise that the Post Office is highly popular with the public, bracketed with Marks and Spencer—or, perhaps, other private-sector suppliers of life's essentials such as food and clothing.
  Despite that success, however, the Post Office faces new challenges. Its markets are changing, and changing fast. The hon. Member for Livingston seems not to recognise that both Post Office Counters and Royal Mail, the main constituent businesses of the Post Office, are faced with increasing competition. For example, virtually no services are now available only at post offices. Stamps are sold in all sorts of places; pensions can be paid directly into bank accounts or building societies—40 per cent. of new pensioners are choosing that option—and television licences can be, and often are, paid for by direct debit.
  Royal Mail is under similar pressure. It faces increasing competition from the fax machine, electronic mail and, of course, its traditional rival, the telephone call. The real cost of telecommunications is falling fast, making those rivals ever more competitive. Royal Mail has been developing the direct mail market, but faces strong competition from other forms of advertising. Mail services are becoming more and more internationally—rather than nationally—based.
  I am not suggesting that the business is about to collapse, but the fact that the volume of mail posted in pillar boxes fell last year for the first time in more than 10 years is a disturbing sign. Conservative Members believe

  849
  that diversity of choice for the consumer is to be welcomed, not feared; we neither could nor wish to resist the developments that I have mentioned.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What assurances can the Minister give that Sunday collections will continue after privatisation? Sunday collections were introduced only after an extensive campaign in the House. I doubt very much that they are profitable, but they are very much appreciated, especially by people in rural areas who write to their families and friends. It is not the commercial mail that the Post Office is seeking, but the public service which many of us are seeking to protect.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows that Sunday collections are by no means universal; they are at the discretion of the Post Office. It is a matter for its commercial judgment and it assesses them on an efficiency basis. It is interesting to note—I suspect that I am wrong—that the Liberal Democrats would, like the Labour party, seek always to interfere. That is one of the reasons why the Post Office wants freedom. Public ownership does not come without constant interference or the pressure for interference.
  Mr. Peter Hain rose—
  Mr. Sainsbury: I must make some progress. I have been generous in giving way.
  Common ground is shared on many of the background facts. I hope that it is also common ground to think that change is necessary to ensure that the Post Office can respond to the challenges and the opportunities that it faces. In particular, it is increasingly clear that the conventional public sector or nationalised industry approach to the management of the business is insufficiently flexible to allow the management to respond properly to the competitive pressures to which I have referred. The report earlier in the year by the all-party Trade and Industry Select Committee concluded that the various public sector constraints on the Post Office's activities were
  "having a detrimental impact on the Post Office's ability to act as a commercial organisation, to deliver an ever higher quality of service to its customers and to meet the challenges and opportunities of international competition."
  The Government, therefore, make no apologies for having launched the Post Office review and concluding that the status quo is not an option. Indeed, the Select Committee itself, chaired by that noted privatiser the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), agreed that
  "the Post Office cannot be retained in its present form".
  Let me now turn to the individual post office businesses, beginning with Post Office Counters. Counters provides the co-ordinating and managerial support services for the network of 20,000 post offices. That network has effectively been run as a separate business within the Post Office since 1986. It has important trading relationships with Royal Mail and Parcelforce, but I should stress that those trading relationships are on an arm's length basis. The most striking feature of the business is that it is based on a combination of public and private sector investment. Approximately 19,000 of just under 20,000 outlets are run
  850
  as private businesses by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, whose own investment has been estimated to be in excess of £1 billion—well in excess of the public sector investment in the business.
  The Government have, of course, considered whether there is a case for changing that structure. They have concluded, however, that no change is necessary. As the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has made clear, the key issue for the future of the post office network is not its ownership, which is already predominantly private sector, but the need to generate higher turnover for the network and to offer a more efficient and automated service to its clients. The Government accept that view. We have, therefore, concluded that the co-ordinating business of Post Office Counters should remain in the public sector, but that it should be given greater freedom to take on board new clients for the network, thus enabling it to spread its costs over a wider range of activity. The Green Paper contains guidelines setting out those new arrangements, with the necessary safeguards to ensure fair competition.
  In addition, the Green Paper confirms the intention to invest at least £130 million in the automation of the benefit-payment system at post offices, enabling Post Office Counters to provide a more efficient and secure service, initially for its major client, the Benefits Agency, and thereafter for other clients.
  The House may wish to know that the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, Colin Baker, has written in the federation's newspaper, saying that
  "the Green Paper should be welcomed by members of the federation… It proves that the Government has listened to our advice".
  Before moving on to the subject of Royal Mail, perhaps I may deal with one little scare story that has already been raised—the hon. Member for Livingston has referred to it again today—that Post Office Counters could not possibly survive under separate ownership from the rest of the Post Office. It is baloney. There is no cross-subsidy between Royal Mail and Post Office Counters. While there are important trading links, they are based on commercial terms, negotiated on an arm's length basis. The Green Paper makes clear that the Government will continue to require Royal Mail and Parcelforce to offer the full range of public letter and parcel services at post offices.
  Dr. Hampson: Is it not ironical that Opposition Members are keen to praise the private-public relationship on the counter side, where there are 19,000 or 20,000 privately owned businesses, yet they are denying the opportunity of the same participation for Royal Mail? Our proposals enable the work force to have a shareholding in the Royal Mail for the first time. That seems bold and imaginative, but Opposition Members have not mentioned it once.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is being rather uncharacteristically kind to the Opposition in saying that it is ironical. I just think that it is contradictory and typical. In no way is Post Office Counters a weak and feeble creature dependent on the charity of big brother Royal Mail. That would be an insult to a successful retail business and I would never insult successful retail businesses. It certainly does a disservice to 19,000 sub-postmasters.
  I shall now turn to Royal Mail. The Green Paper sets out three options for the business, which are all designed to give it the commercial freedom that it is universally agreed

  851
  is necessary. First, the Green Paper discusses the option of giving the Royal Mail the freedom it needs within the public sector. It identifies a number of difficulties, however, in reconciling the scale and scope of the commercial freedoms that the company needs, with the appropriate and responsible control of public sector organisations, relating to public-sector finances and fair competition with the private sector.
  Secondly, the Green Paper sets out the case for a conventional 100 per cent. privatisation of the Royal Mail backed by independent regulation. Clearly, that would deliver the Royal Mail the commercial freedoms that it needs. But the Government recognise that many people would prefer to see a closer link with the Government than full privatisation would provide. The Government have, therefore, proposed a third option—at this stage it is their preferred way forward—under which shares in Royal Mail would be sold to the public and to its employees and sub-postmasters, but under which the Government would retain a significant shareholding of 49 per cent. of the shares. Parliamentary approval would then be needed before any sale of those shares.
  The Opposition have responded with their traditional, predictable knee-jerk reaction to those three options. First, they have argued that all the necessary commercial freedoms can be given in the public sector, so that there is no need to consider private-sector options. We heard that again today from the hon. Member for Livingston. Secondly, they have suggested that any sale of shares in the company would immediately lead to one of their most distasteful categories of people: rampaging capitalists, inevitably, as they see it, slashing services and destroying communities. Their reaction is entirely predictable: public sector good, private sector bad. Kim Il Sung come back, all is forgiven. Their reactions are entirely predictable, entirely irresponsible and entirely wrong.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hesitated to intervene because I wanted to hear the Government's case. Would my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that if, after what I hope will be meaningful consultation, there is a substantial view in favour of option one—that the. Post Office should have commercial freedom—which can be given without too many difficulties, he would support that option? Does he accept that there are a number of Members on the Government Benches who do not wish to see the Post Office put into the private sector because we know the problems that the fragmentation of it would create? Will he give me an assurance that, if there is the widespread support from individuals, in the House and outside—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention. I think that he has made his point. I call the Minister.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to reassure, if necessary, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that, of course, we shall listen extremely carefully to the response to our consultation paper. I hope that he will listen with equal care to what I am about to say about the difficulties associated with the public sector option.
  I deal first with the argument that the necessary freedoms can be given in the public sector—the crux of the argument of the hon. Member for Livingston. To listen to some of the statements by the Labour party, we could
  852
  almost believe that controls on the expenditure of nationalised industries were an invention of this Government. The hon. Member for Livingston must have a short memory. He was in the House, supporting the then Labour Government in 1976, when the investment programmes—much needed investment programmes—of the nationalised industries were slashed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, his noble Friend Lord Barnett. It is worth remembering that the hospital building programme was cut by a third. In the Post Office itself, investment nearly halved between 1976 and 1978. As a result, Post Office investment in 1978 was, in real terms, only about a quarter of what it is today. That is why we are not disposed to take lessons from the Labour party on running public industries.
  We realise that a business in the public sector has the taxpayer standing behind it. As long as the state owns a majority of the shares in Royal Mail—I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield that it does not matter whether that stake is 51 per cent., 70 per cent. or 100 per cent.—it is in the public sector and falls within the public sector borrowing requirement. We recognise the vital importance of controlling the PSBR. We will not sacrifice our belief in the sound management of public finances on the altar of political expediency.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to describe the Government's White Paper on the BBC as political expediency. Can he now explain to the House why all the difficulties that he adumbrated in relation to the Post Office staying in the public sector and commercial freedom apparently do not apply to the BBC and why his Department cannot get the same deal out of the Treasury as the Department of National Heritage can?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads carefully the Green Paper on the Post Office and that he reads the document on the BBC equally carefully. Having read those documents, he will, I hope, immediately recognise that whereas the Royal Mail wants to enter joint ventures where it is the controlling shareholder and the controlling operator, the BBC is seeking not to do that, but to enter joint ventures where it is the minority partner—a very different circumstance. There is, of course, a wide range of other difficulties which are obvious to most of us.
  Mr. Cook: The Minister has mentioned one difficulty. Let us, for the purposes of hypothesis, agree on the following. Let us suppose that the Post Office said that it was willing to be a minority shareholder in joint ventures. Would that remove the Minister's objection? What is his next objection?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I do not want to be driven entirely into discussing the BBC. I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that the BBC's commercial freedom, as set out in the White Paper, is entirely consistent with the general rules on public sector freedoms, which we have set out in the Green Paper. The Government are encouraging the BBC to develop its commercial activities with private sector partners and finance under the private finance initiative.
  The Green Paper makes it absolutely clear that the Post Office, too, could benefit from that initiative. The question is whether that would meet the commercial needs and opportunities facing the business. In the case of the BBC, as I have said, it does because it enables it to operate through the joint venture companies I have described.

  853
  What the Royal Mail needs is something different. It wants to be able to compete with other Post Offices and to put more business through its own network. It is not looking for partners who will control any joint venture with majority stakes; it is looking for full commercial freedoms. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that the two cases are entirely different.
  However, I recognise that there are some freedoms that are compatible with pubic sector status. We are giving greater freedoms, for example, to Post Office Counters to take on new clients. However, the differences between the Royal Mail and Post Office Counters are considerable. Counters has a unique combination, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) referred, of public and private sector investment.
  The freedoms which the Royal Mail is seeking, however, go much further. It wishes to borrow, possibly extensively, on private capital markets. It wishes to offer new services to the private sector, based on its existing skills, but developing new skills and services. It wishes to operate in the international as well as the domestic market, striking new partnerships with the private sector, but also competing head on with it. It needs to compete to forge its own role in a rapidly changing and developing communications market against major international competition. It needs real management control over these activities.
  The Government wish to see the Royal Mail go down that route. It does not follow that such a route is compatible with the public sector. The public ownership option, clearly dear to the Labour party, leaves three unanswered questions. First, how can competition with the private sector be fair? Secondly, will there be any Government interference in commercial matters? The signs from today's debate are that there would be. If there was no interference, what would be the purpose of public sector status? Thirdly and most importantly, with Treasury controls and the straitjacket of the annual expenditure round, how could the Royal Mail fund its long-term investment requirements?
  Mr. Ken Purchase: More Government investment.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) seems to overlook—he was not here at the time—what happened between 1976 and 1978, under the then Labour Government, to investment in the Post Office; it was halved. I suggest to the House that we should think long and hard before we leave the Royal Mail subject to the restraints that go with the public sector.
  Mr. Purchase: The Minister is right to say that I was not in this place then. However, I recall those events. Why does the Minister now talk about the management of this enterprise as though, at present, there is no proper management control? Yet from what we have heard, the Post Office is an immensely successful enterprise.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The management are asking for commercial freedom. If we are serious about commercial freedom—I make this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield as well, if he will kindly listen—we must realise that it is clear that only in the private sector can that freedom be found. For the Post Office to be in the private
  854
  sector, the Government must reduce their stake in Royal Mail below 50 per cent. The Government believe that doing that will provide the best prospects for the future of Royal Mail. We believe that, without commercial freedom, there is a risk of long-term decline.
  The Green Paper makes it absolutely clear that the legislation authorising any sale of shares in the Royal Mail would also establish a postal regulator and regulatory system which would be expressly designed to ensure the maintenance of the key public service elements. There would be, for example, an absolute requirement on the new company to deliver mail to every household in the country, six days a week, and to maintain a uniform tariff structure—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked about this earlier—so that a letter sent from Westminster to Victoria would cost the public the same as one sent from Cornwall to the outer Hebrides. There will also be tariff control, with the Government confident that tariffs will continue to be reduced in real terms.
  The Green Paper also makes it clear there will be additional obligations on the company to continue to provide free services for the blind, to provide redirection services and to offer recorded delivery, registered post and a full international service. If the consultation exercise persuades us that we should lengthen this list, we shall do so. In all these areas, the regulator will be empowered to ensure that the Royal Mail meets all its obligations to an ever higher standard.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has outlined many social obligations which will be imposed on the Post Office and, no doubt, enforced through a regulator. Is not that Government interference? How does that lie with the strictly commercial criteria that the Government are outlining to the House? To my mind, the public sector, with commercial freedom, is where the Post Office should lie because of its substantial social obligation and responsibility.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I make the same recommendation to my hon. Friend as I made to the hon. Member for Livingston—that he carefully reads the Green Paper and then considers the position of British Telecom. I hope that he supports its being in the private sector. The social obligations we are talking about in the Green Paper are those that are imposed on British Telecom.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I must make progress. I have been over-generous and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  I should also briefly mention Parcelforce. The Government have decided that, if they are to sell shares in the Royal Mail, it would be a rather pointless step to insist on separating out the parcels business while giving Royal Mail greater commercial freedom. The Royal Mail management has made it clear that its customers would wish it to offer a parcel service to complement its letter services. With appropriate safeguards to ensure fair competition, the Government are content for the two businesses to remain together.
  The Green Paper also makes it clear that the Government continue to be committed to the development of greater competition in postal services. In particular, any

  855
  legislation following the Green Paper will allow the Government to fulfil their commitment to reduce the level of the monopoly closer to the price of a first class stamp.
  The Green Paper also sets out a number of other areas in which the Government see scope for greater competition. The guiding principle will, however, continue to be that the Royal Mail must continue to be able to provide a universal service at a uniform tariff. Some degree of monopoly will therefore be necessary to ensure that. The Green Paper also covers a number of other issues of importance to the users of the Royal Mail. It makes clear, for example, that the traditional royal associations will remain and that VAT will not be charged on stamps in the future.
  I congratulate the Opposition on choosing the Post Office for today's debate—despite, incidentally, their claim that no debate is needed because everyone agrees with them. The debate is well timed because it is absolutely essential that the way forward we finally choose for the Post Office commands public confidence. May I emphasise again that the Green Paper is a consultative document? We hope, therefore, that today's debate will help to focus on the rational arguments, the real points, that are discussed in the Green Paper and not on the absurd allegations that are propagated by the Opposition.
  If the Opposition parties wish to put forward constructive comments—an unlikely contingency perhaps —on any of the options or have concerns about the safeguards we propose, let those points be made. Let us accept, however, that change is necessary. The debate is about how that can be best brought about.
  I believe that the combination of our proposals for Post Office Counters and our preferred option for Royal Mail would provide an appropriate and exciting way forward for the future. It would give the Post Office's businesses the real commercial freedom that they need. It would provide opportunities for those directly involved with the future of Royal Mail to take a direct stake in the company—in many cases on special terms. It also would protect the public through a strong and independent regulatory structure, while offering scope for greater consumer choice both in post offices and in the letters market.
  We believe that the customer has everything to gain from our policies and much to lose from the Opposition's policies. I commend the amendment to the House.
  5.1 pm
  Ms Kate Hoey: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this extremely important debate on an issue that concerns millions of people.
  It is rather sad that the President of the Board of Trade is not here, particularly as it is quite clear that Post Office privatisation is on the right hon. Gentleman's personal agenda. I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to hear the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who put the argument against privatisation clearly and incisively and explained why Opposition Members and, given what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, perhaps many Conservative Members want to keep the Post Office together in the public sector and stop its being privatised.
  It is clear that the Government have no mandate to conduct even a debate on the proposed privatisation of the Post Office—there was no mention of such privatisation in their election manifesto. As my hon. Friend the Member
  856
  for Livingston said, privatisation of the Post Office was a privatisation too far for the leader of privatisation, Mrs. Thatcher. It is strange that the President of the Board of Trade is pushing for a privatisation that, even at the height of privatisation, the then leader of the Conservative Government, Mrs. Thatcher, was not prepared to make.
  The Minister has said that the Green Paper will be treated as a consultation document, but we already know what people think about the proposal. In March 1994, the first MORI poll found that 68 per cent. of people opposed privatisation and, as has already been noted, 53 per cent. of those polled were Conservative voters. The same poll discovered not just that people are opposed to privatisation, but that 81 per cent. of the public want the Post Office to be offered more commercial freedom while remaining in the public sector. The Opposition and 81 per cent. of the public are therefore in favour of the commercial freedom option offered in the Green Paper.
  The consultation exercise will last just three months and during most of that time the House of Commons will not be sitting. I have not the slightest doubt, however, that the vast majority of responses received by the Minister will be opposed to privatisation. Will the Minister tell us what criteria the Government will use when making judgments during the consultation exercise? If between 90 and 99 per cent. of the public responses oppose privatisation and support giving the Post Office more commercial freedom, will the Minister give a commitment that that will be the end of the matter? As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston has said, if we want commercial freedom, we can have it today. The two Front Bench teams could get together and, in agreement with the Liberal Democrats and all other parties, work out the rules to give that freedom to the Post Office.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We must also consider what will happen to the Post Office during the privatisation process. It is asking for commercial freedom now and everyone except the Government, who insist on delaying matters for another 18 months to get unnecessary legislation through the House, agrees that it could be given commercial freedom. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister should consider the effects of the Government's policy?
  Ms Hoey: I agree absolutely. The Government are holding back the country because they are holding the Post Office back from being able to compete internationally and on the European market. It is ludicrous that we have been waiting two years for the Green Paper, especially as it includes an option that all the Opposition parties can support. If today's debate does anything, I hope that it will show that there is cross-party support for keeping the Post Office in the public domain while offering it greater commercial freedom.
  Why are the public so opposed to privatisation? It is not as though there has been a huge Labour party campaign to try to get people to oppose privatisation. We will launch such a campaign, but we already know that there is great support for retaining the Post Office in the public sector because the vast majority of people are quite happy with it. They know that it gives them a good service. They know that it is making a profit—little in this country makes a profit today—and that a large proportion of that profit is given back to the Government to be used for other

  857
  purposes. There is no widespread dissatisfaction with the service offered, which was not always the case in previous privatisations.
  We all rely on an efficient, trustworthy Post Office. It is worth remembering that about 25 million households are visited by a postman or postwoman each day. That represents terrific contact between postal workers and the public. People care about the service. Such strength of feeling does not exist only in inner-city areas. It is particularly strong in rural areas, where for many people the arrival of the postman or postwoman on a bike or in a van is a real link with civilisation. I come from a rural area in Northern Ireland that is just the same today as it was in my youth. One of the key events of the day was the arrival of the postman—in those days there were no postwomen—because he did not bring just the hoped-for letters from relatives abroad and all sorts of other people, but the local paper. If the postman did not arrive, we did not get the local paper. The postman also brought messages and all manner of other things, which was probably not in his job specification but it was part of the social service that he provided. That still goes on to a greater or lesser extent in parts of the country and it would be a tragedy if it disappeared.
  None of us has confidence in the Government's commitment to a nationwide letter and parcel service with daily delivery to every address in the country. The problem is that the people simply do not believe them, just as they did not believe what the Government said or the commitments that they gave previously.
  There is no commitment not to transfer to an Americanised system in which people must go to the bottom of their high-rise block of flats or to the end of their lane to collect the mail. There is no reason for such a reduction in service, but that is what would happen if the Post Office were privatised.
  The Government have made no commitment to a second delivery which, as it does not make a profit, is a service. It continues because it is a public service. It is one of the social commitments and extras that the Post Office has been able to provide. Only public ownership has prevented the Post Office from abolishing the second delivery.
  Dr. Liam Fox: During Report stage of the Telecommunications Bill, the Opposition spokesman said that, after privatisation, people in rural areas would never be connected to the telephone system. Labour was wrong then—why should the hon. Lady be right now?
  Ms Hoey: If the hon. Gentleman reads in Hansard tomorrow what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, he will see that my hon. Friend answered that specific point, so I shall not go over it again.
  A cross-subsidy amounting to about £30 million a year is provided to keep less viable post offices running. I shall not go into too much detail about other services such as the 180 post buses, which provide the only form of transport in some rural areas, as I am sure that others will want to mention them.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hoey: No. Eighty per cent. of those post buses are already subsidised. If we lose that opportunity—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)rose—
  Ms Hoey: I suppose I had better give way. Are you in charge now?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am in charge.
  Mr. McLoughlin: And the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) should always remember that. Can the hon. Lady tell me a little more about the subsidy for rural services that she is talking about? For example, where does it come from?
  Ms Hoey: On the whole, it comes from local authorities, but if there were no cross-subsidy there would be no opportunity to transfer extra money from one part of the Post Office to another.
  Another matter that must be mentioned again is the revenue provided by the Post Office to provide the articles-for-the-blind service. I do not believe the commitment that has been given with regard to that service either. I do not believe that, once the Post Office is placed beyond democratic accountability to Parliament, such a service will be allowed to continue. The profit margin of the Post Office is usually about 5 per cent. of the gross turnover. If there is any change which results in the Post Office being taken out of the public service, what are considered as necessities for some people will be seen as extras by a private company and they will be dropped.
  I know that this is an important day for some hon. Members from Northern Ireland and that, therefore, the attendance of hon. Members from Northern Ireland is not very high. Northern Ireland has a particular difficulty with its postal service because of the peculiar nature of the political situation there. I pay tribute to the dedication of the postal workers in Northern Ireland, who have continued to provide a service throughout the great difficulties of the security situation across the sectarian divide. They are a special part of the public service in Northern Ireland.
  In terms of unemployment and the economic situation in Northern Ireland, any reduction in postal jobs would be absolutely terrible for the economic interests of that community. Belfast has the return letter section of the Post Office. At present, some 300 jobs are provided in that section. If the Post Office is put in the private sector, one of the first things that will happen is that the return letter section will get the chop. If it does not get the chop, people will certainly have to pay a large amount of money to get their letters back. That is another area that must be examined.
  I mentioned earlier the way in which communities are linked to the postal service. When I first came to England as a student, my mother, at 4 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon—there were Sunday collections in those days; they then stopped but, fortunately, they have resumed—would post whatever they had for lunch that day, either a piece of chicken or perhaps some bacon, in a letter sealed in whatever way she thought best. It was delivered to me at 7 o'clock on Monday morning, not quite still warm but certainly fit to be eaten. I have had an affection for the Post Office ever since. The miracle of someone being able to put something in the post at 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoon that could be eaten in north London at 7 o'clock the next

  859
  morning is something of which we should be proud—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that is precisely the emotional attachment which people have for the Post Office and postal workers—[Interruption.] Some may say that it is irrational.
  Tory Members are silly if they underestimate the feeling—it is almost love—that people have for the Post Office. There are many reasons why the Government will lose the next election, but if they go ahead with privatising the Post Office, that will certainly be one of them. They should not underestimate the power of the people on this issue. Thousands of people will be writing letters. The consultation exercise will give the Government one result. Today, I want to hear the Minister pledge that he will fulfil whatever the people decide on the issue.
  5.17 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: The problem with the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) is that it conveyed, above everything else, total and utter complacency. The hon. Lady started by saying that people are happy with the Post Office. That is currently true. But the President of the Board of Trade is trying to secure change, reform and, in particular, new private investment to ensure that we have a better tomorrow—that we improve the situation, rather than let it deteriorate. If people realised what we identified in the Select Committee report, they would also realise that there are many serious threats to the happiness that they currently experience with the Post Office.
  For the first time, there is a potential decline in the standard of service. One of the reasons for that is the level of investment on the one hand and competition on the other. To meet the increasing competition that the Post Office faces, not only from private sector companies in this country but from postal services in other countries, there must be more investment.
  I do not think that a single person in this country or a single hon. Member believes that a Labour Government would be more generous in terms of public sector investment than anything that we have seen so far. Would a Labour Government seriously stop the external financing limit? Is Labour saying that if the Post Office is profitable, will not take money back into the Treasury? Labour never did that with any nationalised industry. Would it seriously do it now?
  Of course, if Labour does do that it will face exactly the same problems as those faced by the management of the Post Office this very year. Managers cannot invest in post buses on the scale that they would like; they have had to cut their investment in postal vans and other equipment because the Treasury has taken more and more of the Post Office's profits. No matter what Government are in power, that is what the Treasury will always do. Perhaps the Labour Front-Bench spokesman would like to announce that the Opposition will scrap the external financing limit system and the Treasury will no longer take the money—
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has afforded me. On page 17, paragraph 93, of the Select Committee's evidence he speaks about a halfway house and urges his right hon. Friend the President to adopt it. Does the hon. Gentleman stand by his commitment to a halfway house, or has he abandoned it?
  Dr. Hampson: Nothing on the record states that I backed a halfway house. If the hon. Gentleman reads the whole transcript, which he clearly has not done, he will see that I put to the President of the Board of Trade examples from across the world—from New Zealand to Sweden, from Canada to Holland and Germany. In all those countries the post offices are being steadily commercialised to the point of public limited company status, and then on to privatisation. I kept asking the President why our system cannot do likewise. I kept being told that it was because the Treasury would not allow it.
  The Select Committee decided that if we do not go ahead and privatise the whole service, we should at least free it up—and that is one of the options in the Green Paper. Certainly a certain amount can be done to provide greater flexibility and to allow the service to retain a higher proportion of its profits. That, too, is in the Green Paper. Conceivably we could change some of the regimes that control joint ventures, but only up to a point.
  In the end there are two strict disciplines. The first is that, even under Labour, no Government could allow a public corporation to go on borrowing money in the private markets regardless, because that will only add to the public sector borrowing requirement. So although we may allow the corporation more freedom in commercial decision taking, that fundamental discipline will remain. All the Treasury mandarins will insist that the Post Office cannot indiscriminately add to the PSBR.
  Equally, the Post Office will never be given enough freedom in that way. Post Office managers have pointed out that they do not want a halfway house. They want to be certain, when they draw up their plans for investment and for raising the money for that investment, that they can take the decisions themselves. They do not want to have to return to the Treasury for its authorisation.
  Of course the process can be improved. We referred to this in the Select Committee as the fishing licence syndrome. It took the best part of a year of argument between two Cabinet Ministers to ensure the freedom of the Post Office to sell fishing licences. I am delighted that the President of the Board of Trade won the battle with the Treasury, although I doubt whether that triumph will go into his obituary. But why on earth were Ministers arguing about it at all? There may be some liberalisation, but the Post Office would still have to get approval for certain projects. That takes time, and it is not the sort of commercial freedom that the management wants. Nor is it what is happening elsewhere in the world.
  Clearly, the system has to change. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree—they certainly agreed in the Select Committee—that the nationalised framework cannot be maintained. Given the competition and the opportunities, it is just not viable.
  Mr. Cousins rose—
  Dr. Hampson: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, who I suspect will make a speech of his own.
  A Labour Government in charge of a public corporation controlled by the Treasury might like it to have certain privileges that gave it an advantage over the private sector. That gives rise to another of my criticisms. The private sector will not be happy with the sort of deals in which a public corporation would want to get involved. The Post Office was prevented from buying an airline. It might be extremely sensible for it to acquire its own airline, but that

  861
  would enable it to compete with other airlines for all sorts of business. The private sector companies would have something to say about a corporation, backed by taxpayers' money and Government guarantees, behaving in that way.
  The Post Office rightly wants to go into bulk-mail deals with printing companies—it might even want to buy one, with considerable knock-on effects.
  In theory, such deals are excellent, but they could go wrong, and they would give the Post Office a privileged position vis-à-vis its competitors. They could also go seriously wrong, and if the state picked up the financial pieces, that would only underline a measure of protection that the private sector does not enjoy. For all those reasons a halfway house is not acceptable.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that if a privatised Post Office got into financial difficulties a Government could walk away from it and not pick up the pieces? Does he accept that private companies might regard it as unfair that a privatised corporation continued to have the protection of a publicly guaranteed monopoly? Is there not some unfairness in both solutions?
  Dr. Hampson: The truth is that this House must produce the legislation, which must contain certain fundamental reassurances for the British public. We all accept that the Post Office must have social responsibilities. In the case of British Telecom, the privatisation Bill included certain terms and conditions—BT has to maintain rural services and loss-making rural phone boxes. Similarly, in this case we shall require a universal service to all parts of the country, however remote, and at a standard price.
  Secondly, there will have to be a regulator. We are learning as we go on about the regulatory process, and the Post Office regulator will have to be effective and tough.
  Thirdly, whatever Opposition Members may say, the Government are not privatising the Post Office: this is a half-privatisation. There will still be the old links, and all the concerns about the connections between the Royal Mail, the Post Office network and the post offices in our high streets are misguided. They will be preserved. Moreover, for the first time the work force will have a say. I should like at least 10 per cent. of the business to go to them, thus involving them in the business and providing yet another safeguard for the social responsibilities of the service.
  To answer the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) further, I am optimistic about the growth of this enormous £4 billion enterprise. It has the capacity to raise huge sums on the financial markets. I see no reason why a privatised Post Office should be any less of a success story than BT or British Airways. Why do people spend all their time dreaming up scare stories? All the worst imaginable options are being put to the British people in order to frighten them. The trouble is that the Labour party has such a narrow vision, its policies are so much determined by its wish to stay in the past, and it is so influenced by the unions' support that it will not look beyond the way in which things have always worked.
  There is a new world of opportunity out there, ready to be seized. Why cannot the corporation be successful worldwide? We have a chance now to increase its international presence and to make a great success of it. We
  862
  have an opportunity to improve the quality of the service that we give to our domestic customers as a result of the growth and success that that private operation will enjoy, especially on the international scene, and we shall have bold and imaginative developments, such as share ownership for the work force. There will be improvement internationally, and improved customer provision and service throughout the country—in rural districts as well as towns.
  We can make that positive achievement if we pursue the option in the Green Paper—a balanced partnership between the public in the form of the Government, the public and the work force as shareholders and the management of the corporation. I believe that the management want to press ahead with that option, but people do not trust the Government and the Treasury—and for heaven's sake, given what Opposition Members say, day in and day out, why should they?
  For heaven's sake, let us seize the opportunities. This will be a great success story for the Post Office, for the Royal Mail and for its work force.
  5.30 pm
  Ms Judith Church: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this important debate, when so many hon. Members wish to speak.
  First, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Bryan Gould, who served the people of Dagenham—and, before that, the people of Southampton, Test—loyally and energetically. Bryan had a distinguished political career, spanning two decades, during which he worked on trade and industry, economic and environmental matters. I know that he will be missed by many people in the House and in Dagenham, and I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him well in his future career.
  My other predecessor, John Parker, was Dagenham's first Member of Parliament, a Member for 48 years and Father of the House. Some Members here today will remember him for his work as chair of the British-Yugoslavian Parliamentary Group. I can imagine his sadness, had he been alive today, at the tragedy that has unfolded in that country.
  I am proud to be the third Member of Parliament to represent Dagenham. Built in the 1920s and 1930s, it has a long-established and close community, with strong traditions of public service. Many of its local councillors have served for 30 or 40 years. It is an area of great opportunity, which is crying out for investment, and rejuvenation of its housing and regeneration of its industry.
  Dagenham has the largest manufacturing work force in London, with successful companies at the leading edge of technology, such as the Ford Motor Company, GPT Telephone Cables and Rhone Poulenc Rorer. Those companies have not succeeded through paying low wages and having poor working conditions and low health and safety standards. I know that because, before coming to the House, I worked in industry, including seven years as one of Her Majesty's inspectors of factories.
  There I worked with both sides of industry to improve workplace standards. That experience proved to me that only those companies, large and small, that invest in people by providing high-quality training and good working conditions can compete and win in today's global markets.

  863
  I believe that national economic success goes hand in hand with the provision of high-quality local services. Strong economies invest in modern, vibrant services—schools, housing, transport systems—that enrich and improve the lives of their citizens.
  The people of Dagenham rely on their local postal service, run in the public interest for the benefit of all. Now the Government want to go ahead with the maddest, saddest privatisation of all, that of the Post Office—mad because our Post Office is one of the most successful postal businesses in the world, sad because the existence of an efficient national postal service is the hallmark of a modern economy.
  However, the Government cannot find any new test of efficiency. They cannot identify any fundamental failings. The Post Office is not a creaking system in need of overhaul; far from it. The Post Office is efficient and competitive, a tribute to public enterprise. The Government cannot bear that enterprise and innovation to be in the public sector.
  Let me pause for moment, and examine what the President of the Board of Trade has to say in his Green Paper on the future of postal services:
  "The Post Office has for centuries made a vital contribution to our national life."
  Who could argue with that?
  "The Post Office is one of the nation's unifying forces".
  Who could argue with that?
  "The Government is committed to the maintenance of these services."
  That is where the argument breaks down.
  The Government will not do that by modernising the Post Office. They will do it by destroying it, by pushing yet another of our country's great national assets away from our people and towards pin-striped predators—or at least, they will try.
  People know what privatisation means—a two-tier postal service where the standard provision becomes so poor that it is laughable.
  The President of the Board of Trade could have pledged today, had he been here, to back the Post Office in its drive to compete and sell in Europe, but he will not unless it is removed from the public sector. He could have pledged to protect the consumer from dramatic price increases, but he will not, and, as in the case of water prices after privatisation, which have increased by 67 per cent., the cost of the first class post will increase in leaps and bounds. People are already asking, "Which will come first, the 50p first class stamp or a general election that will save us from that fate?"
  The Government will try privatising the Post Office, which is so unpopular among their supporters, let alone people throughout the country, but trying is all that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to do. It is all that he has done since he first set up the review of the Post Office's future two years ago this month. It is not the 30-page Green Paper that has taken the time; it has been the politics of it.
  The President of the Board of Trade knew that he could not even begin to get privatisation through without a great deal of persuasion, not of the Opposition, not even of the country, but of his own colleagues. So, aided and abetted by senior Post Office managers, who, like the rest of the privatised sector, can smell the money they can make
  864
  through that privatisation, the President thinks that it has got to the point where it might—it just might—get through its stages in the House and elsewhere.
  It is not a genuinely consultative Green Paper, putting forward arguments objectively. The best option for the Post Office, and for Britain, as we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—greater commercial freedom while keeping the Post Office owned by and for the whole country—is simply dismissed out of hand. The Treasury "will not wear it".
  Full privatisation is no good either, because the Government
  "recognise"
  that
  "many people would prefer a closer link between the Government and Royal Mail than that option would provide."
  In plain English, the Government recognise that many people want to keep the Post Office just as it is, operating for everyone in the country, on behalf of everyone in the country.
  We are therefore left with a fudged and bungled operation—partial privatisation, with the Government keeping 49 per cent. of the equity. Why? Because that is another way of trying to smuggle this astoundingly ill-judged privatisation past the people.
  The Government will not succeed, because, when people start to realise just what the Government are planning to do to their Post Office, there will be a large increase in the Post Office's business. That has already happened, as constituents in their thousands, not only in rural areas but in inner cities and suburbs, write to tell Members of Parliament that they do not want their post office, a vital part of the daily life of most people in the country, to be privatised. That is when Conservative Members will suddenly realise that the Green Paper on the future of postal services is something else—a Green Paper on the future of their jobs.
  Labour's policy on the future of the Post Office is right, because it is the policy of the people who use the Post Office. They want a good service, and they are getting that now. They want a nationwide price, a national network of post offices and nationwide delivery to every address in the country, not just to those from which the private sector can make the most money.
  There is a case for positive change in the Post Office. The Post Office must constantly change to remain the world's best. It must be given the commercial freedom that its management seeks, with the full support of its work force, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and its customers. People now know what privatisation means—big salaries for a few at the top and big prices for the customers. That is what happened with electricity, gas and water. We will not let it happen to our Post Office.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great pleasure to follow the usual courtesies and congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) on her speech. I thank her on behalf of the whole House for her kind words about her predecessor Bryan Gould, who was and is held in enormous respect in the House, not just because he was a rebel—there is no harm in being a rebel occasionally—but because he was a thinking and a principled one. We wish him every success and enjoyment in New Zealand.

  865
  I also congratulate the hon. Lady on the competence with which she delivered her speech, which was a classic of its kind. She spoke with great knowledge and movingly about her constituency and addressed the arguments extremely well, although we did not agree with all of them. We wish her well. She said that her predecessor but one became Father of the House. I am sure that we will continue to listen to her speeches until perhaps she becomes Mother of the House some time in the next century.
  There are two debates about the Post Office—the real debate and the political debate. The real debate about the nature of the ownership of Royal Mail and the degree of commercial freedom that it should have has already been determined not by politicians, not by the House, but by domestic market pressures, and especially by increasingly cut-throat international competition.
  The political debate has yet to be determined, and either side could win it in the coming year, although I suspect that the row over any privatisation will soon settle down. The dust will soon settle as it has settled over every privatisation. I want to deal with the political debate because that is where the opportunities and discretions still lie for the Government. I should like to make a few suggestions to ease their path. Perhaps I should first address the real debate.
  I was given responsibility for the Post Office as long ago as the spring of 1991. I immediately began a series of discussions with the Post Office and with Sir Bryan Nicholson, the then chairman of the Post Office board. I know that I shall be accused of this, so I freely admit to starting with the view—or, from the point of view of some people, a prejudice—that, in a commercial situation, private companies are better equipped to create commercial opportunities. I accept that I suffer from that view or prejudice, but any objective observer would conclude—certainly all those who advised me soon came to the view—that politics alone has denied the Royal Mail a role in the private sector to which it is well suited.
  When I took responsibility for the organisation, I felt that we had dilly-dallied for too long, and that we should grasp the nettle that politics had prevented us from grasping for about 13 years. I set the ball rolling, and it has been rolling for a long time. But the end is in sight, and the Government have said that their preferred option is privatisation. That is in respect of the Royal Mail, but the situation with Post Office Counters is a little different. Just as the overall debate is confused between politics and the real world, so this debate is also confused between Royal Mail and Post Office Counters, which, in effect, are completely different businesses.
  Royal Mail is now essentially a pure business operation overwhelmingly concerned with carrying letters from business to business and from business to people. The business of carrying letters from people to people is a small part of the total turnover. Royal Mail is increasingly subject to international competition. The vision of Rowland Hill, an adviser to a former postmaster general, of a uniform tariff and service worked well in a primitive age of bad roads. In strictly commercial terms, it probably does not make much sense, but I quickly add that we do not live in a strictly commercial age, thank God.
  866
  In this strictly commercial set-up, there is an enormous social dimension, represented by the daily walk of the postman up the garden path. That is the last daily delivery left. In many ways, the postman seems the last relic of a bygone age. I do not see anything wrong with relics or tradition. It would be an act of consummate vandalism and political madness by the Government to tamper with that tradition of the daily walk up the garden path. Let us keep our uniformed postman. Let him roll on undisturbed into the next millennium, but in the process please let us preserve some semblance of reality.
  For years, Post Office management have waged with the Government a forlorn battle to deliver mail "once over the ground". Whoever owns the Post Office, that has to happen. It is important that it happens once a day, and that could and should be guaranteed.
  The public view the Post Office largely through the wrong end of a telescope, at the postman delivering his letters. The commercial reality is of increasingly cut-throat international business in which other post offices, particularly those of Denmark, Holland—about which we have heard—and Germany, freed of Government ties, would increasingly cream-skim profitable bulk business from our Post Office.
  The counters business is even more of an irony. It is largely a shop window for Government services, mainly social security, but 19,000 of those 20,000 shop windows are privately run, albeit under ludicrously severe Government control and restriction on what they can and cannot sell. In short, things are in a mess, contrary to the rosy view that is often painted of the Post Office. The public view of a successful, friendly organisation is in reality under increasing commercial threat to its viability, internationally to Royal Mail and domestically—a point that has not so far been stressed in the debate—to Post Office Counters.
  If nothing is done, if we take the easy way out politically—I fully accept that it would be the easy way politically: it is the route for which Labour has opted—the Post Office is doomed to gradual decline. If we are to save the Post Office, we must have the intellectual honesty and vigour to propose solutions that will work. For instance, we must not say that somehow the public can own an organisation but not control it and be responsible for its borrowing.
  The case against so-called commercial freedom in the public sector was made brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and by the Minister of State. It is set out strongly in chapter 5, paragraph 5, of the Green Paper. Labour speakers have signally failed to answer the points set out there.
  The Green Paper states that the controls that the Government levy on the Post Office
  "reflect the fact that the risks assumed by nationalised industries are ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer. In particular, Government controls over borrowing by public corporations (all of which, by definition, fall within the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR)) provide a discipline over all funds which are raised with the backing of the taxpayer and for which the Government is ultimately accountable. Without such controls, nationalised industries would have a clear advantage over commercial rivals".
  Labour Members have not answered, and cannot answer, the overwhelming case against so-called commercial freedom in the public sector. It is a red herring and a canard, and simply does not work. In the real world,

  867
  one must make a choice between a nationalised industry that one owns and ultimately controls, and a privatised industry.
  Mr. Cousins rose—
  Mr. Leigh: The Opposition spokesman is pregnant with a question, so I give way to him with some pleasure. I hope that he will answer that point.
  Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the markets will believe that a company in which the Government will have a 49 per cent. shareholding could ever go bankrupt?
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). Had he listened, he would have heard my hon. Friend talk about all the joint ventures that the Post Office wishes to undertake—for example, buying a printing business.
  Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that joint ventures, purchases and risks will ultimately be underwritten by the Government? That is what would happen if we retained public sector control of a business but allowed complete commercial freedom.
  Mr. Cousins: The most significant example offered by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was that of the airline venture. I remind the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who was the Minister who stopped it, that the venture involved the Post Office taking a 49 per cent. share. Is he really saying today that, as a Minister, he vetoed a 49 per cent. share because the business was still in the public sector, but that the whole case of the Green Paper, which depends on a 49 per cent. share, is something quite different?
  Mr. Leigh: If I did not allow something that the Post Office wanted to do, it must have been under Treasury instructions.
  I commend the Government's balanced package in the Green Paper, which deals with the two fundamental problems facing the Post Office. By selling 51 per cent. of Royal Mail, the new company will become a huge asset to Great Britain plc. It will be able to defend itself against international predators, just as British Telecom and British Gas have done. They have become powerful players in the new global marketplace.
  I have always argued that the public must notice no difference. With the help of the regulator, I hope that they will not. Incidentally, what happened to my idea of calling the regulator the "Postmaster-General"? It has obviously sunk without trace since I left the Department. We should resurrect some of the great old titles. Why call the regulating body something as dreary and boring as Ofpost, or whatever?
  As a sort of outrider for the Government, I believe that a 100 per cent. sale would make more commercial sense. Why retain 49 per cent. if, as is said in the Green Paper, the Government will not intervene in the company? What is the logic in that, apart from politics? [Interruption.] I accept that politics is important.
  The Green Paper states in chapter 5, paragraph 21, that the Government
  "would not expect to vote its shareholdings on resolutions moved at General Meetings of the company although it would retain the power to do so."
  When I was responsible for British Telecom, in which the
  868
  Government were a major shareholder, I was under strict instructions from my civil servants not to try to have any direct influence in the company. What is the point of retaining 49 per cent. if we do not make use of it? I apologise for this slightly naughty interlude, but I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will forgive me.
  The public are not really interested in whether the Government own 49 or 51 per cent.; they are interested in the future of the postman, and in service delivery. Why should not the postman become, in time, a real community deliverer, especially in rural areas? In particular, elderly people would welcome someone calling at their doors every day. There is a vast network of people—the postmen—ready and able to visit every door every day. Why are we just using them mainly to post one lonely item of junk mail through a letter box? Why are we not fully using the service that could be provided by the daily deliverer?
  Too many people in society are lonely and remote. The postman's job is often low-paid, mechanical and boring. Would he not welcome an upgrading of his role to something more personal and responsible? There is no limit to the services that he could provide—such as milk, newspapers, groceries and personal contact. There is no limit to what elderly or rural people might conveniently receive from a daily community deliverer. We should not allow one of the last of the personal daily services to wither on the vine like so many others. We should use the new commercial opportunity to provide a greater public service.
  It has been a titanic struggle to persuade the Treasury to allow sub-post offices to sell a wider range of commercial services. I congratulate the Minister on winning that struggle. However, I suspect that it has happened only because the Treasury reached the sensible view that Royal Mail privatisation would not otherwise be deliverable. It is sensible to keep the headquarters operation in the public sector to reassure the public. However, it actually means very little, as increasingly it would become a clearing house for Government business.
  My right hon. Friend has won his battle to allow post offices to pay pensions over the counter. As we know, not to do so would be political madness. I welcome the £130 million-worth of automation announced in the Green Paper. That will help to reduce fraud, and to make the operation more efficient. However, I suspect that, with encouragement and an ever wider use of bank accounts, more and more pensioners will choose not to draw their pensions at local sub-post offices. Therefore, diversifying the business is not only good sense from the Government's point of view: it is essential for survival.
  I am disappointed with what the Government say in chapter 4 about the commercial activities in which sub-post offices will be allowed to engage. It is full of mealy-mouthed phrases and I detect the dead hand of the Treasury. It says, for example:
  "Any displacement of private sector activity would in these circumstances be voluntary…the proposed activity would help create a new market for services which had previously not been available to the public…the entry of Post Office Counters is likely to lead to significant growth of existing markets … Post Office Counters is unlikely to have a significant impact on existing private sector companies".
  What do those phrases mean? Do we detect the hand of the Treasury in seeking to tie down sub-post offices in what they can or cannot do? I note that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is now on the Front Bench. I assure Opposition Members that sub-post offices are threatened

  869
  not by the privatisation of Royal Mail, but by the diminution in their services as more and more people take their benefits through the post. The only way to save them is to give them greater and greater commercial freedom. The mealy-mouthed phrases that I have quoted will not help. Sub-post offices must be given full commercial freedom to deliver services if the essential network throughout the countryside is to be retained.
  Overall, the Government have produced a package that is probably the only conceivable one. It could have been identified within months—certainly I and those working with me did so. However, the very length of time that the Government have taken has been a shrewd political move. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whom I admire immensely, decided to play it long and allow public and political opinion to mature.
  Above all, he has given the senior Post Office management the confidence, which they understandably lacked at first, to insist both explicitly on full commercial freedom and implicitly on privatisation. Even the very Post Office brief provided for our debate mentions the fact that the Germans and the Dutch are moving towards privatisation. That is the real debate among socialist and Christian Democrat Governments around the world. They know that there is no choice. Only the British Labour party has a black hole in which all creative ideas are sunk, never to return until they have been proven by us.
  The Opposition are wedded to a concept which, in their heart of hearts, they know simply will not and cannot work. We need only consider the unlikely event of a Labour Government owning the Post Office, yet tamely accepting a massive increase in Post Office borrowing to innovate, or a Post Office determined to implement unpopular decisions such as "once over the ground".
  What is Labour's policy on "once over the ground"? Would it tamely allow a Post Office that it controlled, albeit with so-called commercial freedom, to implement a policy that was fundamentally unpopular with its constituents? Of course not.
  One has to reach the conclusion that this so-called commercial freedom in the public sector is a political gimmick—no more, no less. I understand, however, that, if elected, a Labour Government would buy back control of Royal Mail. That leads me from the real debate to the political debate. We must ensure that the public appreciate what a disaster that would be. The key lies in the effectiveness of the regulator or the postmaster-general in ensuring a peaceful transition to private ownership, but it depends equally on the nature of the sale.
  I am delighted that Post Office workers are to receive 10 per cent. of the 49 per cent. sold. It should give them a stake in the business. I should like that stake to be bigger, but I understand that stock exchange rules forbid the work force from receiving more than 10 per cent. of the shares.
  I understand from the Library that rule 4.8 of "The Admission of Securities to Listing", usually known as the Yellow Book of the stock exchange, states:
  "preferential allocation is allowed in respect of the securities not placed firm, normally only to existing shareholders, directors, employees and past employees of the issuer of its subsidiary undertakings, up to a maximum of 10 per cent. in aggregate of the value at the offer price of the securities not placed firm."
  870
  That makes no sense, but it is a stock exchange rule. The only point we need to understand is that we can sell off only 10 per cent.
  I have been doing some research, and I understand that, after incorporation but before flotation, stock exchange rules do not apply. I hope that the Economic Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State will clarify that. There are separate rules of public sector issuers set out in chapter 22 of the Yellow Book, which state that such issues "need not comply" with the provisions of chapter 4.
  The Library contacted the stock exchange and informed me:
  "The Exchange, however, was at pains to stress that were the Post Office to be privatised it would obviously be a very special issue and special conditions would probably apply.".
  My contention is that it would be possible to sell a greater share of the 49 per cent. to Post Office workers. The possibility of selling a large part of the business to the work force is an attractive one. The greater their stake, the less enthusiastic the workers will be about a Labour Government getting their sticky and impecunious fingers on the business in which they themselves have a large stake.
  What the Labour party will assume to be a popular policy of buying back a business could well rebound on them, even if Post Office workers have only 10 per cent. of the business. If I am right, it might be possible to sell them more than 10 per cent. of the business.
  We could go still further. We should commit ourselves in our manifesto to introducing legislation to sell a further tranche of shares to Post Office workers so that Post Office workers will know that, if a Conservative Government are elected, they will have the opportunity of buying more shares at a preferential rate, but that if a Labour Government are elected, they will lose that right altogether.
  Of course, we could sell the shares—I am doing further research on it—on the basis that they are paid dividends like anybody else, but the shares can be sold only into the work force pool, ensuring that the work force always retain a powerful and profitable input into the business. All that would be on top of what would be a popular sale to the public, extending opportunity and ownership in the way that we know so well.
  In conclusion, we can produce a popular package not only doing what is right for the business, but convincing the work force and the public alike that we can create a dynamic business for the future in which sub-post offices, particularly in rural areas, sustaining village shops and providing an essential community service, will be given a new lease of life, in which postmen can acquire a profitable stake in their own business and be given opportunities for extra and rewarding work and in which the public will have confidence that a great British company is fighting for Britain abroad and at home, delivering the traditional service that we all value.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I join the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) in congratulating the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) on her excellent maiden speech. It demonstrated her confidence as a new Member and her knowledge of her own constituency and its industries. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more about that in her time here.
  We all appreciated the hon. Lady's remarks about Bryan Gould, who had friends across the House, was well liked

  871
  by us all and will be missed. I hope that the hon. Lady will not take it personally if I say that the only reason why I wish he were here today instead of her is that he might have been able to tell us exactly what happened to the Post Office in New Zealand as a result of the ideas that the Government are bringing into play. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more from the hon. Lady and we look forward to that.
  This is not an early debate—it is extremely late. It is more than two years since the Post Office started its campaign of pressure for greater commercial freedom. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) said, the Government have been holding the Post Office back. It is extraordinary to hear passionate speeches from Government Back Benchers about the enormous need to enable the Post Office to respond to competition when it could have been doing so a long time ago were it not for incompetent and dithering Ministers who even now have not been able to produce a clear-cut, comprehensive or intellectually coherent set of proposals.
  The Green Paper is confused and contradictory. All sides accept that the status quo is not an option and nobody wishes to defend it, but how do we deliver greater commercial freedom and maintain a high standard of public service? In reality, there is no disagreement about that either: the argument is about how to get there. It is absurd for Conservative Members to argue the difficulty and then to suggest that the only possible solution is the one produced by the Government. On 1 February the President of the Board of Trade told the Select Committee that this was an extremely complex and difficult issue; it has not suddenly become easy and it would be foolish for Conservative Back Benchers to pretend that it has.
  The constraints currently operating in the Post Office have been and are Government imposed; they do not come from anywhere else. The Government appear to be saying, "Because we have imposed a set of unacceptable, inflexible restraints on the Post Office, we must privatise it because we lack the imagination to change the rules to meet the needs of the Post Office."
  The Government use the Dutch post office, or at least the competition from Holland, as a prime source of authority for their argument. We are told that the Post Office must be freed to respond to competition, especially from the Dutch. And so it must, but the competition is coming from a Dutch post office which is currently operating—and has been for 25 years—with exactly the kind of commercial freedom that is proposed and rejected in option one of the Government's Green Paper. It is true that the Dutch Government are planning to sell shares in their post office—but only 30 to 40 per cent. of them. The Dutch have no difficulty in grasping the distinction between 49 per cent. and 51 per cent. Clearly, a Dutch coalition Government—that is what they usually have in Holland—do not have the ideological hang-ups of an intellectually split British Conservative Government.
  The issue appears to have become a football for leadership contenders who need to express their right-wing credentials in public, in a sense flirtatiously. They need to act like political tarts to see how much support they can get to secure their political future at the expense of the real needs of the Post Office, which requires a more disciplined and intellectual approach. The Government are saying, "We have tied our own hands and now we cannot do anything because our hands are tied." They have adopted
  872
  an absurd position. In the meantime, during the past two years they have been messing about with the Post Office in an unhelpful and fruitless way.
  Two years ago, the President of the Board of Trade came to the Dispatch Box to tell us how essential it was to sell off Parcelforce as a separate entity. I have opposed that throughout. I believe that it has been an absolute disaster for the consumer and has achieved nothing in improved delivery of service. However, I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged the error of their ways and accepted the case for bringing letters and parcels back together. The argument also reinforces the fact that parcels and counters are not separate and distinct, as Conservative Back Benchers are arguing.
  I will illustrate that with an anecdotal experience of my own. I complained to my local postie that, not being home much of the time, I was fed up with being told that my bound copies of Hansard were available for collection at a parcels office six miles away. He told me that he was not allowed to leave parcels if I was not home. I do not want to get that postie into trouble, but I have come to an arrangement with him. He said that he could leave parcels for me at the local post office 200 yards up the road. I was expecting a parcel of books—not Hansard—that I wanted to read as a matter of urgency, so I told the postie that I would appreciate it if he would do that. In fact, however, I did not collect the books for some days after they were delivered and when I asked at the post office for the parcel the lady behind the counter turned to her colleague and said, "Gladys, what do we charge for storage?" I hasten to stress that it was a joke, but the serious point behind it is that Post Office Counters was essentially saying, "The parcels service is nothing to do with us; we do not see parcels business as part of our job, because we are not paid for it." My concern about the separation of Post Office companies into different ownership is that traditional co-operation will disappear.
  The assertion that there is no case for keeping counter business and the Royal Mail together should not readily be accepted, and it is not convincingly argued in the Green Paper. It was included as a political expedient, in the hope of buying off threatened Conservative Back-Bench rebels. I say to them—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is not in his place—that they had better consult. They may return from the summer recess with a rather less sanguine view of the Government's case.
  As to the Royal Mail proposals, the President of the Board of Trade has argued—and specifically did so to me in his evidence to the Select Committee—that giving the Post Office commercial freedom is unfair to private sector companies. I have consistently argued that, by the same token, giving a private company the protection of a monopoly will also be unfair and companies will complain about it. There is no simple solution to that dilemma, as the Government suggest. I can imagine people saying, "We want the Post Office monopoly removed to give us a level playing field." We all know that the consequence of removing the Post Office monopoly will be that a universal service to every household, every day, will collapse. That is a dangerous precedent.
  The Government say that Post Office borrowing must be considered part of the public sector borrowing requirement. That is not the case with the Dutch or French Governments, so there is no reason why it should be with the British Government. It was never the case in all the

  873
  decades when the Government were a major shareholder in British Petroleum. The Government may argue that BP was different because it was an international company dealing in commodities.
  Mr. Cousins: There was British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Bruce: There are many examples—the BBC was also mentioned. The Government are able to make a distinction when it suits them.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) informally told me that the PSBR and Treasury rules are not a science but an art meant to serve the needs of the Government and the public. The Government are using them as an ideological blunt instrument, which is not relevant to current needs.
  Comparisons were made with BT, but its privatisation came at a time of dramatic technological change, which allowed BT to provide cross-subsidy services and to generate enormous profits. That gave the impression of a windfall benefit which would have occurred in any case. I am not saying that BT's privatisation did not bring benefits, but it is not a valid comparison.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Supposing that the hon. Gentleman's recommendations were accepted, the Post Office taken out of the PSBR and the external financing limit reformed in the way that he suggests, what would be the effect on the gilts market and the Government's ability to raise capital there?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it would not be much different from the Government having 49 per cent. of the Post Office—as a previous exchange demonstrated. It is not possible for the Government to walk away from the Post Office in any case. They can say that the Post Office is entitled to raise private money but that the Government will not underwrite risk capital. It mystifies me that right-wing Members who claim to be radical have so little imagination. It is possible to find different options and solutions to meet different needs. Difficulties are being manufactured to support an ideological case rather than because there exist cast-iron, rigid, inoperable or unchangeable rules.
  I said that the separation of the Royal Mail and Post Office Counters would be artificial. In the long run, it is likely to prove unsustainable. It was suggested to me by someone inside the Post Office that separation is a car park solution—a buy-off while things are sorted out, but not a permanent solution. Everybody acknowledges that POC needs investment as well as freedom to develop additional services. The Green Paper does not make clear where that money is to come from, but only states that the Government recognise the need for urgent modernisation and investment in computer equipment. It identifies a cost of £140 million, which it is hoped will come from the private sector.
  If that money is to come from the private sector, is that not privatisation by the back door? It appears that services are being kept in the public sector, but so much of the money would be raised from the private sector that the operation would effectively be privatised. In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), if it is all right for Post Office Counters to raise
  874
  £140 million on the private market, what is the difference between that and the Royal Mail? The Government contradict themselves at every twist and turn.
  Mr. Cousins: The Post Office has accumulated £1 billion of public sector funds as a result of its commercial successes over the past 10 or 12 years. If it were privatised, there would be nothing to stop it switching out of those public sector funds into other kinds of investment. That would also affect Government finances.
  Mr. Bruce: There would be an immediate loss of access to revenue, plus a continuing loss of some of the dividend that might otherwise be paid—although the Government are shrewd enough to realise the need to maintain access to the dividend.
  I want to press the Government harder on what is meant by retaining the right to determine for Post Office Counters what is fair competition. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was right to make reference to a lot of mealy-mouthed words that need explaining. There is a danger that the counters operation is being given the illusion of freedom but that that will turn to disappointment because the Government have decided that they will not allow the counters to develop certain operations. I am a little more cynical than the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. Given the experience of recent years, it may be that a rich backer of the Conservative party will say, "I don't like those services being developed by Post Office Counters—and if you will not use your powers to block them, I will cease making donations to the Conservative party."
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bruce: The Economic Secretary snorts. He knows perfectly well that is the way that political favours have been bought in recent years. The idea that the Government back free enterprise, competition and markets is not one that has ever impressed me. I believe that they are buyable by the highest bidder. Some successes were at the expense of other companies. Reference was made to British Airways. It may be a successful and competitive airline, but it has achieved that by destroying every British-based competitor along the way, using all sorts of dubious methods. The Government regard that as free and fair competition, but I do not.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: Not on that point. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I have raised it many times before in the House and my views are well known. Lord King and Cohn Marshall are tired of hearing them.
  How will the Post Office network develop in future? What will be the future role of Crown offices? They currently number 750, but that figure is rapidly reducing. I represent the largest constituency in Scotland and the fastest-growing constituency in Britain; yet it has no Crown offices. When I protested about the closure of Crown offices, the Post Office said, "We will improve the service by offering them to private operators." That happened in the short run, but I know from hon. Members representing other constituencies that that is not always the case.

  875
  I have then asked the Post Office what the role of Crown offices is. If there is no difference, or the service its even better, why is it keeping any of them? I have never had a clear answer to that question. We are entitled to know. I suspect that the reason is that the Post Office needs enough of those branches in its network to know how they operate, to be able to train and to provide the management back-up. So I worry what will happen when those offices change hands in future, and do not go to people who have been trained within the Post Office system and have the knowledge and understanding of how they work. What will the Post Office do then?
  In my constituency I have been supporting a campaign to open a new post office, at Burghmuir drive in Inverurie.
  Mr. Cousins: What is your majority?
  Mr. Bruce: My majority is nearly as large as the number of consumers who would use that post office.
  I wish to make a serious point. In that instance a private individual, a Mr. Alex Black, is saying, "I wish to open a post office and a pharmacy in a shop unit and in both cases I have to go to some other organisation to get a licence, which is currently being denied." Mr. Black has enormous support from all the residents in the area, and there are plans for building hundreds more houses nearby.
  Interestingly, the Crown office that was privatised two years ago is the principal objector to Mr. Black's giving that extra service, which the community wants, and the Post Office is backing the previous Crown office against the new operator. If the network is to be protected, we ought to see new post offices being opened and not just existing offices being closed, especially where there is population growth. Although I represent the fastest growing constituency in the country I have seen only one new post office open in 11 years, but I have seen several closed and many more cut from being full offices to operating community hours. We want to achieve a balance, and we need answers both from Post Office management and from Ministers on how the position is likely to develop.
  The Green Paper refers to VAT, but no one has mentioned it in the debate so far. I am not at all happy with what the Government say about VAT in the Green Paper, which is:
  "the Government is satisfied that none of the options it is considering for Royal Mail and Parcelforce would mean imposition of VAT".
  Mr. Cousins: On letters.
  Mr. Bruce: Yes, on letters.
  I am not satisfied just because the Government are satisfied. After all, the Government were satisfied that they were in the right on the transfer of undertakings directive, and after 11 years they turned out to be substantially in the wrong. That is costing the taxpayer a great deal of money even now. I ask the Minister to undertake to obtain during the consultation exercise a clear opinion from the European Commission on what the position will be—not what the Government think, but what the Commission thinks. That is a major factor, and if the Government have got it wrong that could push up the price of a first-class letter to nearly 30p. We are entitled to an answer to that question.
  I asked the Minister of State earlier about Sunday collections, but I did not receive a reassuring response. The Minister looked surprised that anyone should mention Sunday collections, and implied that no guarantee was
  876
  required. As a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, I remind the Under-Secretary of State that we campaigned ceaselessly on that matter for several years. As hon. Members might expect, I pay tribute to Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, who always proved himself a terrier in his dealings with the Post Office, and who succeeded in persuading it to reintroduce Sunday collections. Those have now proved extremely popular, and are much appreciated.
  That is exactly the kind of business that Conservative Members have told us represents the declining unprofitable end of the mail business. It is all about letters and cards from grannies to granddaughters, and so forth. That is most important in terms of the Post Office's social obligation, but it is not profitable.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Is that not an example of precisely the kind of service about which all kinds of assurances about the quality of service after privatisation have been made to peripheral areas of the United Kingdom, such as the areas that my hon. Friend and I represent? Yet whether it concerns water, gas or electricity, as soon as privatisation is bedded down the operators say that it is too expensive to provide that service to the more peripheral and scattered areas and there is a reduction in quality of service. We pay more for less.
  Mr. Bruce: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  I am coming to the end of my speech, but I still have some important points to make. The Government say that there will be a licence, a regulator and guarantees of certain services, which they have identified as the most important guarantees—although I have mentioned some that they appear to have forgotten, and that I hope they will consider.
  I do not suggest that the Government are insincere in saying that. I believe that they recognise the importance of those services and want to guarantee them. However, the problem is that once the Post Office has been put into the private sector and given its freedom—that is what the Government wish to do—the pressure of competition will inevitably mean that the management will say, "We are sorry, but to respond to competition we have to get rid of the loss-making services, which means closing some of the network, reducing daily deliveries and cutting out second deliveries"—those are important to business, but not necessarily profitable—"and we have to consider surcharging the outlying areas: we cannot guarantee next day delivery to the outer Hebrides unless people are prepared to pay a surcharge, or whatever."
  That is how things developed in New Zealand. I do not suggest that what happened there has to happen here, but there is a real danger. Even with good will and serious intent, the Government could find that they have created something over which they have lost control, and brought about the commercial pressure that threatens the public service.
  That brings me to my conclusion of principle. My party and I did not oppose in principle previous privatisations, such as those of gas and electricity. But we objected to the way in which the Government proposed to carry them out, and especially to their failure to introduce effective competition at the time of privatisation. In those cases we have been proved right. The gas industry has now had to introduce competition in a much more painful and unstructured way, and that will have to happen with the electricity companies, too. In the meantime, consumers

  877
  have lost out. The fact that electricity prices have fallen is not the point. Management have managed to divert a lot of funds to maintain high dividends. That has been good for investors, but according to the watchdog consumer protection body, consumers have lost out and electricity prices are at least 5 per cent. higher than they should be.
  I shall not even mention water, which is already a big political embarrassment to the Government. We opposed gas and electricity privatisation not on principle but because of the competition aspect. However, we all agree that with the Post Office, competition is not the answer in relation to the core service: nobody is arguing for competition there. Everybody recognises that there must be a guaranteed monopoly—and there is a point of principle there. If there has to be a publicly guaranteed monopoly, that monopoly must be accountable to the public sector.
  That is a fundamental principle, and one that even Conservative Members should accept. Why should the House vote money, provide support or give a licence to a body, yet not be able to provide proper accountability to the people who are elected to this place to control such matters, and to the people who sent us here? I do not want detailed intervention in the day-to-day management of the Post Office—I recognise its need for commercial freedom—but it is providing a public service and we are entitled to demand minimum standards. I believe that the Government accept that, but they do not seem to accept the fundamental principle on which it should be based.
  We do not favour over-tight regulation of the public sector, but we recognise that the public service must be accountable within the public sector. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said, there is no difficulty in introducing commercial realism and allowing competition to develop in areas in which it can and should do so while at the same time maintaining proper public accountability.
  Outright privatisation would not achieve that. Commercial freedom would. Selling some of the shares—especially to members of the work force, and perhaps more widely—may be a good option, and would provide a commercial test of the way in which the Post Office was operating. We as a party are prepared to consider that, but selling the majority of the shares removes the public accountability test, and on that count the Government's proposals fail.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I am interested in the long-term safety and security of Post Office jobs. I have a large regional sorting office in Gloucester, as well as many small post offices. Hundreds of my constituents depend on the Post Office for their livelihood, and I want to make sure that the jobs on which they depend are safe not only now but for the future.
  I start my contribution with Eastern avenue, Gloucester, where the major regional sorting office is located. When one visits that sorting office, as I have on a number of occasions, the most striking things that one observes are, first, the employees' tremendous pride in the service that they are providing—it is an excellent work force which wishes to provide a first-class service and succeeds in doing so—and, secondly, the considerable investment that is taking place there.
  878
  Particularly striking is the way in which new machinery, introduced for the better handling of letters, has, within two or three years, become out of date as a result of technological development. More mail is therefore being handled faster, and will continue to be handled faster, with a smaller work force as the technology of sorting equipment improves. The inevitable conclusion is that the improving technology of letter handling is likely, in the foreseeable future, substantially to reduce the job opportunities for sorters of mail and other manual operatives in sorting offices.
  The first question that strikes me as being important, looking at the matter from the standpoint of local jobs, is whether anything can be done to prevent those otherwise certain job losses. Obviously, it is not possible to stop introducing new technological machinery. One cannot pretend that it has not been developed. However, it is possible to take steps to ensure that the volume of mail and the profit that it generates increases rather than falls.
  Unfortunately, as several hon. Members have already said, the profitable part of Royal Mail is threatened in a number of respects. Several hon. Members have mentioned the Dutch post office. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has left the Chamber—[interruption.] I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has come back at the right moment. I hope that he will forgive me if I update him on the position regarding the Dutch post office.
  The Dutch post office, under the umbrella of KPN and embracing PTT Post and PTT Telecom, was partially privatised on 13 June. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that that partial flotation proved extremely popular. It was three times oversubscribed with a strong demand from not only domestic but foreign investors. The KPN shares set a bourse record for volume with 35 million shares changing hands, more than half of which were sold to foreign institutions. About 20 per cent. were sold to buyers in Britain and 18 per cent. to buyers in the United States. That has left KPN in Holland embracing PTT Post as the third-largest quoted company on the Amsterdam bourse, preceded only by the Royal Dutch Shell group and Unilever. Not surprisingly, PTT issued a stamp to commemorate that important stage in its development.
  I mention that because it demonstrates the tremendous confidence of not only the management of PTT but the public in Holland in the capacity of their post office to perform and serve not only the domestic market, but, most particularly, the international market in a way which makes it possible for it to lead the world in post office services.
  Much reference has been made today to the sort of competition that Royal Mail potentially and actually faces from the Dutch post office. I shall give a few examples, because although it is all very well to talk of competition, we must understand what form that competition takes.
  One of the most profitable sectors of Royal Mail business is bulk commercial business-to-business deliveries. The Dutch post office, with tremendous success, is bidding for bulk United Kingdom direct mail for destinations outside Holland and the United Kingdom. If it creams off business that would otherwise have gone through Royal Mail, Royal Mail and everyone who works for it is the loser because that business is lost to an alternative enterprise.
  Secondly, the Dutch post office is bidding for bulk mail for destinations within the United Kingdom. There, it is important to appreciate the effect of the accounting conventions of the Universal Postal Union which militate

  879
  against the Post Office that is doing the delivery. The revenue that is collected for a postal item, or in this case millions of postal items, is split, four fifths going to the country of origin—not the poster but the post office handling it—and one fifth going to the country that effects the delivery. When that business is lost, Royal Mail is saddled with the bulk of the work, because there is far more work to be done in delivering to individual destinations than in collecting, for only a fifth of the revenue.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has just made a useful contribution to the debate. For those who have not been party to it, it explains what the competition is and the urgency for a response. The House should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I have no doubt that if the Post Office is privatised the share offer will be popular and I agree that it needs to be able to respond to the competition. However, that does not remove the fundamental point of principle as to whether that can be done within the public sector. It is important to underline that, although the Dutch post office has been partially privatised, it still is in the public sector and the Government have majority ownership. That is what we are advocating.
  Mr. French: I shall come later to whether one can have commercial freedom in the public sector. But if one speaks to senior managers of PTT they will say that they have taken only the first step in the direction of selling the majority of shares. At the moment only a minority of shares has been sold, but eventually it is expected that the majority of shares will be in public ownership.
  Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to the privatisation of the Post Office, but my hon. Friend has usefully put it on the record that we are talking not just about the Dutch post office but its telecoms operation. That 30 per cent. flotation was a large one for that country.
  Mr. French: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
  Why is it that the Dutch post office can organise Itself to win the sort of business that I have described? First, it can quote commercial tariffs in a way that our Post Office cannot. All the special deals that come from Royal Mail are according to a pre-determined formula, as with Mailsort, where the price to be quoted is already fixed and the nature of the deal or the customer placing the business is not taken into account.
  In contrast, the Dutch post office can come forward with specific tariffs for specific customers if it knows that it is in a competitive position and wants to win a particular piece of business. It can enter commercial alliances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) mentioned. It can also embark on the provision of a combination of services, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West made clearly.
  A typical example is the fulfilment of a total postal requirement: that is, the design and printing of a piece of direct mail; the enclosing of that item in an envelope or wrapper; the generation of the addresses to which it will go; and the sharply negotiated transportation from A to B by the best means possible and therefore at the most competitive price. We must take notice of the fact that the Dutch post office can enter into joint ventures and alliances to achieve such services. It can compete on all those fronts, but the Royal Mail is left to compete only on sorting and
  880
  delivery services. One can easily see that it will not be long before it is wiped off the postal market place for that type of business.
  If there were a few more Opposition Members present, I would no doubt hear them argue that there is not much to worry about—foreign post offices do not have the right to deliver to United Kingdom addresses, which accounts for the bulk of Royal Mail business, because the Royal Mail retains its letter monopoly. That view, however, is misconceived. It presupposes that the sending of a letter or circular through the post is an irreplaceable and indispensable service and that it will always be needed. The same view was taken by stagecoach operators, who eventually found, to their cost, that they were wrong.
  As a medium of communication of information, the written or printed piece of paper that is delivered from door to door faces strong challenges. Other hon. Members have referred to fact that the fax is creaming off some of the business, as is the telephone. British Telecom's recent advertisement campaign highlighted the amount of telephone time that one can buy for the price of a postage stamp. Such competition—one medium competing with another—will increase and the Royal Mail must be able to respond to it.
  It does not stop with the fax or telephone. More sophisticated forms of communication such as electronic mail, airwaves, telematics, satellite communications and other forms of data transmission are potential competitors for the humble letter going through the post.
  Mr. Cousins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and I agree with it. The Post Office says that 13 per cent. of that vital commercial market is under its control. If the competition is that severe, what is the economic and commercial basis of the guarantees that the Post Office, if it becomes a fully private company, will have a uniform price and universal delivery?
  Mr. French: Uniform price and universal delivery will be much more within the grasp of Royal Mail if the rest of its business is profitable. It will be more capable of delivering universality if it has commercial opportunities. The reality is the opposite of the arguments advanced by Labour Members today.
  The trend is away from what many see as an archaic mode of communicating information whereby messages are transported from one side of the country to other, and from one side of the globe to the other, on pieces of paper. The Royal Mail's business is rooted in that function. Any long-term examination of its business position is bound to raise alarm bells as to where it will be, not in two years', but in 20 years' time, if action is not taken now.
  The Post Office's only answer to those developments should be to achieve a position, first, whereby it can compete vigorously and effectively for its share of the postal market, whatever the size of that market will be; and, secondly, whereby it can stake its claim for a proper share of those businesses that will inexorably nibble away at its current core activity. It must stake its claim to alternative means of communication.
  That means that a measure of commercial freedom is vital. I have listened to the speeches of Opposition Members and I waited patiently to hear which Opposition Member would spell out what he meant by commercial freedom in the public sector. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did not say how that could be

  881
  achieved. He made only an assertion that it would be possible and that it could be done, but he did not tell us the means. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) said that the Post Office should be given more commercial freedom, but she did not explain how she proposed to do it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that commercial freedom could be given without too many difficulties. Again, he did not tell us how he would achieve it. It was the same with the Liberal party spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). He paid lip service to the desirability and possibility of commercial freedom without explaining how it could be achieved.
  Commercial freedom in the public sector is, for all practical purposes, a contradiction in terms. It cannot be achieved in the public sector. To achieve proper commercial freedom, the Post Office must have the opportunity to take proper risks. If it is still tied in some way to the public sector, it will not be able to take those commercial risks without, at some stage, the taxpayer having to underwrite the risk. I defy any Opposition Member to explain how it would be possible for the buck, ultimately, not to stop with the taxpayer and with the Treasury.
  Commercialisation in the public sector would not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was emphatic that it would be irresponsible for the Treasury, if the Post Office were still in the public sector, not to maintain the system of the external financing limit and to take the cream off the profit, which it has done for so many years, in the interests of the taxpayer. It would also be irresponsible for the Department of Trade and Industry not to take an interest in the investment decisions in which the Post Office engaged. The DTI, the Treasury and the Government have an interest in preserving the best interests of the taxpayer and they could not do so in those circumstances.
  Mr. Cousins: In many ways, I consider the issue to be the heart of the argument. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to the example of British Nuclear Fuels plc, which operates as a wholly publicly owned company? How does he respond to the example of what are regarded as trading activities, which are regarded as contingent liabilities only for the public sector borrowing requirement and the public expenditure statements?
  Mr. French: I accept that those examples are departures from the broad principle, but they are not departures of the same type. We are dealing with a commercial enterprise of massive proportions. They are far greater than those in the examples that the hon. Member gave. We are dealing with commercial risks of enormous size. If they were not well judged, they could incur enormous losses for the taxpayer. The principles of public financial management and the responsibility of the Treasury to ensure that undue risks are not taken by commercial enterprises where the taxpayer has to pick up the bill must be adhered to and they should be adhered to in this case.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in terms of the scale of the business, British Gas offers a far better analogy? It has been able to
  882
  decrease its prices, to enter new world markets and, at the same time, to protect the taxpayer and customer through an extremely efficient regulator.
  Mr. French: I entirely accept that; I shall deal with the question of the regulator in a moment.
  Mr. Peter Hain: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. French: No; other hon. Members wish to speak.
  If the Government retained a majority shareholding, they would still ultimately be in control. Royal Mail borrowings would still be part of the public sector borrowing requirement. Even more important, the Government would have not only a right but a duty to interfere in any investment decisions that Royal Mail and the Post Office chose to make. That is a recipe for not giving the Post Office the commercial freedom that it needs.
  The Post Office must be allowed to set its own financial targets, to make its own investment decisions and to raise capital in the market place when it considers it necessary for the development of its business. It is absurd that at present—even in the case of fairly trivial investment decisions—the Post Office must approach a Government Department and, understandably, wait for some time to secure a decision that may not always be the one that it wanted.
  The Post Office should also be freed from the straitjacket of the external financing limit, and transferred to a normal corporation-tax system that will allow it to make a reasonable contribution to the Exchequer. It should not be hemmed in as it is now.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that an EFL of £230 million—nearly four times the size of the 1992 limit—is draining a successful Post Office of resources that it badly needs for reinvestment purposes? Is not the desirability of access to the capital markets one of the main arguments for disposing of a large shareholding?
  Mr. French: I entirely agree. The EFL is far too high, and access to the capital markets will provide the Post Office with precisely the alternative facility that it needs.
  The anxieties expressed by Opposition Members are reflected in the printed postcards that many hon. Members will have received from both Post Office employees and users of local post offices. Most of those anxieties could be fully dealt with by a regulator. Such a regulator could set the ground rules for a competitive framework, protect the social needs that have been correctly emphasised, protect user interests, enforce universality and the uniform tariff and deal with the scare identified by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey)—the possible ending of the returned-letter service.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Would not consumers' interests be better looked after under a regulator than they are now?
  Mr. French: Yes, they would. The Post Office Users National Council currently does a very good job, but, although it tries to look after the consumer, its powers are ultimately limited. A regulator could ensure that the well-intentioned policies of such organisations were implemented: the legislation would give him teeth.
  The Opposition have whipped up a good deal of anxiety. It is important for the future of the Post Office that they understand the arguments, which they have not done

  883
  so far. As long as the current circumstances prevail, Royal Mail in particular is destined to lose business, and also to lose the opportunity to play its part in what could be an exciting expansion of the global market place.
  The more far-sighted postal authorities see their opportunities to claim a slice of the new, larger cake. They perceive not only the possibilities for the domestic markets, but the possibility of co-operation between Post Offices in different countries to develop their businesses jointly. The chief executive of our Post Office has a very enlightened approach, but so have others.
  Theo Jongsma, managing director of PTT Post International, said in London on 21 June:
  "I support the privatisation of postal companies worldwide."
  He did not just want privatisation for Holland; he saw its merits generally. He continued:
  "The Dutch experience has been and will continue to be a success. I sincerely hope that other governments will give their postal companies the opportunity to develop as normal businesses, in a competitive environment."
  The Dutch post office, however, is not alone. Also on 21 June and also in London, Dr. Klaus Zumwinkel, chief executive officer of PostDienst in Germany, said:
  "There is a clear international trend towards liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation. No country can avoid this trend. The plan to convert the 3 Deutsche Bundespost companies into stock corporations is the only correct and viable approach to take."
  The same philosophy is embraced in Sweden. Since 1985, Sweden Post has been able to make free use of its profits and has had full power over its investment decisions. It is not yet a private company, but the pronouncements of its chief executive make it clear that it is destined to be one in the not too distant future.
  I believe that the future of our postal services will involve the emergence of a few global postal operators with a command of both national and international opportunities, and a command of written and electronic information and goods such as we have not seen before. There will be vigorous competition, but the strong operators will do extremely well: it is therefore vital for Royal Mail to be there, among the leaders.
  Let me return to the point at which I began. I have no doubt that the jobs of my local postal workers in the sorting office in Eastern avenue in Gloucester—and those in other sorting offices throughout the country, as well as in sub-post offices—will be safest if the opportunity for change is embraced, and Royal Mail becomes the world player that it should be. Jobs will be more secure, and employees will share in the growth of the business.
  6.58 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: Although it identifies three possible options for the future of Royal Mail and Parcelforce, the Green Paper on the future of postal services effectively dismisses two of them out of hand. The Government are clearly batting for only one, and will spend the next three months trying to sell it to the public—for they are well aware that the public do not favour any kind of privatisation of the Post Office, and are very concerned about the current proposals.
  One of the options dismissed by the Government was 100 per cent. privatisation, although they were enthusiastic about it. Having heard a couple of Conservative speeches today, I can see that there is a good deal of support for it within the party; the Green Paper, however, commented:
  "many people prefer a closer link between Government and Royal Mail than this would provide".
  884
  In other words, the Government have recognised that the public will not tolerate 100 per cent. privatisation. Perhaps that is because the public are not so impressed with its consequences. The comments of my constituents about the privatisation of our existing public utilities are mainly about the size of the chairmen's salaries and the problems of job losses among ordinary employees.
  The Government also dismiss out of hand the retention of the Post Office in the public sector, while giving it greater commercial freedom. In case somebody stands up to ask what I mean by that, I refer them to the Government's option, which makes several suggestions about how that may happen.
  The Government have three principal arguments against that option: first, that, as a publicly owned company, the Post Office would be protected from failure. Most people in the country do not want to see the Post Office fail and that option would be positive rather than negative. Secondly, they say that it would be underwritten by taxpayers, but the Post Office has made a considerable profit for a number of years, which has been very beneficial to taxpayers in the country by helping to finance other public services such as health and education.
  Thirdly, the Government say that, as a public company competing in the market, it would distort the market and would become a soft option for private finance. Surely the water, gas and electricity companies and British Telecom are effectively private monopolies. That is why they attract such a good level of investment, because large investors see them as low risk.
  The option that the Government are trying to sell is that of retaining 49 per cent. of the shares in the Post Office, so that they would be a passive partner, while selling off 51 per cent. of the shares. I am sure that, if they did that, like the gas, electricity and water companies, it would also be seen as attractive to private finance.
  Whether it would meet the Government's criteria for attracting private finance that it should be seen as a high-risk business is very doubtful, because I am sure that all private investors would be attracted if 49 per cent. of the Post Office is publicly underwritten by the Government. Therefore, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, the notion that on the one hand there are privatised companies and on the other publicly owned companies, and that the finance attracted to each of them is different, is absolute nonsense.
  One of the biggest selling points of the option that the Government have put forward is that the employees will have 10 per cent. of the shares. In fact, that is the only mention of the future of the employees in the whole Green Paper. The reality is that, in this country, private shareholders have diminished in the past 15 years of our share-owning democracy, and shares held by institutional investors, whose power is enormous, have increased as a percentage.
  Companies' accountability to their individual shareholders is very small. If privatisation takes the proposed form, the accountability to those shareholders who are employees of the Post Office will be exactly the same as it is in other companies—a lot of shouting about it, but very little accountability. I cannot imagine the chairman of a future privatised Post Office ringing up to consult the local postman, who has a few hundred shares, about the commercial decisions about to be made, although I can imagine the chairman telephoning a large investor for consultation.

  885
  That is a very poor way in which to maintain the accountability of the Post Office to its employees. The Government may feel that that is a good selling point, but it is a sham, and it means very little. I am sure that many of the employees who will be offered 10 per cent. of the shares would willingly part with their shares to ensure that the Post Office remained in public ownership, because they feel that that would be the best way in which to ensure the protection of their jobs.
  Privatisation will not protect employees from losing their jobs, nor will it increase their pay in real terms. We are talking about many employees—165,000 people are employed by the Post Office. One of the most powerful arguments for keeping the Post Office in public ownership is that, in the aftermath of privatisation, thousands of employees will lose their jobs—it may not happen the month after privatisation, or the month after that, but it will happen. Commercial pressure cannot consider job loss. The driving force is the demand of the market for short-term dividends, and that will be no different for a privatised post office.
  The country cannot afford any more unemployment. We must consider ways in which to keep people employed, of employing more people and of not making people unemployed. If we do not, we will not have many customers or consumers left—people need money to consume—nor will we have money going into pension funds, or money to invest in industry; nor will we achieve the social order or the stability that we need.
  The Government need to accept their wider responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to the wealth of the country through employment. To do that, they need to look at their role as a purchaser and their role as an owner of public companies and their role in every single Department.
  The Government also need to consider the job implications of their policies, as well as the commercial interests about which we have heard a lot tonight. The question should always be how we can consider employment, how can we create employment, how we can keep people in employment, as well as how we can make a business more efficient and more competitive, and how we can give value for money to customers. All those questions should be asked before any policy change, and they need to be asked when considering the future of the postal service.
  There is only one answer to the present proposals: to retain the Post Office in the public sector, give it more commercial freedom and ensure that it continues to be a successful public enterprise, employing 165,000 people and much valued by the British public. That is what the public want, and I am sure that they will express it locally over the next three months. The big question, is will the Government listen?
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: A lot has been said in the debate, but may I first make it clear that, when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made his announcement on 19 May, he said that three inviable functions would be kept in the Post Office organisation which would be laid down by statute? They are, first, maintenance of a nationwide
  886
  letter and parcel service with a daily delivery to every address in the UK; secondly, a uniform and affordable structure of prices; and, thirdly, perhaps most importantly, a nationwide network of post offices.
  As I have already made clear in an intervention, 19,000 out of the network of 20,000 sub-post offices are owned by private individuals, involving their own capital. I pay tribute to them and assure them that I do not believe that any of the proposals which I have seen mentioned in the Green Paper would in any way threaten the viability of their sub-post offices. There are other factors at work which may well threaten that viability and I shall address those in a moment.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). In particular, he mentioned his sorting office in the city of Gloucester. I very much hope that the viability of that sorting office will be maintained exactly as it is at present, because it is from there that the majority of my constituents' letters come.
  Over past years, I have visited sorting offices in my constituency in Cirencester and Tewkesbury early in the morning and I have seen the valuable work done by the Post Office delivery men in those sorting offices. They then go out in all the worst weather. I pay tribute to them for that work and also for their valuable services in often providing companionship, advice, messages and so on when visiting the doorstep.
  Mr. Hain: If the hon. Gentleman is paying such a generous tribute to his postmen and women, why does not he listen to them? None of them wants the privatisation which the Government are thrusting down their throats.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: As I shall make clear to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, the best way to secure the maximum employment in the Post Office is to ensure that it is profitable. As I shall make clear, it is only by some radical alteration to the existing structure that it will remain profitable and, above all, retain its market share. It is losing market share at the moment and we must do something about that, whatever solution we come up with.
  Ms Estelle Morris: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the loss of market share and about the need for the Post Office to be allowed to be more competitive, does he think that the Government have assisted that process by dilly-dallying for two years on the result of their review of the Post Office? How did that delay help the Post Office to prepare for increased competition?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: This is probably the most fundamental reorganisation of the Post Office for the past 150 years—since Rowland Hill invented the penny black. In such a fundamental reorganisation, we want to ensure that we get it absolutely right. That is why we are having this debate today and that is why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my other right hon. Friends are considering carefully what is the best course for the employees of the Post Office, above all, and for the maintenance of the profitability of that business.
  One has only to look at the Opposition motion to see precisely what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) is alluding to. The Labour party is not prepared to consider the future. We must consider the future, otherwise we shall find that the Post Office's business slowly gets smaller and smaller. We should

  887
  contrast the motion with my right hon. Friends' amendment, which is positive; it suggests positive solutions and that is what I wish td address today.
  We must recognise the changed environment in which we live. Customers no longer automatically go to the village shop. They may prefer to go instead to the large out-of-town superstore. When my constituents write to me saying that they are worried about the future of their rural sub-post office, my reply to them is, "If you are worried about its future viability, use it." It is up to the sub-post office in turn to provide the range of services that the customers want. I am delighted by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends' recent announcements about allowing a wider range of services to be sold in sub-post offices. I am particularly delighted by the announcement that a number of sub-post offices will be able to sell lottery tickets. That will considerably enhance their viability and profitability.
  One must consider changing employment patterns. People now have less time to shop, so they increasingly look towards convenience shopping—towards electronic shopping—and that trend will continue. As consumers rapidly adopt the new technology, they will, if the sub-post offices do not provide that range of services, use them less. Apart from adapting to changing consumer patterns, the Post Office will need to adapt to changing trading conditions in three main ways. First, new forms of communication, such as fax and electronic mail, are increasingly emerging. The electronic data exchange market is growing by 20 per cent. annually. Television licences, for example, may now be paid for by direct debit. The fax market is growing by 30 per cent. The scope for expansion in that sector is huge and could wipe out much of the current letter business within a comparatively short time.
  Secondly, competition from overseas post offices as the point of posting for bulk mail is increasing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester made clear, I have a company in my constituency with a large mail delivery which made a contract with the Dutch post office. It sent all its magazines to the Dutch post offices, which in turn contracted the magazines back to our own Post Office. The organisation making the profit was the Dutch post office and our own Royal Mail was left with the fag-end of the business. It had to make the daily deliveries and the charge for that was little above the cost price. We must respond to competition from overseas.
  Thirdly, increasingly there is a trend towards contracting out and franchising ancillary services that the Royal Mail would be well placed to provide. Let us consider the competition. Let us consider the express deliveries around the country for bulk mail and parcels which are springing up all over the place. How can the Royal Mail respond to the challenges when it has to go to the Treasury every five minutes to ask for permission to invest in more facilities? In those circumstances, how could any commercial business succeed in the modern world?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, when the Dutch telecommunications business was privatised, one of the first things that it did was to make a joint venture deal with the huge American corporation AT and T to enable it to have access to the huge capital investment and the huge technology that would be required in that fast-changing business. As we shall see, the electronic mail business will change just as fast.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely when the Dutch post office was privatised?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The first tranche of the Dutch post office privatisation took place in May.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It was 13 June this year.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have a little bit of extra knowledge from behind me. I am told that the exact answer is 13 June this year.
  Mr. Prentice: Is it not the case that the Dutch Government kept 51 per cent. of the shares? Is that not, therefore, a perverse definition of privatisation? The Government hold the majority shareholding.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was coming to that very point. I will deal with it; it is important and I should like to illustrate it a little later.
  One option is to give the Post Office much greater freedom to trade commercially while still remaining in the public sector. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), have said that the Post Office would not succeed in the commercial world. Three options are proposed in the Green Paper. The first is some form of greater freedom in the public sector, whatever that means. No one has yet been able to tell us whether that would mean that the Post Office would not have to apply to the Treasury every five minutes and that it would be given increasing freedom to run its business. What about the external finance limit of £230 million? It has gone up four times since 1992. How would we deal with the increasing difficulty of the Post Office being in the public sector? I do not think that that is a realistic option.
  The second option in the Green Paper is much more realistic. It is that 51 per cent. of the Post Office should be privatised. That would create a partnership between the private sector, the employees, above all, and the public sector. That seems a sensible way to go forward. In the other privatisations, City investors have been a little slow to realise the fundamental change in businesses that have been in the public sector for so long. It seems eminently sensible to let part of the business be sold off to the private sector and to prove that it can be run successfully in the private sector.
  In response to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I say that I see no reason why, as in the case of British Telecom, we should not sell further tranches. As he knows, each time we had a privatisation of British Telecom—BT one, BT two and BT three—the share price increased because potential investors could see that the business had a tremendous future in the private sector and that it was becoming more successful.
  The Government are eminently sensible not to go for the third option of a 100 per cent. sell-off in one go, although I must say that my personal preference would be to sell off the Post Office in one go and to let the Post Office management have complete commercial freedom. Why on earth should they not have that freedom, as has been mentioned by other speakers? As the Green Paper makes perfectly clear, the regulator's functions will be enshrined in statute. We are discovering in other previously privatised industries—water and electricity—how the regulator should function.

  889
  Opposition Members have spoken of the excess profits, as they put it, made by the water industry. If the industry did not make profits, it would not have the money for the £27 billion of investment over the next 10 years. Opposition Members do not seem to want an improved water system. My constituents want ever better water quality and they want money to be put into better water services. If those companies do not make a profit, where would the money come from? That is part of the problem about the Opposition's policy—[Interruption.] The answer is always the taxpayer.
  What has happened to those businesses in the past? As we have heard, between 1976 and 1978, investment in the Post Office fell by a half and the same thing happened in the water industry and in the telecommunications industry. Why was it that up to the privatisation virtually every telephone box one went to was out of order and yet today 80 per cent. of them are in good working order and are clean? It is because British Telecom is making profits and investing them to provide an ever better service. There is no reason why the Post Office, minus the counter services, should not do exactly the same.
  That is the way forward. We must also make sure that the regulator has all the statutory teeth that he needs. No doubt, night after night in Committee we will debate that very point. I want the regulator to have statutory teeth so that my constituents and those of Opposition Members, who have protested so much tonight, can enjoy the benefits to be gained from the Post Office providing a proper service, at a realistic price, across the country. That is best delivered by transferring the Post Office to the private sector, where it will make a profitable return. [Interruption.] The Opposition are obviously trying to make sure that I am truly put off my stride. They obviously do not like what I am saying.
  Mr. Purchase: Is the hon. Gentleman in his stride?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Purchase: We need some explanation of one small point that you made earlier. You said that the Government were sensible not to sell off the entire shooting match in one go, but, seconds later, you declared that that would be the best idea.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am afraid that the Chair is unable to explain anything to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). He should refer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), not to the Chair. He should not use the word "you".
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your little bit of protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was about to deal with the hon. Gentleman. He obviously was not listening to what I had to say, because, although my personal preference is for a 100 per cent. sell-off, I see the merits of a partial sell-off of between 49 and 51 per cent of the business. That would make a lot of sense from the taxpayer's point of view.
  As I said earlier, the Government had considerable success in selling off tranches of BT and I am sure that the same thing will happen with the Post Office. From the
  890
  point of view of business development, however, the commercial freedom that an immediate 100 per cent. sell-off would give to the Post Office would be of considerable benefit to it. I hope that I have managed to explain that difference to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. It takes a little understanding and I appreciate that he is a little bit slow to appreciate such matters.
  The chief executive of the Post Office, Bill Cockburn, summed up the entire debate by saying:
  "I have had to say quite bluntly recently that, without commercial freedom, we face an increasingly bleak future. Loss of business to the competition, from overseas postal administrations and the use of new technology, could mean both significant job losses and post office closures."
  That just about sums it up.
  The Labour party's motion advocates doing nothing in the hope that everything will be all right. That simply is not an option. The Opposition are burying their heads in the sand, but the Conservative Government have proposed realistic options in the Green Paper. The options will be thoroughly discussed and considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister. I look forward to coming back to the House in the autumn to debate this matter and to progress to selling off 49 per cent. of the Post Office's business. I look forward to that business going from strength to strength in the private sector.
  7.23 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: Whatever our views about the future of the Post Office, hon. Members have a common starting point: there is universal agreement that the Post Office is a success story. Whether one considers the profits that it has made, its efficiency, its popularity or its social worth, the Post Office comes out with credit. No one has sought to advance any other view of the Post Office. We need to remember that all that has been achieved with a Post Office firmly rooted in the public sector.
  The Post Office has already faced change. Anyone who goes around a sorting office will appreciate what it has had to do to mechanise. In recent years it has also restructured its work force. It has already adjusted to changing patterns of communications not only in this country but throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
  At the very same time as the Post Office has coped with adjusting to meet all those changes, it has increased its profits, kept its prices down and helped, in no small measure, to pay off the Government debt. From all the evidence of what has happened in the Post Office so far, there must be a predisposition in favour of our leaving it in the public sector.
  We are now told, however, that the Post Office faces a new threat of increased competition. Because of that, we are told that, for the first time in 150 years, the Post Office will no longer be able to cope with that competition unless it moves into the private sector. Despite all the adjustments that it has made, the mechanisation that it has introduced and the fact that the work force have adapted to new work practices, we are told that, because of that threat of competition, the Post Office can no longer cope in the public sector. Frankly, I do not believe that. I do not believe that that obstacle can be overcome only by a private company and I do not believe that giving the Post Office commercial freedom is the reason behind the privatisation proposal in the Green Paper.

  891
  Let us look at the Government's record in supporting the Post Office in the two years since the general election. If Ministers are so concerned that the, Post Office should be able to meet new challenges, why have they done so little to help? Why have the Government left Parcelforce dangling, uncertain of its future, for two years? Why have they taken just under two years to publish the results of the Post Office review? If the threat of competition was so great, why did the Government cut investment in the Post Office in last year's public sector round? Why did they double the external financing limit in a year and treble it in three years?
  The Government have cut investment while arbitrarily increasing their take of the Post Office's profits. They also shelved a review because of political shenanigans in the Conservative party. Those are more the actions of a Government concerned with securing their own future than the actions of a Government concerned with securing the future of the Post Office. Given what the Government have done for the Post Office in the past two years, one must conclude that their motives on the future ownership of the Post Office cannot be trusted. They are based on a different agenda.
  I do not believe that privatisation is necessary to give the Post Office the freedom which it wants and which the Opposition acknowledge that it needs. I acknowledge that privatisation could give it the freedom that it needs, but the Opposition believe that the cost entailed is not worth paying.
  The Green Paper acknowledges that, for centuries, the Post Office has
  "made a vital contribution to our national life."
  It also talks about the Post Office being a
  "unifying force of the nation."
  That is what is at risk, unless the Post Office stays in the public sector. Can we really see the private sector companies, shareholders or boards agreeing to keep open 5,000 small sub-post offices that represent only 1 per cent. of the company's business? Can we imagine a resolution at the annual meeting of Royal Mail plc agreeing to keep prices 13 per cent. below the rate of inflation for a decade? That will not happen. That is not what motivates a private company. Such agreements will not be reached if the Post Office is removed from the public sector.
  What we have in the Post Office is not repeated anywhere else in British industry: it is a special mix of public service ethos with a commercially successful track record. That combination must be addressed successfully in any review of the Post Office.
  In the private sector, the pressure to increase dividends and top managers' salaries, as well as to cut out economically unviable parts of the business, will dominate. That is, by nature, the way in which shareholders and private sector companies work. Hon. Members have already mentioned what has happened in the water companies and the electricity boards. Tory Members may talk about guidelines which mean that the Post Office should not do that, but the Government cannot give a guarantee that goes beyond so many years, and they will be under pressure for the regulatory body to limit its restrictions on Post Office activities. The definition of a company operating in the private sector is that it has the freedom to cut out parts which are not economically viable. I do not believe that any statutory measures will stop the privatised Post Office doing that.
  892
  The Green Paper acknowledges that people are the Post Office's most important asset. Yet one of the main areas of anxiety and concern among Post Office staff—that of Post Office pensions—is dismissed in only three lines at the bottom of page 26 of the Green Paper. In those three lines, Post Office staff are assured that the Government will safeguard pension rights. That assurance might be welcome—indeed, I welcome it—but it does not go far enough and it is not sufficient to allay the justifiable fears of Post Office workers.
  Post Office staff want to know what effect the envisaged changes in the Post Office structure will have on the now closed Post Office superannuation scheme and the Post Office pension scheme. Given assets of £10 billion and £435 million respectively and surpluses in both the closed and open schemes, Post Office employees want to know what access the board of a privatised Royal Mail will have to those funds. With Post Office employees paying 6 per cent. of their salaries in pension contributions, that is a question to which they are entitled to know the answer. Again, we wish to know how Postel, which has proved to be an effective investment arm for both the pension schemes, is likely to be affected by any changed structure in the Post Office.
  There are 140,000 retired pensioners in the Post Office superannuation scheme and 120,000 still contributing to that scheme. Who will administer that closed pension fund in future if privatisation goes ahead? One of the major anxieties for everyone in the Post Office is whether the Government will give a pledge that the pensions for both current and new employees will continue to be index-linked under a privatised Royal Mail. The Government have not announced how the assets and surpluses of the Post Office superannuation scheme and the Post Office pension scheme will be divided between a privatised Royal Mail, Parcelforce and Post Office Counters.
  Post Office workers have worked in an atmosphere of uncertainty for the past two years, and that is long enough. I invite the Government to give firm assurances on the specific questions that I have raised about the future of the Post Office pension schemes. I look forward to the Minister's response in that direction.
  The Government will find themselves in a small minority when the results of the consultation exercise are made known at the end of September. The people have a stake in their Post Office. They have a right to be heard; more than that, they have a right to see their views reflected in any legislation that follows the consultation process. I believe that they, like us, will say that the future of their Post Office, which has served them well for more than 150 years, should be in the public sector, marrying the two ingredients of a successful and efficient public service and a profitable and popular commercial enterprise.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: This is an important debate because we are discussing not only an aspect of national life with which all of us are familiar —I know that my constituents in East Surrey are familiar with the Post Office because they use it regularly to communicate with their Member of Parliament—but two important and successful British businesses: a communications business and a retail business. We are talking about how we in Parliament can best help them to succeed.

  893
  I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) that we start with much common ground. No one would deny that the Post Office has been successful in the past; it incorporates not only one of our greatest distribution businesses but one of the greatest distribution businesses in the world. It has not only consistently improved its service delivery over the years; it has managed to reduce prices in real terms and deliver a substantial stream of money—about £1 billion in real terms over the past 10 years—to the Treasury.
  Equally, few people would deny that there are mounting and real pressures on the Post Office's ability to continue to succeed in the way that it has. For Royal Mail, the challenge comes principally, as we have heard, from the growth in telecommunications, faxes—which are growing at some 30 per cent. a year—and electronic data exchange. They all threaten the Royal Mail's largest and most profitable markets. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) mentioned the current British Telecom advertising campaign. On my way here today, I drove past a poster which said:
  "Enjoy a 1st class conversation for less than a 2nd class stamp".
  No further indication of competition is needed; that advertisement sums it up squarely. We are talking about a global communication market; we are not simply talking about the Post Office and Postman Pat, however important he may be.
  If the Royal Mail is to maintain and improve its position within the communications industry, and if it is to participate in the activities that my hon. Friends have talked about, such as the international data highways of the future, it will require a substantial level of capital investment.
  The Royal Mail has great advantages, as well as threats,, to face. It has a superb national delivery network; it has a reputation for excellence in service delivery; and it has a name that is recognised throughout the world.
  For Post Office Counters, the challenge comes principally from a decline in its traditional markets, which has come about as a result of changing patterns of behaviour and the exercise of consumer choice. Ninety per cent. of Post Office Counters business is from as few as eight clients—and most significant among them is the Benefits Agency. We must consider the future of Post Office Counters in the light of the fact that, for example, 40 per cent. of new pensioners already have their benefit sent direct to their bank. We must also consider it in the light of the developing interest in direct debit and the fact—[Interruption.] There is that fly again. I do not know what the Official Report will make of that. Stamps are now widely available from outlets other than post offices. I think that the fly is trying to deliver a message to the Chamber.
  The Post Office Counters market is undoubtedly facing a threat as well. But like Royal Mail, it, too, has advantages. For example, it has 20,000 outlets. I think that that makes it the largest retail network in Europe. It has unparalleled penetration not only in cities but in town centres and rural areas. It is our job to help to build on those strengths to make it a truly successful business for the long term.
  I freely admit that these are not particularly original observations. The same observations have been made by
  894
  the Post Office, my right hon. Friend the Minister, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the Post Office National Users Council, the Mail Users Association, the Select Committee, the National Federation of Sub Postmasters and even the Opposition parties. All have observed the same trends, the same threats, the same challenges and the same opportunities, and all have been led to the same question: given that the status quo is not an option, how do we best enable the Post Office to build on its advantages and meet the challenges? Of course, this is where the differences begin in the Chamber.
  The Government have clearly considered the matter with great care. They have listened to representations before publishing the Green Paper. They have listened to the Post Office management, who have stressed that in their view the Post Office needs the freedom to raise capital, to invest with confidence, to engage in joint ventures, to participate in international markets and to develop new markets and technologies.
  Now the Government have produced their Green Paper, and with it a recommendation which—not just in my view but, far more important, the view of the Post Office—represents the best possible way forward. I believe that the Government's preferred choice will satisfy the Royal Mail's objectives, which I have outlined; in addition, it will have the benefit of enabling the work force and sub-postmasters to participate in the ownership of the company. Our preferred choice will build in greater consumer safeguards by way of regulation. It recognises the great public interest in the network of post offices, and it guarantees core functions in the service—daily delivery to all parts of the country and universal pricing.
  The Green Paper is a consultative document; it invites an informed debate. Yet what is the response from Opposition Members? I fear that, taking their cue from the Union of Communication Workers and rooting their position in a blind attachment to state control, they merely offer a diatribe of scaremongering and a rather facile political polemic. They talk about job losses, post office closures and rising prices. They talk about failure—all this despite the evidence that they were wrong about BT, wrong about British Airways, wrong about gas and wrong about steel. Despite all that privatisation has achieved for taxpayers, businesses and consumers in the past decade, Opposition Members remain implacably ideologically opposed to it.
  While the Union of Communication Workers rushes off to print two million leaflets and God knows how many stickers, the Labour party offers, in time honoured cliché, to
  "turn the summer heat on to the Government by taking our campaign into the rural shires who have most to lose from the privatisation of the Post Office".
  I wish the Opposition much joy on their rural ride. They tend to get a little lost in the shires.
  It is an inescapable fact that, just as enabling post offices to increase substantially the range of goods and services that they can offer is the most certain way to ensure their success, so privatisation offers the best way forward for protecting jobs in, and enabling the future success of, the Royal Mail.
  Opposition Members need to understand, when launching the campaign to which the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) referred, that it will be a campaign against the Post Office, against its workers and against its future prosperity. When they return from the rural shires,

  895
  accompanied by Sancho Panza in the shape of the Liberal Democrats, I have no doubt that they will continue to peddle the option about which we have heard so much today and which Opposition Members claim will achieve all that the Royal Mail wants and needs. In truth it will do nothing of the kind.
  At least this time the Opposition parties have been able to face up to the problem, but unfortunately ideology has forced them to shy away from the solution. Curiously, there is one aspect of Opposition policy about which they have been rather reticent. We have not heard what that policy would be in the event of privatisation taking place. I invite the Opposition spokesman to confirm now that such is their commitment to the ideology of state control, so deeply embedded in the Opposition motion tonight, that they would not hesitate to renationalise the Post Office in the unlikely event of a Labour Government.
  Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman was presumably here at the beginning of the debate to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) make it clear that it would be our intention if we returned to power, and if by some mischance the option that the Government appeared to support had been implemented, to restore public ownership.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful for that interesting reply. It differs markedly from my recollection of what the hon. Member for Livingston said. The Labour party appears to be divided, but it is encouraging to see that the clause 4 adherents in the Labour party are alive and well and sitting on the Front Bench. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's answer will be noted with considerable interest outside the Chamber.
  The nub of this debate concerns whether the Royal Mail can meet the challenges ahead while still in the public sector. The Opposition parties maintain that it can, but there are three obstacles to that. We have heard about them before, and I have yet to hear any convincing arguments that would remove those obstacles.
  Mr. Clapham: Has the hon. Gentleman had a look at the Trade and Industry Select Committee report on the future of the Post Office, published in March of this year? If he has read through the notes of evidence, he will have seen that the management of the Post Office stated that they would be well suited with the option allowing commercialisation of the Post Office, so that they would be freed from the external financing limits and able to compete on a level playing ground with the post offices of Sweden, France and Germany, which are also state plcs.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that report, which I read with considerable interest. He will have noticed, of course, that since publication of the Green Paper the Post Office management have made it abundantly clear that they do not favour remaining within state control, for the good reasons stated in the Green Paper itself.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, the Royal Mail's ability to invest in new technology and in the development of new markets has been and is being hindered by Treasury restraint. As long as the Royal Mail remains in the public sector it will effectively be forced to compete in the general public expenditure survey, a fact clearly reflected in the rising EFL at a time of public expenditure restraint and of
  896
  the application of the Treasury's blue pencil to the spending plans submitted by the management of the Post Office.
  The Minister of State gave several examples of the sort of problems that arose for publicly controlled companies under the Labour Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) dwelt on the same subject. It is essentially a simple idea: as long as the Royal Mail is owned by the state, the state will have other spending priorities and the Royal Mail will suffer as a result.
  I should like to quote from the Select Committee report, which states
  "the chief executive of the Post Office said that above all what was needed was that the Post Office should be free to raise money without it being in the PSBR and free to make investments without having to consult the Treasury every five minutes. We support those sentiments."
  The hon. Member for Yardley may disagree, but it is frankly naive to think that those objectives can be met while the Royal Mail remains under state control.
  Secondly, as we have discussed, competition with the private sector must operate fairly. I know that that is a difficult issue—the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has said that it is by no means simple—but how can it possibly be fair to have a system whereby a publicly owned Post Office, backed by the taxpayer, competes with private companies for markets and capital? That simply is not fair.
  The third problem with the Opposition's contention today is that although, as I think most people will agree, the future of Royal Mail lies in exciting new markets, if the company is to become a significant player in new markets for electronic information transfer, substantial capital investment will be required, and one is entitled to ask why the taxpayer should take risks on that capital investment which are rightly the business of shareholders and financial professionals.
  The Green Paper says that, if the Post Office remains in the public sector, it may well be subject to slow decline, and we simply cannot afford to waste the opportunities that now exist. The Green Paper's preferred option makes clear a commitment to universal pricing and delivery; it reinforces the position of Post Office Counters; it enables the business to expand and develop new markets; it recognises the social dimension of the Post Office and its services. It commits the Government to substantial continued investment in two businesses, which would be newly freed to succeed.
  The competitiveness White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a few weeks ago discusses how the Government can best help British businesses:
  "Often the Government can help most by getting out of the way."
  That is the case here.
  Opposition Members claim to speak for the Post Office. They do not. They speak for the old socialist belief in state control. We have heard that from the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon. They have learnt nothing; they would do it all again.
  The Post Office, in any case, can speak for itself. It did so when the Green Paper was published. The headlines of the Post Office press release will suffice:
  "Partnership Option Best—' A Real Winner for Britain' Post Office Urges Public Support".
  It is a matter for great sadness that the Post Office will

  897
  receive no support from the Opposition parties who cynically exploit the anxieties of the vulnerable for political gain at the expense of British business.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Ken Purchase: I have heard today a great deal of justified congratulation of the Post Office on the excellent way in which it runs its business and services—the public services that it has provided for 150 years.
  I add to those congratulations by saying—no doubt hon. Members will want to join me in saying it—that during the summer we shall expect our huge bundles of mail to be delivered to our offices and homes, with ever heavier sacks of mail arriving on the shoulder of, in my case, the postwoman, and I greatly value the service that she provides. Hon. Members will receive the same quality of service, whether they represent a constituency in the far north of Scotland or the far south-west of England. That service is guaranteed: it will happen—we need not worry about it. [Interruption.] I am being prompted from the wings to say that that guaranteed service will also be provided in Wales; I am happy to add the Welsh contingent to my thanks and congratulations.
  Some years ago, my wife was a postmistress. We ran a small post office in an inner-city area with predominantly 19th century housing built by brewers and other organisations. The population were elderly and relied on the post office for the services that they needed in terms of pensions and other bits and pieces. They valued the commercial side, which my wife ran: envelopes, writing pads, sweets and all the things that we generally now take for granted in a sub-post office, all of which help to make the whole business a viable proposition for someone to run.
  Earlier, there was discussion about whether there was any cross-subsidy between one part of the Post Office and another. An accountant could probably demonstrate either case. However, it is obvious to me that the salary of a postmaster or postmistress in a sub-post office in a declining area—an office that is visited by fewer and fewer people, who nevertheless rely on it—could not be met from the volume of business that is transacted. None the less, at present that sub-post office is kept alive because the entire business is able to sustain it from its overall profitability. That is an important point which ought not to slip off the agenda too quickly.
  Although there is a right and proper emphasis and a campaign about the problems of losing rural Post Office services, the needs of the inner cities are no less acute. I could go further and say that, due to the nature of inner-city communities, the density of the sub-post office network is vital to give people the peace of mind and confidence to know that they can walk relatively short distances, without needing to rely on any other form of transport, to obtain their pensions, their child allowances and everything else that is available at the Post Office.
  Earlier we heard it said that if, as a result of competition, our sub-post offices were to lose 10 per cent. of their business, many of the sub-post offices would quickly slip into a loss-making position. If their profitability were the sole criterion for whether they should continue, many
  898
  sub-post offices would be closed in the areas that I have described and I am sure that the same would be true in the rural areas.
  Where could that competition come from? Frankly, if we leave this successful organisation as it is, but accept the changing technology, changing needs and new developments, and allow the Post Office the freedom to deal with those in a proper way, with sound management and good financial policies, there is no problem with competition—not domestically, at least. A strong domestic position will better equip our Post Office to deal with the increasingly international side of its business. It is true today, as it always was, that a strong home market is vital to enable any industry or service to develop worldwide competitive strengths. One needs that base in one's own domain.
  We are in danger of offering, to anyone who cares to come along, a proposition that they can set up a postal service. I know that it will be said that we shall have a minimum postal charge and therefore the opportunities will not arise, but they will. It will not be long before little local services develop, taking letters and delivering them. Very soon, it will become almost the norm to do it from one end of the place to the other, and soon the Government will be asking, "Is there much point in maintaining the artificial level that we have imposed? We might as well let it go."
  Some of us have not forgotten the lesson of Sunday trading. It took the large national companies to break the law, disregard the law, pay no attention to the law, and be rewarded by the Government for having so done. I obviously excuse the Minister for Industry, who was in a different camp on that occasion. There is a possibility that this will develop in the same way because of the idea that it is impossible to control the popular demand that would arise for such a service. We should keep that in mind, especially in the light of our recent debate on Sunday trading and what happens to law breakers in that regard.
  I do not necessarily say that it is impossible for private enterprise to run a network of sub-post offices and post offices—clearly, it is possible with full and proper regulation—but the Government's record is to reduce rather than introduce control of these matters. I am sure that they would let it slip as soon as pressure was brought to bear on them. If that is the case, why should we change a winning team? As I have said, the Post Office needs to take on board developments in this country and worldwide.
  With regard to inner-city sub-post offices, the Green Paper refers to the new challenges mentioned by a number of hon. Members, but there are also some old needs in inner cities. On a downward slope when demand is decreasing, profit can still be made from providing a good service. Decreased demand does not mean that the service cannot be organised properly and profitably and make a contribution. To do that, one simply gathers up the available business and provides it at a proper price. That would protect the network of inner-city post offices.
  There are old-fashioned needs, and old-fashioned common sense ought to dictate that great care needs to be exercised before accepting the Government's view of privatisation by selling 51 per cent. One Conservative Member said that his preference would be to get rid of the lot as quickly as possible, but he failed to explain the sense of the Government's desire to slice it up bit by bit. No doubt he was thinking of the next election and wondering how the Government might best sell off the Post Office, get

  899
  in some money and give it away as another tax handout. That is exactly what they are thinking, and much of what drives the White Paper could be understood by looking at it in that way. In the end, we come down to ideology.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is he suggesting that we have privatised about 27 businesses since 1979 merely to win four elections which we won so successfully? Those businesses now have a change of culture and operate successfully in the private sector.
  Mr. Purchase: They have certainly had a change of culture. Of that there is no doubt: indeed, additional evidence arrived this very day on the front page of the Financial Times for all who cared to read it. The hon. Gentleman looks away because he cannot bear to hear the truth. The Financial Times states that the electricity companies, or rather their chief executives and main directors, have had a massive bonanza. It is simply a case of changing the culture so that public money can be used to line private pockets. That is the nature of the change of culture in what were public services.
  Let us reflect on this great change in, for instance, British Telecom. I agree that, comparatively speaking, the telephone service is now cheaper, but by golly why should not it be? There have been worldwide advances in technology. Is the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues saying that those changes would not have happened—
  Mr. Sainsbury: Yes.
  Mr. Purchase: That is nonsensical. The fact that BT was owned by the state would not have pre vented worldwide technological advance from being taken on by any sensible company or any commercial undertaking. Our model of commercialisation fits well with the ability to take on new technology and for services to develop and improve and reach more people.
  The Minister turned the truth on its head when he said that Labour believed that everything private is bad and everything public is good. Almost the whole of the Labour party has spent most of its working life in private industry and enterprise and we do not believe that at all. That whole concept is nonsense and the Government must adopt a more sensible approach. They cannot continue with the idiotic ideology as though it had not failed when it has manifestly done so.
  People rightly believe that they are paying more for poorer quality water. The water companies may say that the chemical mix is correct, but we know that the water that comes out of the tap is abominable. As for investment, instead of going to their shareholders for money for long-term investment, which is then paid off by revenue, the private companies immediately impose a price rise on the general public who are absolutely held by those monopolies. That is how investment is financed, while at the same time the companies increase dividends well beyond what could normally be expected in any other commercial organisation.
  We do not have a uniform view that this is good and that is bad. We have to look at what has happened. There has been some good and some bad in the industries that the Government have privatised. The Post Office is an excellent organisation which delivers a good service uniformly across our nation. It could compete internationally if the Government would give it the go-ahead on a
  900
  commercial basis. Why are the Government obsessed with the ideology that everything in the public sector is bad and everything in the private sector is good?
  We heard talk about how the Treasury determines everything. For goodness sake, the Government are in charge of it: they can decide the rules and what constitutes part of the public sector borrowing requirement and what does not—or perhaps the Minister can do it by himself. If the Government continue to box themselves into a corner of their own making, they cannot plead to the House, "How can the Post Office possibly prosper when it has to run to the Treasury every time it wants to invest two bob?" That can be turned round if there is a desire to take that utility out of the PSBR and give it commercial freedom, including the ability to raise money on the capital markets.
  I hear calls of, "Unfair," but unfair to whom? The Green Paper tells us that at present what happens with regard to external financing limits and the contribution is similar to what happens to the dividends paid to shareholders. This is our business, our Post Office. Why should we not have the dividend, invest capital and take a long view as a community, collectively? The Post Office is a prime service industry. It does not have to be privatised in this way. It can serve the needs of our nation domestically and industrially.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman referred to a point that I made, but I am not sure that he fully understood it. The point about fair competition is, first, that it is good and, secondly, that it cannot exist where one of the competitors has behind it the full weight of the taxpayer. There can be no fair competition on that basis.
  Mr. Purchase: That turns everything on its head. Any number of international and multinational conglomerates have such clout in the money markets that it is silly to talk that way about Britain, which probably has a gross domestic product smaller than the borrowing ability of some multinationals. [Interruption.] I do not have it wrong. It is barmy to say that we should not exercise our right collectively and as a state to borrow money to finance long-term investment in our industrial and service sectors. It is not me who has not understood; your side—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he is in full flow, but we do not normally use the words "you" and "your" in the Chamber.
  Mr. Purchase: That is the second time I have been told that today, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand and I will do my best to refrain, notwithstanding the full flow.
  It is right that collectively we should be able to raise money for long-term investment. It is Conservative Members who have not understood the important difference between borrowing for investment and borrowing to pay the dole. The Government are pouring money down a black hole with no chance of recovering it. They are financing unemployment, much of it the result of the so-called rationalisation of some of the former nationalised industries. That is why millions of people are claiming the dole instead of working.
  We want the Post Office to be able to borrow for long-term ventures such as modernising, improving and spreading its service as widely as possible, thereby leading us to a springboard from which we can compete successfully on the international stage and win for Britain.
  8.11 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I have resisted the temptation to intervene in the speeches of Labour Members since the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) so ungraciously refused to allow me to do so in her speech.
  Some rather contradictory views have been expressed by Labour Members. They have said that, if Royal Mail is privatised, the price to the customer will be jacked up, but that private enterprise would undercut Royal Mail. The idea that any business would jack up its prices while competing with other companies that were reducing theirs does not sit well in the marketplace with which I am familiar.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) disagreed with the Minister's assertion that, if British Telecom had remained in the public sector, it would not have reduced its prices or acknowledged advances in technology. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) claimed that privatising Royal Mail would be bad because the only way to protect the 160,000 jobs involved was to keep it in the public sector. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady believes that British Telecom could have maintained its staffing strength while reducing its prices and acknowledging advances in technology—something that has been necessary throughout the world.
  I represent a large rural constituency that covers some 650 square miles and has more than 70 post offices. I take a particular interest in, and have a particular concern for, the future of those post offices, the majority of which are sub-post offices. I have had regular meetings with the sub-postmasters in my constituency. Indeed, last September I invited them all to a meeting so that they could tell me how they saw the future and what they wanted for rural post offices in particular. I am pleased to say that 30 of them attended that meeting and I then fed back their views to my hon. Friends at the Department.
  I must come to the defence of the Minister. Labour Members have accused him of dithering. We all want the process to be concluded because uncertainty is not a good thing, but my right hon. Friend has not been dithering. He has spent considerable time studying what happens in other countries—especially the Republic of Ireland, which uses the switch card to good effect in the payment of benefits. I was glad, therefore, to note in the Green Paper the Government's pledge of —130 million for the automation of benefit payments. If the system is similar to that in the Republic of Ireland, it will greatly benefit my rural post offices. When the sub-postmasters met me last September, they were anxious to point out that they wanted ways to generate income other than the opportunity to sell tangible goods.
  Some of the sub-post offices in my constituency are very small and do not have the room to sell a large range of stationery, let alone stock the grocery items that are so often found in small post offices. Some of them are open only two or three half-days a week and are located in people's front rooms. Their ability to increase their income and the range of services that they offer to people in the villages is obviously extremely limited.
  If small post offices were computerised and able to sell a range of additional services, the benefits would be most helpful. Ticketing and similar services that can easily be arranged through a computerised service would help them to broaden the range of services that they could offer. That would help people who live in rural communities.
  902
  I have read the Green Paper carefully and I shall discuss it at a meeting with sub-postmasters in my constituency before 30 September. Before I do so, however, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend some questions. There is some concern about the payment that sub-post offices receive from the Royal Mail. When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate, will he give an assurance that that payment will continue? It is an important part of their income.
  As is made clear in the Green Paper, and as Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, it is important to maintain the network of sub-post offices and the universal daily delivery of mail from Monday to Saturday, regardless of where people live. In rural areas, people often live at the end of lanes, so it is important to maintain the continuity of the daily post.
  Had the hon. Member for Vauxhall allowed me to intervene when she was talking about a second delivery, I would have told her that rural areas have not had one for many years. I visited the modern sorting office in Exeter, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), but which also serves my rural constituency that surrounds Exeter. I was there during the late morning and early afternoon and I saw the amount of mail that was cleared. It is quite clear that Royal Mail is now able to deliver, in one delivery, the vast bulk of the mail that it receives in a 24-hour period. Raising problems about a second delivery is just a red herring. Rural areas get their post on time without the benefit of a second delivery. Indeed, in this day and age, a second delivery is a bit of a luxury, especially in view of the small amount of post waiting to be cleared in the sorting office in the late afternoon.
  Mr. Hain: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I would be tempted to do so, but the hon. Gentleman's colleagues did not extend that courtesy to me earlier.
  The cross-subsidy is important for the network of sub-post offices and sub-postmasters in my constituency want some reassurance about that. As I have said, many of them have very small businesses and the amount of income they can generate, from Royal Mail and other sources, is limited.
  I am convinced that the necessary guarantees will be provided, so I shall be happy to support the proposed Bill when it comes before the House. Obviously, I want to take the opportunity to respond in detail to the Green Paper and to sound out my sub-postmasters. The principle behind the Government's proposal—which is to maintain the network of sub-post offices in its present format but to increase the range of services that can be offered—is most welcome. My hon. Friends have demonstrated amply that, if Royal Mail is privatised as is suggested in the Green Paper, it has not only to defend its position in the marketplace, but to be given the opportunity to go out and compete in marketplaces around the world.
  We have heard what happens in the commercial environment, particularly with direct bulk mail. I know of businesses in other parts of the world—America, for example—that send an enormous amount of direct mail into mainland Europe. They rarely use Royal Mail because other countries' services can undercut us yet, as we have heard tonight, the local postman and postmistress ends up

  903
  putting it through a letter box or delivering it to a business. We are being used in a way which produces very little profit.
  I received a letter from the Post Office—as I am sure did many hon. Members—outlining its concern at the way in which the volume of mail is growing. As a result of the growth in bulk mail, person-to-person mail is declining as a proportion of the gross mail handled by the Post Office. That is extremely worrying and, as we all know, once a business loses its market share and people build in brand loyalty with other service providers, it is difficult to break into those markets.
  Royal Mail must be allowed to compete domestically and internationally. Associations that it may want to develop with printing companies and others who can deliver the complete package of services that people who send commercial mail want to purchase are important because that added value element will be extremely important.
  In principle, I am happy to support the proposals that Ministers have outlined from the Dispatch Box. I obviously seek reassurance on the critical issues that affect people in rural areas, particularly in my constituency. I look forward to debating them fully and I hope that Ministers will take full account of the representations made to them in response to the Green Paper.
  We have heard that, this summer, Labour party representatives plan to come into our rural areas. I hope that they wear good strong boots, as it is not as balmy an environment as they would wish. When they spread their scare stories in rural areas they will find people to be quite sensible. They will also find that the Liberal Democrats got there first as, for many months, the Liberal Democrats have been telling people in rural areas, by means of questionnaires and petitions, that they will lose their daily Royal Mail and the sub-post offices in their villages. I assume that the Labour party will follow them in that. They are past masters of such scare stories and I am sure that they will share their disgraceful tactics.
  I hope that people will look at the facts and will not be gulled. The people who are gulled by scare stories are pensioners and disabled people who claim their benefits from local post offices and people who look forward to personal letters from relatives once a week or once a month.
  The campaign is typical of what one might expect from Opposition parties, but I hope that it will be exposed for what it is—preying on the vulnerable and not a rational response.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I am not giving way to any Opposition Members.
  I sincerely hope that the British public, who will be the prey of the summer campaign, will demonstrate, as they have in the past, that the privatisations that the Government have introduced have not only been right, but have been in the public interest.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: The most striking thing about the Green Paper is that it is riddled with contradictions. The Government have stumbled into the proposal like a drunken sailor intoxicated by the privatisation dogma.
  904
  Three years ago, we had the citizens charter, with its proposals for deregulation and extra competition. We heard no more about that. Then, two years ago, the President of the Board of Trade announced the privatisation of Parcelforce in an almost instant fashion, without proper consultation, only to be dragged by his officials into considering an overall Post Office review a week later, once it had been pointed out to him that it was not as simple as he had thought. We have had deliberations on the proposals for two years and now the Government have come up with this hotch-potch.
  I remind the Government that the well-worn procedure for dealing with drunken sailors is to throw them overboard. The former Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), lost his job as a result of the mania for Post Office privatisation, so which Minister will be next? I believe that, ultimately, the people will throw the Government overboard as a result of this privatisation. I mean no ill will towards you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that.
  The first serious fault line in the Green Paper is the separation of Post Office Counters from the rest of the Post Office. No postal authority in the world operates a separate retail business, as the Government are proposing. Even the Dutch, who have been quoted every other minute by Government supporters in the debate, have made it clear that they oppose such a proposition.
  At a conference in London on 21 and 22 June the managing director of the Dutch post office, Mr. Theo Jangsmon, said:
  "I believe the separation of Counters from Royal Mail will hamper some service development".
  The chairman of the Post Office, the chief executive and the rest of the Post Office management whom the Government are praying in aid to support the privatisation proposals have argued strongly in evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and elsewhere for the business to be kept together.
  The former chairman of the Post Office, Sir Ron Dearing, who has been significantly silent on the privatisation debate because one might surmise that he is opposed to it, argued the same thing—that the Post Office should be kept together—in a letter to staff in January 1987, as did the Post Office Users' National Council in a submission to the Government's own review.
  Are they all wrong? Do the Government consider themselves the only party to the debate who are right? I do not think so; it is essential to keep all sections of the Post Office together, because there is a synergy between the different businesses.
  There are 3,092 delivery offices and more than half—1690—are attached to local post offices. If those post offices are threatened, the delivery offices will be threatened as well. Equally, if the delivery offices are threatened with closure, as will increasingly happen under privatisation, the viability of local or sub-post offices will also be threatened.
  Parcelforce is another example. When there is nobody at home, parcels are invariably returned not to the 137 parcel delivery offices—a small number, which is declining—but to one of two other places: either the 3,000 local letters delivery offices or the 20,000 local post offices. If Counters is separated from Parcelforce and the Royal Mail as an entirely separate institution in the public sector, there is no prospect of that synergy remaining, and that will threaten the Royal Mail and Counters.

  905
  There is also a tremendous danger of Counters being left as a rump service in the public sector, with no obligations and no commitments from its sister businesses dealing with letters or parcels to support it in any way. I am not suggesting that there is an overt accounting cross-subsidy; there clearly is not, but there is an organisational cross-subsidy that results from being part of the same post office.
  If, in addition, as the Green Paper proposes, private parcels operators and postal operators are encouraged to use the Post Office network as suggested in the Green Paper, there will be even less incentive for the privatised Royal Mail to continue to support the public post offices in the way it does at the moment.
  I speak only for myself in this regard and may be criticised by members of my Front Bench, but if the Government privatise the Post Office—something to which I am 100 per cent. opposed—they should keep the counter business with the Royal Mail. If they are hell-bent on privatisation, they should privatise the whole Post Office, and not break it up in the way proposed. If there is an end to any obligation on the part of Royal Mail and Parcelforce to maintain current inter-business charging arrangements, the Post Office's overall viability, and particularly that of the counters business, would be threatened.
  At present, there is a considerable financial flow between different postal organisations. At the end of March 1994, counters recorded an income from the Royal Mail of £221 million, against expenditure of £51 million; and from Parcelforce, an income of £22 million against expenditure of £1 million—a net income of £191 million from both businesses.
  If Royal Mail and Parcelforce choose other means of delivering the services for which they currently depend on Post Office Counters, the effect on its small profit margin will be catastrophic. The Government have completely ignored that. In that event, the counters business would become a cost to the taxpayer, whereas at present it contributes to the Exchequer.
  Crown offices are being downgraded or closed and replaced by franchised agents, so the Post Office's identity is being undermined. What obligation is there on Royal Mail or Parcelforce to use a local post office if it is at the back of—dare I say ?—a Sainsbury supermarket, newsagent or some other retail outlet?
  Royal Mail will seek to maximise its market share as a private corporation. It will be under no obligation to the counters operation. Royal Mail and Parcelforce may even regard outlets stuck at the back of a Martins newsagent or Tesco as conflicting with their corporate image. That is another reason why a privatised Post Office may not want to use counters as a separate public sector operation.
  After privatisation, we saw British Telecom take away services previously provided by counter outlets, such as the booking of international telephone calls. BT is currently presenting a proposal to cease contracting the sale of licence saving stamps. That is what happens when a unified business is broken up. I could quote many other examples. I am emphasising the case for the essential synergy between the different sections of the Post Office as currently structured.
  Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Gentleman argues that all Post Office business should be preserved in one unit for the benefit of the Post Office and of all the people who work for it. Is that view held by the Union of Communication Workers, by which the hon. Gentleman is sponsored?
  Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have to consult the UCW. I dare say that lots of postmen and postwomen will be knocking on the door of the hon. Gentleman's surgery, lobbying him to change his views. There is united opposition among Post Office staff to this privatisation. I make the case not solely on behalf of Post Office workers but primarily on behalf of the public. The counters business will suffer irreparable damage by being hived off and left as a rump service in the public sector.
  There is already tremendous public concern about the diminishing number of rural post offices, which are closing at the rate of 200 a year. A privatised Royal Mail and Parcelforce will be under no obligation to maintain local letter delivery offices on the present scale. As they seek to cut costs, they will reduce the number of those offices. That is already happening, but closures will accelerate, which will undermine the viability of local post offices. They are already on death row. In the coming year, they will desperately hope that they can be reprieved through the defeat of privatisation.
  Paragraph 5 on page 27 of the Green Paper states that value added tax will be applied to "non-obligatory services". Does that mean that Datapost, which is Parcelforce's express delivery service, will attract VAT? Perhaps the Minister will respond now or at the end of the debate. Datapost users want to know whether they will be charged an extra 17.5 per cent. The viability of that service, which faces stiff competition from private carriers, will be threatened by the application of VAT.
  Paragraph 4 on page 27 suggests that VAT will be applied to contract parcels. The Government say that VAT will not be applied to stamps. Mention has been made of so-called granny parcels. I have never understood why it is thought that grandads never send parcels. I refer to parcels of the kind that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I might send to elderly relatives.
  The Government have made it clear that such parcels will not attract VAT, but there are many grey areas and contradictions in the separation. I understand why the Government sought to separate stamps from contract parcels. It would be deeply unpopular if the public suddenly had to bear VAT to the tune of nearly one fifth on current prices.
  Will metered post and other pre-paid arrangements attract VAT? We deserve an answer from the Minister, but he is not responding. It appears that there is some confusion. There will be considerable scope for evasion and loopholes in the clearly defined sectors of contract parcels and stamps.
  Small businesses, for example, do not have a contract in the sense referred to in the Green Paper, but are subject to regular collections by Parcelforce. It suits Parcelforce to collect rather than to have parcels taken to local post offices or delivery offices. There is no pre-payment but subsequent billing. Will VAT be applied in those cases? That is important to small businesses, which are already facing enormous pressures as a consequence of the Government's mistaken policies. They will want to lobby the Government.

  907
  There is a suggestion that VAT will be applied to other sectors, but the Green Paper makes no reference to them. Will that tax be applied to Quadrant, the Post Office's catering operation; to Subscription Services, another Post Office business; or to Cashco, which is the Post Office operation that transports money to post offices and between Royal Mail and Parcelforce—a multi-million-pound, if not multi-billion-pound, operation? Clearly, applying VAT to those cash movements will be an enormous issue, which the Government will have to tackle.
  There are equally important technical issues, and they are skated over in the Green Paper. What about the royal parks? At present, Royal Mail and Parcelforce vehicles have access to the royal parks, not merely to deliver to them and collect from within them but also, by custom and practice, to drive through them, whereas other private operators have not. Indeed, other operators are specifically barred from driving through the royal parks.
  If there is to be a level playing field with DHL, TNT and the other private operators, will Royal Mail and Parcelforce vans lose those privileges, or will they maintain them? We have a right to know the answer to that question, but it is another black hole in the Green Paper.
  To pursue the colour analogy, there is also the question of yellow lines. At present, Post Office vehicles can park on double yellow lines without being given an immediate fine and attracting the wrath of local parking wardens, as would happen to you or me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As private operators—that is what the Government propose—will Royal Mail and Parcelforce vehicles cease to have the privilege of being able to park without hindrance on double yellow lines?
  We should know that, as it will affect the viability of the privatised Post Office and Royal Mail that the Government are so keen on. Will they still be viable without those privileges? We should also know whether the private operators with which they will compete will have such privileges accorded to them, too.
  The most serious problem of all—the Government have not addressed it, and it has not been mentioned in the debate so far, except in the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—is the wider pattern of competition that it is threatened will be superimposed on the Post Office.
  If this were simply a question of privatisation, there would be enough of a threat for us to avoid going down that road, especially for rural services, which are presently subsidised within the Royal Mail sector by nearly £300 million. A lean and hungry privatised Royal Mail could not possibly do anything other than reduce rural services. Under any privatisation regime, there would be enough of a threat to rural services, but when the extra competitive measures buried in the Green Paper are put on top of those, there is a serious threat to the viability of the standards to which we have become accustomed.
  There is enough of a threat to second deliveries even now. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) did not allow me to intervene in her speech, but her constituents, especially those who are Post Office workers, should be told that she does not appear to favour second deliveries in town areas. Paragraph 9, on page 21 of the Green Paper, says:
  "Nearly one area in six receives no second delivery".
  That is a revealing statement. In other words, five in every six areas do receive a second delivery; 85 per cent. of all households receive one. But the Government are not
  908
  terribly keen on second deliveries. Their defensive explanation, saying that one area in six does not receive the second delivery, is almost a nod and wink towards getting rid of it.
  Indeed, as I know from personal experience, having worked for the Union of Communication Workers and negotiated with Post Office managers, Post Office managers have consistently tried to get rid of the second delivery for years. Now the Government are effectively giving them the green light to do so. Not only will the public suffer greatly, but 27,000 jobs will be lost as a result.
  That will be one consequence of privatisation. On top of that, there will be competition. It is important that the House understands what is at stake. The three separate operations within Royal Mail are processing, distribution and delivery. The Green Paper rules out competition in delivery. Why? Is that some charitable gesture? Have the Government had an attack of conscience for a change? No; the cost of delivery is the real cost of the Royal Mail. It costs four times as much as the other two functions. In other words, 80 per cent. of all the costs of the Royal Mail fall within the delivery sphere. So no competition is being opened up there.
  Surprise, surprise—competition is being opened up in the profitable areas, in distribution and in processing. There will be competition, for example, in downstream access, which will allow private operators to come in and cream off the trunking—the easy work, on which a great deal of money can be made. It is said that competition will also be allowed in consolidation, which is mentioned in the Green Paper.
  That will allow small companies, which cannot now become involved in mailsort and the other pre-sorting arrangements operated by the Royal Mail, to consolidate their activities together through a new private operator. The profits can then be creamed off, then be trunked down, and the rest will be dumped back into the Royal Mail delivery network. All the costs will be picked up by the privatised Post Office, while the private operators pick up the profitable traffic.
  Another vignette from the Green Paper is the encouragement of niche licences, which will allow document exchange operators, such as Britdoc, to cream off more traffic, making a great deal of money in doing so. In addition, the monopoly is to be reduced below £1, allowing extra competition. If we add to privatisation, plus all those competitive measures, the RPI minus X price-cutting formula and the European Commission's proposals to take direct mail—40 per cent. of all Royal Mail's traffic—out of the reserved sector, a cumulative pressure will build up that will mean disaster for the Post Office in its privatised state. I believe that it will threaten the viability of the entire Royal Mail service, and place a serious question mark over its flotation. Potential buyers of Royal Mail should study that idea carefully, because they may be being sold a pup.
  I believe that the alternative to privatisation has been clearly set out by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. It is commercial freedom within the public sector. That is perfectly viable, and it exists all over the rest of the world. Even within Britain, it exists, and has existed, in such institutions as the BBC, BNFL, BP when it was still 70 per cent. publicly owned, and even in British Leyland.
  There is no reason why commercial freedom within the public sector cannot be delivered, except privatisation

  909
  dogma. It is that dogma in the proposals that we started off fighting, and we shall take that fight to the country. I believe that the Government can, be defeated on this measure.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: In his attack on the fault lines in the Green Paper, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) got to the root of the problem. His warnings were well made. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) wanted to see the continuation of rural and suburban post offices. I certainly share her wish for such post offices to continue to grow and thrive, and I hope that the specific reassurances that she sought will be forthcoming from the Government.
  Post offices are a crucial part of the local economy of every community throughout the length and breadth of the country. I give due praise and thanks to the men and women who daily provide us with that invaluable service. In my view, we should keep that piece of family silver, polish it up and use it for the benefit of the community, not sell it off at the first opportunity.
  I shall be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak, but I wish to add my support for the Post Office as a public service for the public good. The Victorians introduced that concept which is still supported by the majority of people in Britain. According to recent opinion polls, opposition to privatisation has risen from 64 per cent. to 81 per cent. in the two years since the Government first mooted their ideas. Even 53 per cent. of Conservative supporters are opposed to privatisation.
  The reasons for change are Government driven. Treasury rules come from the Government. Access to cash for technological improvements is also controlled by the Government. As with water privatisation, there is a self-fulfiling prophesy. The Government create the rules and then pray them in aid when they want to force through their own dogma.
  The Post Office is already efficient, effective and respected. Scotland's 13,000 Royal Mail staff ensure that 94.5 per cent. of first class letters are delivered next day. Given our geographical reality, that is good by any standards.
  Under the existing system, the Post Office is a profitable organisation with pre-tax profits of £283 million in 1992–93 and probably even higher profits in 1993–94. The Treasury has not hesitated to dip into that treasure trove to the tune of £230 million in the year to March 1993. But that self-same Treasury also imposes cash limits, thus thwarting potential investment.
  There are obvious threats to the commercial future of the Royal Mail—for example, electronic communications. Faxes equivalent to 15 million letters per day were transmitted last year, and electronic trading by computer has doubled in volume during the past year. But those challenges could be met if the Royal Mail had the freedom to do so. Its investment record, despite current Government straitjackets, is good. Greater efficiency, reorganisation, which has dramatically reduced the layers of management, and the adoption of the total quality concept have already
  910
  happened within Scotland's Post Office service. So too has investment, as the new £30 million automated processing centre using the latest technology has shown, and another is to follow.
  The Post Office has moved with the times and, if given proper support, will continue to do so. Freed from tough Treasury restraints, the Post Office could do much more. Financial freedom certainly seems justified. Last year, the Treasury allowed the Post Office to invest only three quarters of what it wanted to invest. That may seem bizarre for a consistently profitable organisation that has no debt and has amassed £500 million in cash. But in the curious world of the Treasury, any investment is undesirable since it contributes to the United Kingdom's budget deficit. Meanwhile, the annual dividend, which the Treasury extracts from the Post Office, currently £181 million, or virtually the whole of its net profit, is by private sector reckoning imprudently high.
  Whatever guarantees are given, privatisation is bound to raise doubts and fears about the long-term future of post offices in rural areas and about the future of shops that are also sub-post offices. Those are genuine fears that the Government must address. Whatever commitment the Government make, a market-driven service will naturally pull in the opposite direction from the principle of uniform and standard delivery. It will cause uncertainties in the remote parts of Scotland and throughout the country.
  It is not as if the Post Office were inefficient or out of date. It is consistently profitable, has restructured and streamlined its management, has invested in automated equipment and already operates across the boundary of the public and private sector.
  I agree with the words of The Herald when it says that the role of the Post Office
  "is changing and will continue to change as more and more people open bank accounts. It needs the freedom to expand and develop but the public interest will be better served if this happens within the public sector—as the public clearly wants."
  Everything that I heard the Minister say earlier points to the fact that he has clearly made up his mind about what he will do. Is the consultation paper yet another consultation sham from the Government? Will they listen to everyone and then do what they wanted to do from the beginning? The only commitment that we had from the Minister was that he would listen to what was said to him. We in Scotland know to our cost that when the Government consult the public they do not listen. In Strathclyde, 97 per cent. of the people showed that they did not want any change in their water services, yet that was what was done. Is the Green Paper yet another consultation sham from a Government who simply do not listen to the people but most certainly do listen to their own dogma?
  I am concerned about the Scottish rural areas and the suburban post offices. This privatisation is most certainly a privatisation too far. Certain activities and organisations should be run as a public service for the public good, and this most certainly is one of them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have nearly 20 minutes before the wind-up speeches and three hon. Members wish to catch my eye.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I shall try to be brief.
  Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for some of the earlier speeches and, sadly, I missed the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church), whom I knew as the health and safety representative at a national level for the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union. I know that I will have missed an excellent contribution, one of many that will be made, and I shall read it with interest tomorrow. However, I have heard some of the contributions to today's debate and the detail into which some hon. Members have gone and I shall not go over that ground.
  The question that sticks in my mind when I think of the privatisation of the Post Office, which was opposed even by Lady Thatcher as a privatisation too far, is why the Government are going ahead with it. It makes no sense. It was described by Mr. Bill Cockburn as a cash cow for the Government. It has been milked vigorously by the Treasury in the past few years—£65 million last year and £160 million have been demanded from its profits. It is a profitable organisation working well in the public interest.
  Clearly the Government are still driven by an anti-public or anti-community activity ethos. They do not like things that are done by the people and for the people by organsiations owned by the people. That does not gel with their idea of how the world should be run. This is one step in which not many of their supporters will follow them.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) talked about the 60 per cent. of Conservatives who did not support this privatisation. That means that of the 900 people who voted for the Conservatives in Monklands, about 580 would not support it. When one gets that far down, one should stop digging. The Government should stop and look before they pursue the action that they obviously want to take, as far as the public will allow—the privatisation of the Post Office. I hope that some Conservative Members will have the good sense to prevent them from doing that. Not that it would hurt me; it would damage the Conservatives more. When they leave office, I want it to be as a result of a resounding failure. However, it will be in the interests of the public if we stop this crazy idea.
  I have read some of the economics of Hayek, the great guru pushed in the Conservative party among those in the No Turning Back group—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and others, some of whom are no longer with us because they were found out at the last election. He claimed that everything should be run according to a market model. In those days he went so far as to talk about having private prisons, and people laughed. According to the Hayek theory, one should even have private armies. That would be just one more step all the way for the Government. People laughed at the idea of private companies taking criminals to court and to prison, but that was the economic theory of Hayek and the lunatics of the ultra-right. The Government still support people who adhere to those crazy theories.
  Two individuals are behind the proposals. One is the President of the Board of Trade. I was told that he was Tarzan in the House. I believe that he once swung the Mace around his head. We should forget that. I have another jungle image for him: that of the snake from The Jungle Book, which says to Mowgli, "Come inside my coils; go to sleep. It is all right—you will be safe." The President of
  912
  the Board of Trade is playing that role now. He is saying to the people of Britain, "Go to sleep. Don't worry; it will be all right. The postal service will be safe in my hands." Just like Mowgli, the people of Britain should not listen to the snake behind the privatisation of the Post Office.
  The other individual behind the proposals is Mr. Bill Cockburn, a Scot, I am ashamed to say, and the chief executive of the Post Office. When I and other hon. Members met him not long ago, he assured us that he was 100 per cent. behind the idea of keeping the Post Office in the public sector and fighting for commercial freedom.
  There was reference earlier to people being intoxicated. Mr. Bill Cockburn is intoxicated by the smell of executive jet fuel. He has been talking to chief executives of other privatised industries, or perhaps he is attracted by the lure of share options that may make him, as it made others, millionaires while the people who work for the Post Office lose their jobs and the people who need the service lose the service.
  The Government talk in the Green Paper about separating Counters, but we should examine what is happening in British Gas, which is voluntarily disaggregating its services. The Government are talking about having a retail section and closing 240 showroom outlets. They say that they will not be needed any longer. They will be amalgamated and will offer services for power or power equipment, whether involving gas, electricity or another power source.
  The interesting thing about that scenario is that British Gas says that people will pay their gas bills at a post office. At the same time, the Department of Trade and Industry has set a target for the closure of Crown offices; letters have been in the public domain for some time. The Post Office executive has written that it is on target to meet the DTI's targets for the closure of Crown offices. It is important to know that that policy was inspired by the DTI, which pays Mr. Bill Cockburn, who is an employee not of the Post Office but of the DTI. He is paid directly by the DTI; he is on its salary books. It is important, therefore, that we realise that the people calling the tune are the same people who will end up privatising the Post Office.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) said that the Green Paper poses no threat to local sub-post offices, but at a meeting at which I also spoke, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, admitted openly to about 60 people that stopping transfer payments by giro encashment was a great attraction. He said that it was much more attractive for payments to be made by bank automated credit transfer because giro encashments cost the Treasury 44p, but bank automated credit transfer costs 4p. The Department of Social Security is immensely attracted to the possibility of people no longer encashing giros at post offices.
  The Government deal with automation in the Green Paper. To me, automation means a swipe machine for one's smart card and the ability to put one's money anywhere. Down the road, a deal has been struck with the private sector so that people receive their money through automation. We warned them off, we fought them and we beat them the last time that the Government talked about it, but the paying Department has it in mind that automation should be introduced.
  Fifty per cent. of local post offices' income comes from giro encashment. A giro encashment payment costs 44p and payments will cost 4p if they are carried out through an automated bank card or switch card, so post offices'

  913
  income will be cut by 91 per cent. Very few local sub-post offices will survive that cut in income. The 2,700 post offices that receive a flat-rate subsidy would probably be joined by another 10,000, or the service would completely fall apart.
  The proposal poses a threat to rural communities in Scotland and elsewhere. As a Scottish Labour Member who is sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers, I do not apologise for saying that. My constituency party receives £8,000 for administration as part of that sponsorship, but I receive none of that money. All hon. Members should have to declare their interests in and every single penny that they receive from private consultancies. That would square everyone's idea of how hon. Members should behave.
  It can cost up to £10 to send a letter to some parts of the Western Isles or the Orkneys. At the moment, people there receive such a service for a single tariff. The Green Paper contains no guarantee that a uniform tariff will not be much higher in rural areas. A uniform tariff system could mean that a service would cost 25p in the city, but £3 200 miles away, and more than that 500 miles away. It would still be a uniform tariff system. As in the case of British Gas, there is pressure for tariffs to be linked to areas. The same pressure will arise from the privatisation of the Post Office—tariffs will be linked with distance. The system whereby there is one tariff for all first and second class letters will be broken up.
  A privatised Post Office would contain no guarantees that the Government will not succumb to the pressure for changes. They will succumb to that pressure because of what will be described as commercial considerations.
  During my time with the Union of Communication Workers, however, I have seen a much brighter future for the Post Office. It is a potential transmitter of all sorts of mail, whether that mail is electronic or conveyed by hand. For instance, when electronic shopping is introduced goods will have to be carried to customers. Lives will be changed; the new developments will be a boon—unless the Government say that that bright future must bring profit to some private organisation, and that that is more important than the workers or those who deserve their services.
  We must stop this privatisation. I have a simple solution to the problem, and I shall continue to tell people all over the country what I have been telling them already. All summer—indeed, until the present Government are out of office—I shall tell them, "Deselect, or do not vote for, any Member of Parliament who supports the privatisation of the Post Office. That Member of Parliament intends to break up something that is precious to you, and to us."
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief, as I want to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who is a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
  I was shocked, but not surprised, by the way in which Conservative Members sought to caricature our stance. The Minister said that we wanted to create some kind of North Korean Stalinist state; the whole thing was bizarre and ludicrous. Some common ground exists. The Post Office must change: the Select Committee said that, the Opposition Front Bench has said it and we all believe it.
  914
  That is where we part company with the Government, however, because privatisation—in whole or in part—is not the answer.
  What do we mean by commercial freedom? Before I deal with that, let me ask a more basic question: why are the Government undertaking this exercise? It is ideologically driven; it is not about improving efficiency or effectiveness in the Post Office; it is as plain as a pikestaff that it is about raising £2 billion to finance tax cuts before the next general election.
  Many speakers have reminded the House just how successful the Post Office is. According to the latest annual report, which has just been published, this year's profit amounted to £306 million. It was the 18th successive year of subsidy-free profit. The external financing limit target of £181 million was bettered; the Post Office contributed £182 million to the Treasury coffers. Since 1981, more than £1 billion has gone from the Post Office to the public sector. As I have said, the Government's exercise will not improve efficiency or effectiveness.
  Let me tell Conservative Members that the general public feel deep unease and scepticism, which was articulated earlier by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The wider community believes that the Government will have cause to regret this privatisation. Last year, when the automated credit transfer system posed a threat to sub-post offices, I was inundated with protests: 7,000 people in my constituency, which has an electorate of 62,000, signed petitions which I delivered to 10 Downing street. The response to the current privatisation threat will be much greater.
  Those sub-postmasters and postmistresses were not only concerned about automated credit transfer; they were straining at the leash to provide services that the Government have not hitherto allowed sub-post offices to provide. They wanted to act as agents for banks and building societies, and to sell tickets for various events. For months, we witnessed the absurd fiasco of the Government agonising over whether sub-post offices could provide fishing licences. It is the stuff of a hall of mirrors.
  I shall pose another fundamental question. What on earth happened to the doctrine of the mandate? The Prime Minister's smiling visage is on the Conservative election manifesto, "The Best Future for Britain", in which there is some mention of the Post Office, but not a word about the privatisation of it. If the doctrine of the mandate means something, surely this threatened legislation should be stopped in its tracks when it reaches the other place.
  Some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), have mentioned the widespread fears that Post Office privatisation will mean only another bonanza in pay and perks for directors and grotesquely generous share option schemes. In fact, the water industry and North West Water, which is the water company in my area, was mentioned by the Prime Minister earlier today. The flotation of the water industry was under-priced by£2 billion and £5 billion of debt was written off to enable privatisation to go ahead. Yet, by common consent, it has been disastrous. Since privatisation, charges have risen by 67 per cent. Another disastrous privatisation is that of British Rail, a natural monopoly. Privatisation of it is faltering and the scales are falling from people's eyes when they see the practical effect of privatisation. The same thing will happen with the Post Office.

  915
  Privatisation of the Post Office has been ideologically driven and it has not been thought through. The review gestated for two years during which it looked at all sorts of ways in which to make the Post Office more responsive—allegedly. It looked at breaking up the Post Office into separate functions of letter delivery, sorting and so on, and came to the not surprising conclusion that that was impractical. In fact, that idea was always hare-brained. The two-year delay in bringing forward proposals meant that the Post Office could not develop the services that it wanted. The Post Office complained about being enveloped in a fog of uncertainty and, only a few months ago, the chairman of the Post Office talked of an impending crisis. The way in which the legitimate concerns of the Post Office were swept to one side or ignored for two years spoke volumes. When the President of the Board of Trade appeared before the Select Committee, he explained away the two-year delay in reaching conclusions by saying that it was because of the complexities of the issues. It was complex only because the end gain—privatisation by hook or by crook—was the starting point. Privatisation was the name of the game, not making the organisation more efficient.
  The uncertainty over the future of the Post Office was caused by anxiety about external political reaction to privatisation. That point was conceded earlier by the former Minister with responsibility for the Post Office, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), when, in a fit of pique after he was sacked, he accused the Prime Minister of "political funk" because the Prime Minister had failed to grasp the privatisation nettle. Well, they have grasped it now and it will sting them. In fact, the Government's intentions—real "Alice—in-Wonderland" stuff—became clear only because of a leak from the Department of Trade and Industry, which brought the President of the Board of Trade to the House and the subsequent Green Paper before us.
  Many parts of the Green Paper have not been examined adequately, such as the extent of the Post Office monopoly, mentioned on page 24, where the Government say that more detailed work will be needed to ensure that, while safeguarding the Royal Mail's monopoly, there is fair competition between it and the new entrants into the market. The Minister for Industry talked about some degree of monopoly, but he could not be more precise than that.
  There is a whole range of ways in which the Post Office, within the public sector, could improve the service, as Post Office people and hon. Members on both sides who want the Post Office to be a successful and dynamic organisation want. It is bizarre that the Post Office cannot enter joint ventures and that is a point that we want to address. It is bizarre that the only trading organisation in the public sector—the Post Office—is fettered when it seeks to borrow. There is a whole series of related issues that should be developed, but not with the sword of Damocles of ultimate privatisation hanging over the head of the Post Office. It is possible for the Post Office to stay in the public sector and to deliver the service that people in here and outside want.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: As I have only a couple of minutes, I shall merely refer to the suggestions in the report by the Select
  916
  Committee on Trade and Industry. The Minister has obviously looked at the recommendation in the report, which is that there is a need for change. However, the report does not suggest any form of ownership. If the Minister has read carefully the minutes of the evidence given by the Post Office management, he will have seen clearly that they were prepared to accept commercialisation. Their view was that if the Post Office was freed from the straitjacket of the external financing limit, it would be able to compete with Post Office services such as those in Sweden, France, Germany and Canada where the post offices are all state owned.
  I urge the Minister to consider option one as the major option to go for. It would give the Post Office the opportunity to be able to raise capital on the private market. It would give it the opportunity to enter joint ventures so that it could compete with its main competitors, such as the Dutch post office, and it would allow it to continue its unique service, which is so important to rural constituencies such as mine. My constituency is made up of 21 villages and it depends on the service that the Post Office provides.
  I urge the Minister to go for option one. It would give us the opportunity to keep the Post Office in the public sector and, at the same time, it would give it the opportunities that it deserves. It would also ensure jobs for the work force and the uniqueness of the service for the British people.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: It gives me particular pleasure to say something about the speech of the new hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) who, in her contribution on this important matter, had the combination of very strong and clear thoughts and a gentle and firm delivery. That is an example to us all and I am sure that we shall hear much more from her in the House.
  I begin with a quotation which, I hope, will establish some common ground. In this year's annual report, the chief executive of the Post Office says:
  "we have ambitions stretching beyond the UK. We have the ability to be a major player in the global postal market and a burning ambition to be the postal administration of first choice—the mailing centre of Europe… And we have a trump card—one of the largest and best workforces and network of sub post offices in the world"—
  he evidently did not visualise the separation of the sub-post offices from the rest of the network—
  "an asset highly valued by customers, clients and the community alike. But, unless we can respond on equal terms to the competition from other overseas post offices and be given the opportunity to offer a wider range of activities at our post offices, we could lose ground at home and abroad and head for a spiral of decline."
  We propose to achieve that by offering commercial freedom inside the public sector. Every Opposition Member who has spoken—they spoke for Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Neath and Falkirk—including the members of the Liberal Democrat and Scottish National parties, has supported the idea of achieving success through commercialisation in the public sector. That would combine the trump card of public services with the commercial opportunities that the chief executive mentioned.
  In the two years that we have waited for the Green Paper £100 million has been cut from the public investment programme of the Post Office and the price of stamps has

  917
  been subject to an entirely unnecessary increase to meet the imposed EFL targets of the Government. As a consequence, the traditional pillar box mail has declined and is falling steadily. If the Government adopt the option that they endorse in the Green Paper, they will proceed to subject the Post Office to entirely unnecessary political controversy. What we propose could be achieved within the public sector and we believe that there is consensus in favour of that option.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) made an important point when she said that the Post Office's public service is one of those great popular institutions that binds together all parts of the United Kingdom. What the Government endorse is an uncertain, twilight-zone proposal, which contains some illogical contradictions that I should like to point out in the limited time available to me.
  It is a fundamental error to see this privatisation—if that is how we are to regard it—as being like those of the past. The productivity gains have already been achieved and, sadly, jobs are being stripped out of the Post Office right now, at a rate of between 5,000 and 8,000 a year. Last year, a 2 per cent. unit cost reduction was achieved in postal services. Those achievements have been made now, inside the public sector.
  The fundamental point, which is not disputed by many Conservative Members who spoke in the debate, is that the Post Office service is no natural monopoly. There is no contained infrastructure that gives the Post Office some kind of superiority or exclusive access. It does not have a unique right of access to homes and businesses—it is already competing straightforwardly in those markets. There are 4,000 competitors in the parcels business from TNT down to the bike boys who we see on every street.
  There is no controversy about the fact that the Post Office is already in commercial competition. The basis of the network which will keep it together and sustain it in the future—the trump card to which the chief executive of the Post Office referred—is its brand name and its good will. That would be put at risk if we separated post offices from the rest of the network and sold 49 per cent. of what was left.
  We believe that the uniform price and universal delivery, which the Government claim to be nonnegotiable, can be sustained in the long run in the face of competitive pressures only by a clear commitment to the Post Office as a public service, underwritten by public ownership and public control. That is our objective. The market cannot guarantee that uniform price and universal delivery. The legal guarantees that the Government promise are worthless outside public control, because if the Government intend that the Post Office should operate as a commercial organisation, they should not impose on it the unusual legal obligations set out in the Green Paper. Nor should they subject it to the internal cross-subsidy requirements, which the undertakings to deliver a standard price and universal delivery inevitably make necessary. In every other privatisation those internal cross-subsidy systems, which are essential to maintain the uniform price and universal delivery, have been the subject of specific attacks from all the regulators. That is why the Government's proposal is insecure and is a twilight zone.
  918
  The guarantees that the Government have offered cannot be delivered. Indeed, in the Green Paper, the Government make it clear that the guarantee of uniform price and universal delivery is not the legal guarantee that they offer, but that of the letter monopoly. That creates the critical gap in the whole proposal. We simply do not know how the Government propose to deal with the letter monopoly in the future. If it is withdrawn, the uniform price and universal delivery system will collapse—and it will collapse, whatever guarantees the Government offer in legal terms.
  In the Green Paper, there is no guarantee of allowing Post Office Counters to take on new business. It said that that might be possible, but some severe conditions are laid down. Tonight, there is an opportunity for the Minister to make clear how he proposes to deal with that uncertainty because it is far from clear that the bit that is left in the public sector will achieve commercial freedom.
  Furthermore, what will sub-post offices make of these proposals? Are they to assume that in the future they will have the exclusive right to deal with Royal Mail and Parcelforce, or will it be possible for a 51 per cent. or 49 per cent. privatised Post Office to allow parallel networks to be created to deliver mail and parcels, bypassing the sub-post offices?
  We have been told that there will be a contract. Will there be exclusivity in that contract? If there is no exclusivity, the guarantees to the sub-post offices become virtually meaningless. What we are offered in the Green Paper for sub-post offices is not law, only guidelines—a phrase which may prove to be famous in the history of public administration in this country—under five restrictive conditions.
  We come to the whole centre of the gobbledegook, the mishmash which the Government have created around the Green Paper—the mysterious footnote which refers us to the standard international system of national accounts, and justification for the fact that a 49 per cent. Government share ownership in the Post Office means that the Post Office will suddenly achieve commercial freedom. That is the only mechanism by which it can achieve it.
  For those of us who have made the standard system of national accounts our bedtime reading, I find it odd that the Government should pick on Jacques Delors' final utterances as a means of securing commercial freedom. It is no wonder that there was a certain cry for help about that from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) earlier in the debate.
  If there is a dilemma here, it is a dilemma of the Government's own making. Forty-nine per cent. ownership does not give an escape because the same paragraph, which is quoted incompletely in the Green Paper to describe how the national accounts and the public sector should be drawn up, says:
  "A corporation which a government is able to control as a result of special legislation should be treated as a public corporation even if the government does not own a majority of shares."
  If there is a dilemma, and it is a dilemma of the Government's own making, they have not escaped from it.
  In the Green Paper, there is absolutely no certainty of securing the future of Post Office services. Yet at the same time the Government propose to load the privatised Post Office—the 50 per cent. plus one share ownership Post Office—with legal obligations which no commercial company would accept.

  919
  There is also a central mystery about what the Government intend to do with the share ownership that is left. In the Green Paper, it is not clear whether the Government will vote those shares. We are told that the Government will not routinely vote those shares but that there will be circumstances in which they will vote them. It is therefore vital that now, at the beginning of the process, the Minister makes clear how those shares are to be voted.
  The answer lies in one of the Postman Pat stories. Some of us will recall from our literary activities the story entitled, "Postman Pat's Wildcat Chase ", in which Jess the cat—in this case the Government—fatally confuses Mrs. Hubbard's knitting with a woolly monster. This entire discussion about the significance of 49 per cent. plus one or 50 per cent. minus one, and about the possibility of commercial freedom in the public sector, is much the same as wondering whether we are dealing with Mrs. Hubbard's knitting or the woolly monster. Finally, when Postman Pat manages to convince Jess the cat that Mrs. Hubbard's knitting is not a woolly monster, he says,
  "I'm sorry he made such a mess. I know he didn't mean any harm. He's not really a naughty cat—he was only running for his life."
  Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade is running for his life now: his hon. Friends will certainly be running for their lives later.
  There is no majority in the country for this. The country well understands the significance of the trump card: the core public services and the good will and public support on which the future commercial opportunities of the Post Office depend. We propose to take up the cause of the public and to defend that trump card. We shall defend a public brand name that has been established over 150 years, and the public good will that is reflected in the core public services.
  We shall resist this break-up. We shall not accept Government legislation introduced to dismember the Post Office's services. There is an alternative and, in a half-hearted way, it is already on the table. That is the alternative that we shall begin to argue for.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm what he said earlier—that if the Government decide to move forward with their preferred option, a future Labour Government would buy back the shares and renationalise the Royal Mail?
  Mr. Cousins: I certainly did not say that
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
  Mr. Cousins: Let me deal with this point first. I adopted the same formula as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston used. When asked the question, he clearly said that we think the Government are mistaken and foolish to embark on this. We cannot predict whether they will persist in their foolishness. If they do, we cannot predict how the House of Commons will react to it. Even if the House agrees to it, we cannot be sure what precise form it will agree to. However, should the option that the Government are advancing pass into law, we would seek to re-establish public control over these core public services. That is our policy and our intention and, if I have understood matters aright, it is also the policy of all the Opposition parties represented in the debate.
  Mr. French: When asked earlier whether a future Labour Government, if there were one, would renationalise the Post Office, the hon. Gentleman's answer was yes.
  Mr. Cousins: I did not say that a future Labour Government would renationalise the Post Office, or that they would buy back shares. The Government have invented those fictions. Like poor Jess the cat, they cannot distinguish woolly monsters from Mrs. Hubbard's knitting.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman can resort to as many formulae as he likes. It was quite clear to me, and I asked the question, that the hon. Gentleman said that a future Labour Government, should one exist, would seek to renationalise the Post Office. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will be able to read that in Hansard tomorrow morning.
  Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston will be able to read all my remarks on that matter with complete comfort, because they entirely echo his remarks at the start of the debate.
  We return to the heart of the proposition. The central point was made, in a way, by the intervention of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. I do not know how we should regard him in the House, but he sits on the Conservative Benches. He, too, said that the public wanted and desired commercial freedom in the public sector. That is what the people of the country want. The Government oppose that, and are putting forward the twilight zone solution in which a public service will be broken in two and the Royal Mail and parcels will in future be neither one thing nor the other. Neither the markets nor anyone else will understand the balance of power in the organisation that the Government propose to create in their preferred option.
  We say to the Government kindly and gently, as we always do—clearly, gently and firmly, in the style suggested to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham—that if they persist in that, perhaps it would be time for them to go home and think once again.
  9.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on one thing: I pay tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) on her first speech to the House. I heard the speech this afternoon, and it was an impressive performance. She spoke with great clarity and feeling.
  I notice that the hon. Lady's predecessor, one-time Labour party leadership contender, and at one time no doubt Prime Minister contender, has decided to desert the country for a country that has now privatised its post office service. I thought that that was perhaps an adequate way to start the debate.
  I congratulate the hon. Lady. We all feel for her, because we all know what a trial it is to get one's maiden speech out of the way and to start to get more into the hurly-burly of the House of Commons.
  Of the speeches of the 10 Labour Back Benchers who spoke, there were four interesting contributions, from the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), for Neath (Mr. Hain), for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). I would expect them to make interesting contributions, because they are all sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers, and it is a pity that

  921
  perhaps—[Interruption.]—it is a pity that perhaps some of them did not declare it right at the beginning of their speech. Indeed, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East—I pay tribute to him—goes a little further and says that he gets £8,000 a year from the UCW in the Members' register.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman does not recall accurately. I said that my constituency party receives £8,000 for its administration. I receive no personal remuneration.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I misquoted him, but I thought that it was worth putting those four contributions on the record.
  We have had several demands today from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central and others about the commercial freedoms that they keep talking about that they would like the Post Office to have. That is interesting. They often speak about commercial freedoms, but whenever the idea of extending further freedoms to the Post Office is mooted we often receive letters from leading members of the Opposition Front Bench team, saying that perhaps those freedoms should not be given.
  I have one such letter from the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), which says:
  "I enclose a copy of a report from a recent issue of the Northern Echo. I do hope that you will ensure that the fullest consultations are carried out before any such proposal for the Post Office to deliver Sunday papers by the post is arrived at."
  So the Opposition continually ask for extra commercial freedoms for the Post Office, but every time that more commercial freedoms are even considered or suggested, the alarm bells rise from the Opposition Benches.
  Although, as we have made clear, we are seeking views, there are three cardinal things that we stand by, and on which we are not prepared to negotiate. Those commitments include a commitment to a nationwide letter and parcels service, with daily delivery to every address in the country. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) that that involves delivery on six days to every home.
  We are committed to a uniform and affordable price structure under which it will cost the public the same to post a letter no matter where it is posted or to where it is sent throughout the United Kingdom. We are also committed to a nationwide network of post offices, and we need no lectures from the Opposition about the importance of that. Some of my hon. Friends who represent rural constituencies have a number of post offices in their areas and we strongly feel that they should be given the extra commercial freedoms set out in the Green Paper.
  Our postal services are operating in a world of rapid change. They must adapt if they are to thrive as businesses in the face of growing competition and if they are to continue to meet the needs and demands of their customers. A policy of standing still will not preserve our postal services, nor will it protect the jobs that the hon. Member for Neath and other hon. Members spoke so much about. It will simply ossify them and condemn them to gradual decline. Our postal services recognise the need to change while maintaining and improving their standards of service and preserving the three non-negotiable commitments to which I have referred.
  Mr. Hain: If the Minister is so keen on change and on meeting the competitive demands that are undoubtedly bearing down on the Post Office, why do the Government not give commercial freedom now instead of waiting the 18 months or so that will be needed to put a Bill through Parliament—if it gets through Parliament? Why not give commercial freedom now so that we can take on the Dutch and the others?
  Mr. McLoughlin: We have made it fairly clear that we are consulting on the options. It is important to move forward with the right proposals and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman condemns that.
  As I have said, our postal services are operating in a world of rapid change and must adapt if they are to thrive as businesses in the face of growing competition. The fact that we are addressing those issues and charting a way forward for the Post Office is greatly welcomed, certainly by people to whom I have spoken.
  The changes facing our post office network, the largest retail network in Europe, are of course different from those confronting Royal Mail. Most services that are available in post offices are now available elsewhere and new shopping habits have evolved with the shift from smaller retailers to larger stores. To enable our post offices to respond positively to that challenge, the Government have decided to allow Post Office Counters greater commercial freedom within the existing structure. That will allow our post office network to provide a wider range of services on behalf of new and existing private sector clients. Moreover, new technology offers the opportunity to automate much of the routine clerical work which, like bindweed, is strangling the business. The Government have made it clear that they intend to bring those changes rapidly to fruition.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East attacked British Gas, which has signed a contract with the Post Office to enable people to pay gas bills at the Post Office without charge. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that rather than condemn it. I certainly think that most customers and constituents welcome it.
  Mr. Connarty: The Minister seems to have a paranoia this evening. I think I said that, while it had been decided that people could pay their gas bills through post offices, the irony was that the Post Office and DTI target was to close post offices throughout the country.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. Many closures occur because no one is willing to take on the franchise. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the conversion programme for Crown post offices. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, although there is sometimes controversy on the announcement of changes, the service that is provided by the people who take over the franchise greatly improves and that is to the benefit of local consumers and townspeople. We shall not take any lectures from the Opposition on that.
  I have no doubt that the Opposition are full of good intentions when they talk about giving greater commercial freedom. But no Labour Government have ever done that and I doubt that when the call comes to punch a future Labour Government will be able to do it—if Labour were ever elected to govern. We often talk about intent but the reality of government is different from the reality of opposition. I remind the Opposition of what the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer said at a Labour party conference. He said:

  923
  "I am going to negotiate with the IMF on the basis of our existing policies, not changes in policies, and I need your support to do it. But when I say 'existing policies' I mean things we do not like as well as things we do like. It means sticking to the very painful cuts in public expenditure on which the Government has already decided. It means sticking to a pay policy which enables us, as the TUC resolved a week or two ago, to continue the attack on inflation."
  It is easy when in opposition to forget the responsibilities of Government. Labour Members are so dismissive of the past.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall said she did not believe that we would stick by any of the commitments we have given, such as a universal tariff and a free service for the blind. That was the sort of argument Labour Members used when we privatised British Telecom. What has happened since? There has been massive investment in telecommunications, there are more telephone boxes and, even more incredible, they actually work. We will listen to no lectures from them about providing and improving universal services. Every time they talk about such matters, they are wrong. We have taken the correct action and improved the service to the consumer. In addition, the companies that we have privatised have become world leaders and have attracted a large amount of new business.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) served on the Select Committee and he told us of some of the arguments put and points raised during its consideration of the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who has great knowledge of these matters, asked a number of questions. In effect, he asked me to pre-judge the Government's consultation exercise. He also made a number of suggestions about ways in which he wanted us to go further. I want to reflect carefully on his speech and include it in our consultation exercise. He made a number of recommendations that we may wish to follow at a later stage. I assure him that I have taken on board some of his points.
  Mr. Cousins: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) described the offer of new business for Post Office Counters as mealy-mouthed. He said that the Government were imposing conditions by saying that the market was well served by the private sector, by questioning whether the involvement of Post Office Counters would create market power and by saying that there was a need to ensure that third parties were not discomfited. Is the Minister saying that he is taking the hon. Gentleman's point seriously?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the cheek to refer to the Government as mealy-mouthed. He should remember how he tried to scoot away from answering the clear point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth).
  When the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) appeared on the "Today" programme, he was constantly pushed by Peter Hobday to say whether he would renationalise the Post Office. Finally, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "No. Hang on, hang on. Let me answer your question. At the moment the Post Office is in the public sector. We want to keep in there. If it is put in the private sector we will consider that question when and if the time arrives. I must say that I personally would not rule out bringing it back."
  Of course, the hon. Gentleman has to get his new orders from whoever is chosen to lead his party, whether it is a moderniser or someone else.
  924
  The Labour party's policies change at each general election. Its 1992 manifesto said:
  "The provision of water is so fundamental that it is a priority for return to public control… We will restore public control of the National Grid and give it new duties and powers to ensure the long-term security of electricity supplies. They"—
  that is the Conservatives—
  "would, if they won power again, privatise water, electricity, steel and other services, and the industries built up from the public investment over past years… We shall extend social ownership by a variety of means, as set out in Labour's detailed proposals. In particular, we will set up British Enterprise, to take a socially owned stake in high-tech industries and other concerns where public funds are used to strengthen investment… Social ownership of basic utilities like gas and water is vital to ensure that every individual has access to their use and that the companies contribute to Britain's industrial recovery, for instance, by buying British. We shall start by using the existing 49 per cent. holding in British Telecom to ensure proper influence in their decisions.".
  They do not say what is proper.
  If any party is blinded by dogma, it is the Labour party and its dogma of constantly believing in the public sector. They have been repeating the dogma of public good, private bad at length today. We are the only party addressing the serious and wide-ranging issues to ensure that the Post Office survives and expands its business into the next century.
  I was asked a number of questions to which I shall try to respond. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) asked about pensions. The Government are well aware of the importance of protecting pension rights of past and present employees. That is why we have given an undertaking, expressed in the Green Paper, that such rights will be safeguarded. The precise mechanism for dealing with pension arrangements in any legislation will have to be worked out with the companies concerned and we will take into account the representations of pensioners, but I give the House an assurance that employees and pensioners will continue to enjoy pension rights that are at least as good as they have at present.
  The hon. Member for Gordon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Neath asked about Sunday collections. Perhaps they were a little unwise to raise that subject. A number of services, such as the second daily delivery of mail and Sunday collections, are not currently part of Royal Mail's social commitment, but it is an operational matter to ensure that quality targets, such as the percentage of first-class letters delivered the next working day, are not only met but improved. If, for example, the second delivery did not exist in the vast majority of places, Royal Mail could not deliver 92 per cent. of first-class mail the next working day—a figure that has made it the highest quality postal administration in Europe.
  If we proceed with the Government's preferred option, we will write specific safeguards into the terms of their appointment. The targets are demanding and could well cover issues such as Sunday collections and the timing of daily deliveries. They will be subject to the scrutiny of the regulator, who will ensure that the service received by the public goes from strength to strength.
  It is interesting to ask when Sunday collections were suspended. When did Royal Mail do away with Sunday collections? It will come as no surprise to the House that Sunday collections were suspended in 1976, no doubt with the agreement of the then Secretary of State or the person then responsible for the Post Office. So the improved efficiencies have been achieved and encouraged under a Conservative Government. We shall not privatise an

  925
  industry to see it give a worse service to the public; we shall want a better service to the public, as we have seen with every single privatisation we have pursued through the House. When the hon. Gentleman asked about the Sunday collection, he hit on a very poor point. It is interesting to see that somebody who usually jumps to his feet every time he is challenged on any subject is stuck to his seat as if he were stuck there with Loctite glue—perhaps that would be a favour to us all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) echoed a point made by a number of my hon. Friends about the importance of the post offices in their constituencies. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East who spoke about nationwide collection.
  We heard the usual scare stories from the Scottish nationalists. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) could not have read the Green Paper because its assurances go a long way to meeting the concerns that he expressed.
  Mr. Welsh: If there is genuine consultation and the majority of people oppose the Government's plans, will they withdraw their plans—or is it a case of the usual sham?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I made it clear, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, that there will be consultation. At the end of the day, when the Government bring forward legislation, it will be for Parliament to take a view. There will be wide consultation with all the people involved. We have not embarked on consultation to ignore what emerges from that exercise.
  We have heard many scare stories from Opposition parties about every privatisation. In 1985, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said that there was no evidence that the gas privatisation Bill would improve efficiency, provide a better service, produce cheaper gas or release or create competition. The hon. Member for Gordon said that 16 million gas consumers could expect only one result—to pay increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation, for years to come. As those remarks illustrate, the privatisation and subsequent regulation of British Gas provided an early example of what Labour and the Liberal Democrats repeatedly called privatisations too far.
  The privatisation of British Gas was a great success for consumers. Their experience before and since privatisation could hardly have been more different. In the early 1980s, domestic gas prices rose more than one third in real terms. Since privatisation in 1986, real-term prices have fallen below their January 1979 level. In July 1992, real-term prices were cut by an average 3 per cent., and a further 2 per cent. reduction occurred in October. Inflation was running at about 4 per cent. The number of disconnections also substantially reduced—something that I thought Opposition parties would welcome.
  We heard then all the scare stories that we heard today. That is all that the Opposition can live off and fight with. When we take privatisation forward, their scare stories are knocked out and disproved. We will bear that important point in mind as we go through the consultation process.
  Opposition Members have approached this privatisation with the closed minds that we have come to expect of them.
  926
  From the start, they ruled out the option of privatisation, even though some of the most successful companies in Britain today were privatised. The Opposition have resorted to the scare stories that they trotted out in the past. In the Second Reading debate on the Telecommunications Bill, the right hon. Member for Salford, East said:
  "Despite the Minister's assurances, we remain unconvinced that the level and range of services available will be continued. We maintain that market forces will demand that a privately owned BT cuts those services that incur a loss or make little profit. Rural services, emergency services, call boxes and provision for the blind and the disabled have an uncertain future."—[Official Report, 18 July 1994; Vol. 46, c. 41.]
  The Opposition said that when we privatised British Telecom, but look what happened. The number of BT call boxes has risen from 77,000 in 1984 to more than 100,000 today, and 96 per cent. of them work at any one time—up from only 75 per cent. six or seven years ago. The service is improving all the time. BT completes 95 per cent. of customer installations within the agreed time. Its main tariffs have fallen more than 30 per cent. in real terms since privatisation and will continue to fall at a rate of retail price index minus 7.5 per cent.
  The leopards on the Benches opposite have not changed their spots. For all their talk of modernisation, their diet is still public sector ownership, Government control and clause 4 socialism. The Opposition want to give Royal Mail all the commercial freedoms of the private sector but none of the financial disciplines, with all the security of being in the public sector. So much for control of public expenditure. They want to do something that no Labour Government found a way of doing in the past.
  What we have heard today has been the irresponsible attack of an Opposition. What is more, despite the fine-sounding promises from Opposition Members about the far-reaching changes that they want, the Labour party has shown itself today to be convinced of the merits of public ownership, and has promised to take Royal Mail back into the public sector if the Government's preferred option is implemented. What would be next? British Telecom? British Gas? Electricity? We await the answers with great interest. In the meantime, I commend the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister to my hon. Friends.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 305.

  Division No. 292]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boyes, Roland

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bradley, Keith

  Ainger, Nick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cabom, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cann, Jamie

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chidgey, David

  Berry, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Blunkett, David

  Church, Judith

  Boateng, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  927

  Clarke, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Connarty, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foulkes, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fraser, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, John

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  George, Bruce

  Mahon, Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Martlew, Eric

  Graham, Thomas

  Maxton, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Meacher, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michael, Alun

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gunnell, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hain, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Hall, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harvey, Nick

  Morley, Elliot

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Heppell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mudie, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Margaret

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hood, Jimmy

  Olner, William

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Parry, Robert

  928

  Patchett, Terry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stevenson, George

  Pope, Greg

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Radice, Giles

  Timms, Stephen

  Randall, Stuart

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dennis

  Redmond, Martin

  Tyler, Paul

  Reid, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Rendel, David

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wallace, James

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Walley, Joan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooney, Terry

  Watson, Mike

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Salmond, Alex

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Short, Clare

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Spellar, John

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Alexander, Richard

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burns, Simon

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butler, Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ashby, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Couchman, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

  Booth, Hartley

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dicks, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan, Alan

  929

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  930

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shersby, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Trend, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sproat, Iain

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Stephen, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stewart, Allan

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Sumberg, David

  Wilshire, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sykes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments).
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 247

  Division No. 293]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Amess, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ancram, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ashby, David

  Butcher, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Butler, Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baldry, Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cash, William

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bates, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clappison, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Congdon, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  931

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knox, Sir David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Elletson, Harold

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Harris, David

  Norris, Steve

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawkins, Nick

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  932

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thomason, Roy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Sackville, Tom

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shersby, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spring, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sproat, Iain

  Whittingdale, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan

  Wood, Timothy

  Streeter, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sweeney, Walter

  Sykes, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cox, Tom

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Boyes, Roland

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

  Bradley, Keith

  Denham, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dixon, Don

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Byers, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fisher, Mark

  Church, Judith

  Flynn, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Fraser, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fyfe, Maria

  933

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Gapes, Mike

  Mahon, Alice

  Garrett, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  George, Bruce

  Marek, Dr John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maxton, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Meacher, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hall, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hardy, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Home Robertson, John

  Olner, William

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoyle, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jowell, Tessa

  Reid, Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rogers, Allan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Salmond, Alex

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McFall, John

  Snape, Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Soley, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Spellar, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  MacShane, Denis

  Stevenson, George

  934

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Straw, Jack

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wilson, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watson, Mike

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. John Cummings.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the Post Office cannot be retained in its present form; therefore welcomes the publication of the Government's Green Paper on the future of postal services which acknowledges the need for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office and provides increased opportunities for sub-post offices; recognising the importance to communities of Post Office Counters and the Royal Mail, supports the Government's commitment to the universal service at a uniform and affordable tariff, with a nationwide network of post offices; condemns the approach that the only possible solution is 100 per cent. public ownership; and welcomes the opportunity of consultation on the range of options.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
    RATES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

    EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY
    That the draft European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion, made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    TRANS-EUROPEAN NETWORKS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5475/94, relating to general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of Trans-European Networks.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

  Procedure
  10.29 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That—(1) Standing Order No. 37 (Procedure on divisions) be amended, in line 7, by leaving out 'this direction' and inserting 'the nomination of tellers';
  (2) this House approves the Third Report of Session 1992–93 from the Select Committee on Procedure (House of Commons Paper No. 880 (1992–93)) so far as it relates to the printing of, and the presentation of, Private Members' Bills; and
  (3) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) be amended, at the end, by adding—
  '(12) An Order appointing a day for the second reading of a private Member's bill shall lapse at the rising of the House on the preceding sitting day if at that time the bill has not been printed and delivered to the Vote Office, and the House shall make no further order appointing a day for the second reading of the bill until it has been printed.'.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Hcniton (Sir P.Emery).
  Mr. Newton: I shall try to be brief.
  The three procedural questions that we are debating this evening all originate from recommendations from the Select Committee on Procedure. I am glad to have this further opportunity to express again the House's appreciation to my right hon Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P.Emery), as Chairman of that Committee, and to his colleagues for their work.
  The first paragraph of the motion, relating to Divisions, implements a recommendation from the Committee's second report of the 1991–92 Session. Standing Order No. 37 stipulates that at least six minutes should elapse before the occupant of the Chair orders the doors to the Division Lobby to be locked. The Committee thought this was anomalous, because for nearly 20 years a period of eight minutes has been allowed in order to give Members whose offices are in other buildings time to reach the Lobby.
  The Committee also pointed to an ambiguity in the wording of the Standing Order, and the proposed amendment corrects both defects by remedying the anomaly and providing that the six minutes should run from the nomination of the Tellers. Two minutes from the calling of the Division to the appointment of Tellers, plus a further six minutes to the order to lock the doors continues to give a total of eight minutes. The amendment is therefore a helpful clarification of the Standing Order.
  As you said, Madam Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has also tabled an amendment and I must say, straightforwardly, that I speak with a bit more caution about it. The Standing Order provides that. two minutes after the Speaker's direction to clear the Lobby, she should put the Question again and then appoint Tellers. My right hon Friend's amendment would enable the Speaker, at her discretion, to appoint Tellers at any time within that period of two minutes. The second part of his amendment would ensure that the total period of time before the locking of the doors into the Division Lobby remained unchanged.
  I acknowledge, of course, that, on a few occasions, my right hon Friend's proposal would allow Members to begin leaving the Lobby a little earlier than they can at present. The number of occasions on which it would be sensible to make use of this provision, however, is limited.
  936
  First, there would have to be no initial uncertainty about who the Tellers were to be. Secondly—perhaps this is the more important point—it would be necessary to ensure that the Division Clerks were on the spot. In practice, we are probably talking only about Divisions which are expected and which follow immediately after another Division.
  We need to consider what might happen if Tellers were appointed, as could easily occur, before the Division Clerks were on the spot. Some of the places where Division Clerks may be on duty—for example, in Committee—are a considerable distance from the Chamber. It would be very difficult for them to get to the Lobby within the allotted two minutes. The failure to arrive in time, where Tellers had been appointed early, could aggravate the irritation caused to Members, and at the same time cause difficulty for the Clerks. Those are the points that some people have made.
  We should also bear in mind the fact that such a provision would depend on an exercise of discretion by the Chair, which it is by no means clear that the Chair would wish to have. I have the Chair's authorisation to say that the Speaker has considerable reservations about the proposal. In practice, the Chair would find it very difficult to exercise that discretion. In those circumstances, where the gain to Members would be limited and fairly infrequent, we should at least think carefully before making such a change. I put those points before the House.
  The second and third paragraphs of the motion which we are debating this evening relate to the Committee's third report of the previous Session. It is the practice of the House, for obvious reasons, not to give a Second Reading to a Bill which has not been printed. Many private Members' Bills are never printed—they may well have served the sponsor's purpose by giving him or her an opportunity to make a speech under the ten-minute rule.
  That is not a criticism—the private Members' Bill is a perfectly legitimate political device, even if it is introduced with no serious expectation that it will be passed into law. As the Procedure Committee points out, however, on many Fridays the Order Paper contains the titles of a number of Bills which could not possibly make progress, but it is not apparent from the Order Paper which Bills those are.
  The Committee has therefore recommended that, if a Bill is not printed by the rising of the House on the day before that on which it is set down for Second Reading, it should be dropped from the Order Paper and only revived when eventually printed. That in no way diminishes the rights of the Member promoting the Bill, because his Bill cannot in any case be read a Second Time until it has been printed, and as soon as it has been printed, he can revive the Bill and have set it down again for Second Reading. The third paragraph of the motion makes the necessary consequential change to Standing Orders.
  The Procedure Committee's third report also considered what it regarded as a loophole in the rules, which allows a Member who has been refused leave to introduce a Bill under the ten-minute rule then to present substantially the same Bill from behind the Chair under Standing Order No. 58. A Bill with an identical long title cannot be presented from behind the Chair, but a Bill with only a marginally changed long title can.
  The Committee's view was that that was an abuse, and recommended that the refusal by the House of leave to bring in a ten-minute Bill should be treated as the rejection of that Bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a Bill with the same or a similar long title could not be presented

  937
  again in the same Session. If the House approves that part of the Committee's report, it will give effect to that recommendation.
  I hope, in this rather hasty fashion, that I have given the House some flavour of the fact that these are modest and unspectacular but sensible modifications to our Standing Orders. With the reserved note that I have expressed about my right hon. Friend's amendment, I commend the motion to the House.
  10.35 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph (1), to leave out from 'amended' to the end of the paragraph, and insert
  'in line 4, by leaving out "After the lapse of and inserting "Not more than", and in line 7, by leaving out "six minutes from this direction" and inserting "eight minutes from the direction to clear the lobby".'.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for arranging this debate, and for bringing forward two fairly small recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure, which have been waiting for debate for some time—since 1990–91 and 1991–92.
  There are two factors relating to ensuring the eight minutes before a Division. We know that there is elasticity, in that Madam Speaker can elongate that time if she feels that it is necessary. That is not altered. The recommendation dealing with the publication of private Members' Bills follows the recommendation of the Committee, and I am delighted to see that the Government have brought that forward.
  The motion has allowed me to table an amendment to follow a unanimous recommendation from the Procedure Committee, which is in paragraphs 18 to 26 of the third report of Session 1992–93 That report has been before the House for some time, so it is not new, and it has not been bounced on the House. I shall remind the House quickly of what the report says:
  "Standing Order No. 37 provides that two minutes shall be allowed after the Speaker…has put the question and called the division (by saying 'clear the lobby'), before the Speaker shall put the question again"—
  that two minutes is absolute; it cannot be reduced—
  "If Members against shout 'Aye' and 'No', tellers are then appointed by the occupant of the Chair. When they take up their positions, the doors are unlocked"
  and the Division starts.
  It goes on:
  "The Committee has considered whether the Chair should be given the discretion"—
  it is not mandatory—
  "to reduce the period of two minutes on occasions when the names of tellers are available at the Chair in less than that time. It is not proposed that the overall time of at least eight minutes before the doors are locked should be reduced."
  The second part of my amendment would ensure that that is the case.
  The report goes on:
  "Such a change would appear to us to have the advantage that it may well enable Members to leave the division lobby up to a minute or more earlier at the start of a division. We believe that this would be especially helpful in divisions involving a large number of Members at predictable times such as seven or ten o'clock. It would also overcome the frustration felt by Members standing waiting for the counting of the division to begin."
  On a number of occasions, I have heard hon. Members say, "How long are we waiting for?" It is like waiting for the kettle to boil.
  Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the recommendations in the report were unanimous. Bearing in mind some of the recent difficulties that we have had on the Procedure Committee, we should be grateful for that.
  Are not the last two Divisions an excellent example of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, especially the second one? When we knew that there was to be a second Division, hon. Members were waiting to vote before going home, except those of us who are left in the Chamber. No harm would have come—the Tellers were obviously ready, and the Clerk was ready. There is no reason why the second Division could not have been done as we recommended.
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman puts clearly the main point of the Committee's report. We continued:
  "We have sought evidence from the Government, Opposition and Liberal Democrat Chief Whips and from the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant at Arms. The evidence of the Clerk of the House and the Government Chief Whip is published with this report. The Serjeant at Arms told us that he had no objection to the proposal. No other replies were received.
  We understand that tellers are not always ready until the full two minutes have elapsed after the division is first called and that this period does enable Members to make a final decision on whether to press a matter to a division. We also appreciate that the division clerks have to reach the lobbies from wherever in the building they are carrying out their duties. If the two minute period is reduced, it may not always be possible for the clerks to get to their desks before the tellers get to the doors. On balance, we do not think these factors will apply in the circumstances when the House would most benefit from the Chair having discretion to appoint tellers earlier, namely when"
  there are several Divisions, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
  At present, the exit doors of the Division Lobbies are not unlocked by the Doorkeepers until two Clerks and two Tellers are in position. We do not propose to alter that arrangement.
  "We therefore believe that the occupant of the Chair should be given discretion to put the question the second time once the names of the tellers have been supplied to the Clerks at the Table at any point up to a maximum of two minutes".
  Ms Joan Walley: Has the right hon. Gentleman sought the advice of the fire service on the health and safety considerations involved when doors are locked for so long between Divisions?
  Sir Peter Emery: I am torpedoed. The answer is no, we have not. We did not think this matter one for the fire service, I must openly admit.
  We take no powers away from the Chair. We do not insist that the Chair act in any particular way. All the amendment does is give the Chair the right to call the second Division in a shorter time. That would allow Members not to have to stand waiting in the Lobby while the Tellers—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) wish to get to his feet and intervene?
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better make his comments standing up, or they will not be recorded.
  Sir Peter Emery: That is what I was trying to suggest, Madam Speaker.
  We are trying to help Back Benchers by ensuring that they are not in the Lobbies longer than necessary. This power, we believe, should be given to the Chair. I urge the House to accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That—(1) Standing Order No. 37 (Procedure on divisions) be amended, in line 4, by leaving out "After the lapse of" and inserting "Not more than", and in line 7, by leaving out "six minutes from this direction" and inserting "eight minutes from the direction to clear the lobby".
  (2) this House approves the Third Report of Session 1992–93 from the Select Committee on Procedure (House of Commons Paper No. 880 (1992–93)) so far as it relates to the printing of, and the presentation of, Private Members' Bills; and
  (3) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) be amended, at the end, by adding—
  '(12) An Order appointing a day for the second reading of a private Member's bill shall lapse at the rising of the House on the preceding sitting day if at that time the bill has not been printed and delivered to the Vote Office, and the House shall make no further order appointing a day for the second reading of the bill until it has been printed.'.

  Catering Committee (Reports)
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I beg to move,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Catering Committee of Session 1993–94, on Refreshment Services for the House of Commons (House of Commons Paper No. 75), and the First Report from the Catering Committee of Session 1992–93, on Refreshment Provision for Line of Route Visitors (House of Commons Paper No. 307).
  I am pleased to propose the motion to approve the two reports, representing between them nearly two years' work by the Catering Committee. I thank my colleagues on the Committee for the assiduous way in which they have tackled the two inquiries and for the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed throughout. I should also like to express our thanks to all those who helped in the preparation of the reports—and especially to the Director of Catering Services and her staff, who unfailingly and efficiently assisted the Committee throughout our inquiries, to the Parliamentary Works Directorate for its assistance, and to the various consultants who provided specialist advice.
  I shall concentrate first on the major report of the Committee, which is an in-depth study of the long-term catering needs of Members of the House and other Refreshment Department users, and which examines the need to move towards compliance with health, hygiene and safety at work legislation, in line with the policy of the House authorities.
  In the course of our inquiry we received evidence, written and oral, from Members, from the trade union side of the Whitley Committee, from the Secretaries and Assistants Council and from the Parliamentary Press Gallery. One of the purposes of our inquiry was to increase the safety of Refreshment Department staff, and we took evidence from the Hotel and Catering Workers Union. That was in addition to meetings, on and off the record, with the various consultants and others. The Committee is enormously grateful to the Members and other witnesses who contributed to the inquiry.
  It became obvious to the Committee at an early stage in our inquiry that simply tackling the problem of seeking to comply with the relevant legislation would be time consuming and costly—not to mention the need to remedy the effects of what might politely be called deferred maintenance. It was also obvious to the Committee that doing nothing was not an option. Indeed, a specialist in environmental health said in evidence:
  "an in-depth inspection by an EHO from Westminster City Council would result in at best an improvement notice or at worst a prohibition notice being served."
  Hon. Members may recall the difficulties that were experienced in another place a few years ago, when there was an incidence of salmonella. That resulted in a complete refurbishment of the kitchens on what can only be described as a crash basis, with lack of time spent on site investigation and planning, leading to a massive overrun of cash and of time. Luckily, in that case there were no long-term serious effects from the illness, but the Committee feels that there is a substantial risk that a similar or even worse instance could occur here at any time, and the risk of a serious accident to Refreshment Department staff is also ever-present.
  Having concluded that rapid action was necessary to attempt to remedy the worst defects, the Committee determined to take a strategic view of what should be

  941
  provided; it did so with the aid of a food service consultant's report, which was then progressed by a team of architects who refined the proposals to offer practical solutions that would not have adverse effects on this historic building.
  The report that the House is being asked to approve is a result of the various deliberations that followed. Some detailed planning has yet to be done, but I shall highlight the main changes that we propose.
  From a health and safety point of view, probably the worst area, and the most urgently in need of improvement, is the kitchen servicing Members' and Strangers' cafeterias. Refurbishment of that area, which was initially planned for 1992, was postponed because we were advised that the refurbishment that was planned would not solve the inadequacies of the kitchen. Under the Committee's plan, the cafeterias would be enlarged and converted into one large cafeteria, with dedicated seating for Members. The kitchen would be moved from its present position to the area below the Tea Room that is currently occupied by Annie's Bar and other domestic offices. That would provide greatly increased capacity and a safer, cleaner, more efficient kitchen, with proper ventilation capability.
  The Members' Tea Room is another area that fills the consultants with anxiety for both customers and staff. Indeed, they suggested that there should be a great reduction in the number of menu items, and one thread that ran through the evidence that we took was that that suggestion would meet with a strong rejection. I have to declare an interest as a regular user of the Tea Room—I think that you are too, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and say that the unique nature of the service that one receives is something to be closely protected. That is not to say that improvements cannot and should not be made, particularly to the quality of the food and beverages provided there. The Committee therefore set out to find a solution to the conundrum.
  The proposed solution is an example of why the strategic approach adopted by the Committee is, in our view, the best way to solve the various problems, and we do not consider that it would be feasible to select projects from within the package of proposals. With the change of position of the Members' and Strangers' cafeteria kitchen, it will be possible to provide a proper service to the Members' Tea Room which is directly above it. Thus it should be possible to eliminate the long and inefficient counter which some consider is also unsightly, and to eliminate the long queues which many of us experience when we only want a quick cup of tea. The change would give more space for Members without any significant change to the range of items currently offered.
  If the House approves our proposals, several consequential changes will be necessary. We propose that the Lady Members' Room, which is situated on the other side of the main Terrace entrance to the Strangers' Bar should be relocated to allow an enlarged Strangers' Bar to be created in its stead. We recommend that the present staff bar should become Annie's Bar. It will also be necessary to change the location of the barber's and to close part of the north curtain corridor. Perhaps I should again declare an interest and say that this proposed closure is regrettable to those of us who have offices in that area. However, the plans provide for alternative access to the affected areas.
  942
  As these consequential changes affect accommodation that is not currently occupied by the Refreshment Department and involve substantial work, I expect that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works, may seek to speak in the debate. I met the members of that Committee on two occasions to explain the proposals of the Select Committee on Catering.
  The other consequential change which has a connection with the other reports that we are debating is to the souvenir shop. The success of souvenir sales and the location of the shop have led to continual overcrowding and lack of space for stock. Our proposal is to create a self-contained shop close to the present position and available to pass holders only. Our proposals for visitors are contained in our other report, to which I shall refer shortly.
  As well as these major changes involving substantial alterations to our front-of-house facilities, the problem of compliance with legislation has led us to propose a complete rebuilding of the central kitchen located on the ground and principal floors. That rebuilding will enable a total reorganisation of the kitchen that services the Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms and the private dining facilities in order to avoid the major risk of cross-contamination of food that currently occurs in this area.
  These changes are many and a little difficult to visualise, but reference to our report, copies of which are in the Vote Office, should clarify our proposals. The changes will enable the problem of the staff changing rooms to be addressed at the same time. Those have been the subject of much concern for many years; earlier proposals were shelved because if they had been adopted the money spent would have been wasted.
  Those are the Committee's major proposals. There are others in the report that time will not allow me to comment upon in detail. Perhaps I could highlight two. My first comment is on the Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms. We heard in evidence that at lunch time the Members' Dining Room, which has a capacity of 120, served an average of only 21 covers, while next door the Strangers' Dining Room is regularly over-subscribed. The Committee proposes that for a trial period of 12 months the Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms should be exchanged at lunch time only. At the end of that trial period I expect my Committee to review the situation and receive representations from hon. Members.
  The Committee proposes in its report that the dispense bar for Members and Strangers' Dining Rooms be relocated so as to allow the principal floor corridor with its elegant stone vaulted ceiling to be opened up. When the Select Committee on Finance and Services considered our report, it felt that that was an unnecessary expense at this time. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who is the Chairman of that Committee, will seek to speak later in the debate. As hon. Members would expect, the examination by that Committee was thorough.
  To keep the cost of the redevelopment to a minimum, my Committee had already made several reductions, including the deletion of a proposal for a new wine bar. In addition. the Committee has looked carefully at the programme of works to ensure that the most dangerous

  943
  areas are tackled first, but proposes that the work should be phased over several years. That, too, will assist in spreading the financial load.
  Another aspect should be borne in mind when costs are being considered. There will be those inside and outside the House who will accuse us of extravagance. Those who would make those allegations should be reminded that there are at least 3,700 people entitled to use Refreshment Department facilities, many of whom are expected to work very long or unsocial hours. Hon. Members, in addition to working long hours, do not often have the option of eating elsewhere because of the demands of parliamentary business. My Committee therefore makes no apology for proposing measures that will protect all those who eat here, while in the process making improvements to our refreshment services.
  The main element of the cost is in making the structural changes necessary so that proper kitchens and other domestic offices can be installed. To that end, we already have in the kitty some £2.5 million, which will be used to offset some of the costs. That money comes from accrued surpluses from the trading accounts over the pass: few years.
  If our proposals are adopted, many years of under-investment, resulting in potential hazard to customers and Refreshment Department staff, will be corrected, resulting in a healthier, safer position for everyone. The Refreshment Department will be able to meet the provisions of the relevant legislation that has been approved by Parliament as appropriate for the rest of the population. At the same time, the existing facilities will, for the most part, be retained or improved. In the case of the Members and Strangers' cafeterias, an increase in the seating capacity and an improvement in the quality of food will result.
  Those who press the case for the continuation of Annie's Bar and for formal lunches in the Members' Dining Room will have the opportunity to demonstrate the need. The Members' Tea Room will continue to offer broadly the same choice of food as at present in improved surroundings and with shorter queues at peak times, especially for those requiring only beverages.
  The other report on which the House is being asked to express a view relates to refreshment provision for Line-of-Route visitors. We received many representations about the appalling lack of refreshment facilities for visitors, some 100,000 of whom tour the Line of Route every year. In addition, Members, their staff and staff of the House frequently receive visitors and it would be advantageous to make light refreshments available for those visitors to purchase.
  The Committee is also aware of the overcrowding that often occurs around the existing souvenir kiosk when Members' parties ask to make the necessary detour to that busy area. We took evidence in the inquiry from Members, consultants, the Serjeant at Arms, the Public Information Officer and the Education Officer. We also received memorandums from many Members and others. Again, we are most grateful for the contributions of all concerned.
  The Committee considered the various options, including the use of the former St. Stephen's tavern, which is situated at the corner of the phase I parliamentary building. We did not consider the former tavern to be suitable for the purpose because of its location but,
  944
  together with colleagues on the Accommodation and Works Committee, we intend to review its use as the phase 2 parliamentary building nears completion.
  We are of the opinion that the best long-term solution is to convert the present Westminster Hall cafeteria into a visitors' centre, which as well as offering light refreshments would include toilet facilities and a souvenir kiosk selling a range of items more appropriate to visitors, including school parties. The cafeteria is well located at the end of the Line of Route and exit could be arranged so that visitors could rejoin the current public exit route through the carriage gates.
  Although the Committee identified the problem as needing early attention, it was also aware of the continuing use, mainly by staff, of the cafeteria at lunchtime. The other current overcrowded facilities available to staff would not be able to absorb those users. The Committee therefore proposes that the change should be made at the earliest opportunity after the additional capacity becomes available as a result of the redevelopment plan contained in our other report or, at the latest, when the refreshment facilities in phase 2 become available.
  In the meantime, there is the continuing problem of the overcrowding of the souvenir kiosk area. As a temporary measure, the Committee concluded that a suitably attractive temporary kiosk should be erected in the north-east corner of Westminster Hall until the visitors' centre became available. Although that proposal might seem controversial to some, I remind the House that, until about 100 years ago, this historic place saw all manner of activities. One witness said that it was not always the "solemn, gloomy cavern" that it is today. The Committee recommends, therefore, a temporary course of action for the consideration of the House.
  The House has a rare opportunity tonight to take a long-term view of its future need for refreshment services. The reports, taken together—bearing in mind the refreshment provision contained in the phase 2 new parliamentary building—propose a long-term strategy that will remedy the past lack of maintenance, bring the House towards compliance with legislation in accordance with its policy and provide vastly improved facilities for Members, staff and visitors alike.
  The reports were agreed unanimously by the Committee and I commend them to the House.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Jim Callaghan: A former friend of mine inherited his father's shop. In renovating the premises he noticed that the front step was badly worn. Being a thrifty man, he decided to dig up the step and turn it over to use the unworn part and so save money. However, when he dug up the step, he discovered that his equally thrifty father had already taken the same action. The moral is that sometimes, for all one's thrift, it is necessary to spend money to renovate and replace equipment for good safety reasons.
  There is a parallel with the story that I have recounted, and that is the necessary refurbishment of the refreshment services. When we consider the facilities offered by the Refreshment Department, it is obvious that much of the kitchen equipment is old, inefficient and scheduled for replacement. Premises are dilapidated, do not reach the standard required by current legislation and are generally inadequate for the number of customers.

  945
  The number of people using the Department on a daily basis is as follows: Members, 651; Officers, 150; staff, 942; Members' staff and research assistants, 1,300; security staff, 500; and workmen, 180. That is a total of 3,723. But as there are about 10,000 security passes in circulation, the number of customers is far greater than 3,700. In addition, there are about 800 visitors a day. There are also contractors—the number is variable—and banqueting guests.
  Apart from the demands of increasing numbers of customers, the past 20 years during which I have been a Member have seen immense changes in the areas that impact on the Refreshment Department. For example, there have been tremendous changes in people's eating habits—styles of food, menu and diet. There have been changes also in working hours, styles of service in employee catering, modern technology and value for money.
  With the increasing number of customers and their demands, it can be seen that the pressure on accommodation has meant that there has been limited opportunity to expand refreshment facilities in line with the increase in refreshment requirements of the potential users.
  Reports in 1966–67, 19967–68 and 1978–79 concentrated on financial and operational matters and services tended to develop in a piecemeal way. At the same time changes in people's eating habits and expectations led to an expansion in the range and variety of food demand. That meant that existing resources had to be adapted in an ad hoc manner.
  With all those changes, the Committee decided to undertake a wide-ranging inquiry into the services provided by the Department. It sought to assess whether the health and safety, hygiene, fire and ventilation standards are being properly met. The Committee had to bear in mind the fact that in the past piecemeal changes, such as the refurbishment of obsolete equipment, did not deal with the underlying problems. Nor did they provide a cost-efficient solution. Instead, the Committee had to bear in mind the importance of remedying the effects of years of deferred maintenance and modernising and of reordering the kitchens to ensure greater safety and efficiency.
  The Committee was satisfied that a longer-term policy was required, while taking into account the Palace of Westminster's status as a grade I listed building, limitations on space and the need to provide services that can respond to flexible demand. The Committee decided to make recommendations for a programme of necessary and in some cases urgent work, to be phased over a period of years to avoid disruption and excessive peaks of expenditure.
  Accordingly, the Committee commissioned two surveys. The first, from Food Service Associates (Henley) Ltd., included an extensive study of the existing Refreshment Department and made substantial suggestions for change. The second report was from Winton Food Management Service, which specialises in the hygiene and safety aspects of catering. In view of the urgency of some recommendations, the Committee agreed as early as 15 July 1992 to purchase immediately refrigeration equipment.
  946
  The Winton report commented that an in-depth inspection by an environmental health officer would result at best in the serving of an improvement notice or at worst—I want the House to remember this—a prohibition notice, which would result in the relevant areas being closed until remedial works had been undertaken.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: When was the last time that a Member of Parliament, or anybody else, contracted food poisoning or was injured by fire in the Palace of Westminster?
  Mr. Callaghan: There was an outbreak of salmonella poisoning in the House of Lords a year or two ago. That is what we are afraid of—that a disaster is waiting to happen.
  Ms Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not of reported cases of food poisoning? We do not know the extent to which people become ill as a consequence of food eaten here, insanitary arrangements, and lack of compliance with health and safety and food hygiene standards in the kitchens of the House.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree.
  The Committee took oral and written evidence from a wide range of opinion. Witnesses included Members of Parliament, staff, members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, and Whitley Committee and trade union representatives. It became clear to the Committee that compliance with relevant hygiene and safety legislation was necessary.
  We heard from Food Service Associates at the start of the oral evidence that doing nothing was not an option. The Committee accepts that there is no alternative but urgent and effective action to ensure that relevant health, hygiene and safety standards are met in Refreshment Department outlets.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Gentleman mentioned an environmental health officer, but am I correct in thinking that no such officer came to the Palace or made a report?
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Outside consultants said that if environmental officers came to the House—which they cannot, because it is Crown property—they might close the place down.
  If those standards are not met, we shall encounter the same problems as arose in the House of Lords kitchen some years ago. It was clear from evidence presented to the Committee that the area most in need of urgent attention is the Members and Strangers cafeteria. Another area that will require upgrading is the principal kitchen. Other areas urgently needing attention are the Churchill Room, the Press Gallery kitchens and the Westminster Hall cafeteria.
  However, major works in the House can be undertaken only during the summer recess. So we recommend a redevelopment plan over six years, under which the modernisation of the Refreshment Department will be phased in. The Strangers and Members cafeterias will be treated as a top priority.
  Under our recommendations for a phased approach, the cost of the work would be similarly spread, so that it would not take a disproportionate share of the works budget in any one year. The provision of such funds is therefore a matter for decision by the House of Commons

  947
  Commission on the basis of recommendations from the Finance and Services Committee after a debate to enable the House to express its views.
  The implementation of our report is not a matter for the members of our Committee. We have simply drawn attention to what needs to be done. We are concerned that emergency unplanned expenditure under crisis conditions would lead to uncontrollable costs—but I ask the House to remember that doing nothing is not an option.
  In recommending the report to the House, I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, its members and the officers who served it. I also congratulate all the witnesses who helped the Committee to produce such a detailed and sensible report.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before I call other hon. Members to speak I should point out that the debate will finish at 12.13. Apart from the two Front-Bench Members, six other hon. Members want to catch my eye, and if hon. Members give their co-operation, all six may be successful.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Paul Channon: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said, I speak on behalf of the Finance and Services Committee—and I shall speak only for a few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members who have taken the trouble to find out already know the Committee's views, because we published our minutes a short while ago.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and his Committee for their excellent work in producing the two reports, and to the Director of Catering Services and the Director of Works and their staffs for the enormous support that they have given to the Catering Committee and to my Committee in the course of several discussions on that important topic. I must also say how much I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), who made a powerful case in favour of the changes.
  Many hon. Members have said this, and it is in danger of becoming a cliché, but the first thing that the House must understand is that we cannot do nothing. There is a very urgent requirement to take action in line with hygiene and health and safety legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Refreshment Department has nine kitchens and more than 300 staff. We have a duty to ensure that its staff work in a safe environment and that the meals produced here—last year there were about 1 million of them—are not at risk from health hazards.
  Mr. Stephen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the taxpayer would have to produce a very large sum to finance the schemes, if they are approved. On the evidence that we have been given concerning an outbreak of salmonella in the House of Lords some years ago, is he really satisfied that that level of expenditure is really necessary?
  Mr. Channon: Reluctantly, I must tell my hon. Friend that we are. Naturally, when the Finance and Services Committee first considered the report and its major proposals, we took it with a pinch of salt, if I may use that
  948
  expression. However, the more we investigated, the clearer it became that it was essential that something radical be done.
  I shall deal with all the points that my hon. Friend raised, and the first thing to say is that we operate as if we were covered by legislation. It is our policy, in the end—perhaps not too far ahead—to remove the immunity from health and safety legislation that we currently possess. It must remain a reasonable aim for the House of Commons to ensure that our facilities reach the standards that we have required others to adopt, under legislation that we have voted for—certainly I have voted for it—in the past.
  Secondly, if we are to undertake such major changes we must have a strategic approach. Will they be introduced as a logical scheme or not? I think that, for the first time, the consultants and the architects have planned a logical scheme. No doubt there are differences of detail, which can be debated later, and can be changed. And colleagues can make their views clear tonight. But we must have an overall solution and not introduce piecemeal measures that will be much more wasteful and cause just as much disruption and a great deal of extravagance and not solve the problem.
  I regret saying it, but, in the light of the deferring of maintenance during the past few years, we cannot delay the schemes any longer. Schemes, costing some £2 million, have been put off recently until a comprehensive plan could be agreed. It is extremely difficult to undertake works in the Palace which will not cost a lot of money. In a grade 1 building of this kind it is vital to respect the quality of the building during such work.
  We are also hampered by the need to do most of the work during the summer recess. When else can it be done? Such constraints are familiar to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the members of his Committee, who compile the 10-year rolling programme of works. They need to be associated in the decisions that have to be made annually.
  If the House wants to go ahead with the programme, we shall look carefully at each year's works programme when we prepare the estimates. We shall also use the £2.5 million trading surplus from the Catering Committee to reduce the total cost to public funds. The projects can be funded within the normal scale of financial provision for the works vote.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford raised two points of detail with which I shall deal briefly. The first was the question of the dispense bar. My Committee is not at all sure that the proposal for that is a good idea. Nevertheless, we shall reconsider it when the overall proposals are re-examined. It is quite expensive and there may be other objections to it as well. We do not have a closed mind, but we are suspicious.
  The souvenir kiosk is a matter for the authorities that control Westminster Hall. It is not a matter for my Committee. The first figures for such a kiosk were vast. I am glad that they have been substantially reduced, although it is not cheap even now. However, I do see merits in making better provision for Line of Route visitors, and I accept the target of creating a visitors centre in the space now used by the Westminster Hall cafeteria. But that project needs a great deal of work before final plans can come forward.
  Mr. Steen: My right hon. Friend said that the work could be contained within the normal vote for repairs to the Palace. Can he give the House some idea of what we are talking about in terms of annual expenditure?
  Mr. Channon: Yes. I would mislead the House if I went into that in too much detail. I shall write to my hon. Friend if he would like. I have here the expenditure for the House of Commons works votes and the total costs will not vary considerably if the proposals are taken forward. I assume that my hon. Friend is in favour of the proposals, as he was a member of the Committee, was present when the Committee deliberated on the matter and voted in favour of the report. I take what he says as a constructive statement in support of the Committee's proposals.
  My final point relates to the Refreshment Department. In the past 10 years a great deal has been done. We have a new and effective management team and an excellent staff, and the operation to deliver the services has become much larger. There are now 31 outlets spread over three sites.
  My Committee will continue to monitor the Department's financial performance, and our aim is to support it in its aim to provide good food at reasonable prices to those who have to be here. We are gradually transferring costs from the House vote to the trading operation and setting sharper financial targets. If we are to improve standards further, we have to rebuild the kitchens and reorder some of the outlets.
  I accept the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend. I congratulate the Director of Catering Services and her staff and my hon. Friend and his Committee. They deserve the support of the House on the two reports that the Committee has produced. The House has no practical alternative but to accept the reports tonight.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I shall be brief because I know that several other hon. Members wish to participate.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and his Committee on the two reports that they have produced and the time that they have spent doing so. On numerous occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has had to excuse himself for two or three hours to attend the Catering Committee. Likewise, I have had to attend the Accommodation and Works Committee. I receive a lot of support from members of my Committee and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hereford receives tremendous support from his Committee members, although I may be more fortunate than he in that I hear no dissenting voices after my Committee has presented its reports.
  I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Finance and Services for his work in trying to accommodate all the reports from the Catering Committee. While we are all in the mood for congratulating and thanking people, I should like to take perhaps the only opportunity that we are afforded in the House to thank Committee members, who serve the interests of all hon. Members and who undertake a task that is distinct from their jobs as constituency Members of Parliament and their pursuit of a political career. They serve the House and do the job voluntarily. No one even offers them £1,000 for tabling questions.
  I have found out about the work that the Catering Committee has already completed and I have read its
  950
  reports and proposals. Hon. Members are in the House a lot of the time and spend many hours here. When we go to the Refreshment Department for our meals, we expect them to be adequate and facilities to be readily available, and we should be assured that hygiene is given top priority. Some hon. Members have voiced disquiet over the fact that the Refreshment Department would probably have been closed a long time ago if it were an outside catering organisation. We should appreciate what the Committee are doing to try to improve that position.
  In many ways, the exercise promoted by the Catering Committee in both reports on refreshment services is not unlike the task that my Committee faces whenever it is asked to justify the expenditure of public money on improvements to the fabric of this fine Victorian palace. Both Committees face some degree of criticism due to the lack of understanding of two major factors.
  First, it is the duty of the domestic Committees and the House of Commons Commission, in the context of a responsible, co-ordinated and planned set of programmes, to reduce the backlog of refurbishment work that has built up over many years, and to provide hon. Members and staff who have to work in these buildings with the essential minimum health and safety standards that would be taken for granted in many public buildings and commercial enterprises. Secondly, it must be recognised that the twin demands of the need to meet the stringent quality requirements of a historic, listed building and to undertake work without disruption to Parliament and its Committees add a premium to the work that is carried out.
  I compliment the Director of Works and the Director of Catering Services on their efforts to tailor their major refurbishment and deep-servicing programmes into the period of the recesses. That is even more difficult when, as nowadays, so many hon. Members and staff continue their work throughout the recesses.
  At one time, as soon as the recess started, House officials had far more opportunity to work because most of them were unoccupied and hon. Members had gone on holiday or to their constituencies. Today, when one comes back during the recess for a week or a fortnight, one finds that hon. Members may not be here, but the staff usually are. As a result, that poses further problems for hon. Members, the Director of Works and others.
  On the second report, the time is long overdue when the House should be expected to provide visitors with some sort of refreshment when they come here. Many of our constituents, some of them disabled, travel for many miles and several hours to see their Member of Parliament and to visit the House. It is no more than common decency that they should be able to rest and have a cup of tea in decent surroundings, instead of being rudely tipped out into the street at the end of their visit.
  Some weeks ago, a party of schoolchildren from my constituency visited the House. At 1 pm, when we had finished the tour, the children had to leave Westminster Hall and go out into the rain because there was nowhere in the House for them to have a sandwich or a cup of tea before returning at 2.15 to see the Speaker's procession and try to obtain tickets for the Strangers Gallery.
  That does not only happen to my constituents; it happens every day of the week to hon. Members who receive visitors. That is deplorable. We visit Parliaments in other countries and see what they offer—particularly the Canberra Parliament, which has a new building. The Government there encourage children to visit the building

  951
  and see democracy at work. If we want to encourage young people to know what democracy and Parliament are all about, it is high time that we provided decent facilities for visiting constituents.
  I do not want to go into the details of all the proposals. As the hon. Member for Hereford will know, my Committee has studied them in depth, and they have been adequately covered in the speeches of other hon. Members—particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), who is a member of the Catering Committee, and the speech of the Chairman of the Committee himself. My Committee, however, is aware of the effect of the proposed changes on accommodation. I suggest full consultation with those whose accommodation or facilities would be affected, and careful consideration should be given to the views of English Heritage and those in whom control of Westminster Hall is vested before a temporary souvenir kiosk is introduced into that historic part of the building.
  The report mentions staff changing rooms. I have often talked to staff, especially the catering staff downstairs. They have no rest room, and they have to go into the toilets to change their clothes. This country has the mother of Parliaments; yet where in the world could we find another Parliament that does not even provide facilities for staff to change their clothes? In fact, we have now converted rooms in the area to give staff such facilities, but they still need a rest room. They should have at least as many facilities here as they would have outside; at present, they have far fewer facilities.
  I mentioned alternative accommodation for Members. We know what happens once a Member is moved out of accommodation that he has enjoyed for 10, 15 or 20 years, especially if he could step straight out on to the Terrace: that is a lovely location. There could also be problems for those who frequently use Annie's Bar and the Strangers Bar; indeed, the changes in that regard have already prompted criticisms. My Committee, however, unanimously approved those changes, considering them reasonable, and I believe that they will lead to a major improvement.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is a great pleasure for me to speak soon after the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan). We have both been Members of Parliament for 17 years, although at one stage he displaced me in the part of his constituency that we once shared. Now we find ourselves participating in the same debate, and very much on the same side. I very much endorse his remarks. I echo his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for the unruffled way in which my hon. Friend undertakes the thankless job, in a sense, of being Chairman of the Select Committee on Catering. As Chairman, he is therefore often the main target for brickbats which come his way from any disgruntled person who did not perhaps like his previous meal.
  Our great difficulty in addressing the subject is that we are open to the charge that we appear to be recommending the expenditure of a large sum of money. There will be ready critics, certainly outside the House and, perhaps, some inside the House, who will ask how dare we suggest spending a large sum of money on ourselves. It needs to be emphasised, as has already been mentioned, that it is a
  952
  debate about facilities not for 651 Members of Parliament, but for many thousands of people—the 3,000 people who work here in addition to Members of Parliament and the many more thousands of people who visit in the course of the year. We have a responsibility which goes beyond trying to ensure that there is some sort of basic standard of luxury for Members of Parliament. It should extend to ensuring that there is a decent standard of provision for all the people who work here in whatever capacity and also for, those who visit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) has sounded a warning of the concerns which, of course, we should feel. It would be reprehensible if it could be shown that we were behaving in a cavalier fashion and were apparently prepared to put the pen to a cheque for a very large sum of taxpayers' money for apparently frivolous purposes. I have certainly been convinced from our work in Committee that the proposed provision is not a frivolous purpose.
  The difficulty with which the Committee was faced in trying to address the problems first stemmed from the nature of the Palace itself. It is not possible to imagine that Sir Charles Barry or those who instructed him could have known that, 140 years later, the Palace would be used so heavily. If we were to adjust this fine building to the needs which confront us, we would be involved in making changes to the fabric which would be, of necessity, more expensive than if were playing around with a more modern building or if we were simply starting from a blank sheet of paper. So that there are inherent extra costs in almost anything that one seeks to do to change the arrangements in the Palace.
  We are, of course, catering for very much greater numbers than ever could have been envisaged when the basic design of the Palace was undertaken. So we would be trying to superimpose in this magnificent building substantial new requirements which would be very difficult to accomplish, certainly at minimal expenditure. There is also what may be called the domino effect when we start to make changes in the confines with which we are presented. For example, if we say that we must have proper provision for the receipt of raw materials of food and the consequence is that something is moved down the line, further changes come about, which help to cause the expenditure to mount.
  Those were some of the practical difficulties with which the Committee was faced. It was not an attempt to find out how we could have a bonanza, but an attempt to meet minimum requirements. I defend resolutely the fact that we must make changes in the House which conform with the standards that we have imposed on everyone else outside the Palace of Westminster. We have not invented those standards for ourselves. We have a responsibility when proposing the expenditure of money to ensure that the people who come to this place should be as safe and as secure as we expect them to be anywhere else.
  Dr. Robert Spink: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend; he has put some sound and rational arguments. Nevertheless, does he not accept that we can move only at a certain speed without incurring the wrath of the public and that we have to be sensitive to what they will think? Perhaps a more phased approach to the changes would be appropriate.
  Mr. Haselhurst: We have done very little for 40 years. That is pretty good phasing. When we now come to an accumulated problem, we are still saying, for all sorts of practical reasons and for reasons of financial responsibility, that we should still phase the changes over a number of years. We can look our electors and taxpayers in the eye and say that we are not embarking on a madcap scheme. There is an accumulation of work that needs to be done within this fine building. We have a responsibility to the building and to those who will enjoy it in the future to do something now, having refrained from doing anything over a number of years. We have avoided, it could be said, some of the responsibilities that we have imposed on other people.
  The other problem is that we have a balance of needs for which to cater. That has been borne in on me since I have had the honour to be a member of the Catering Committee. We have 651 Members of Parliament who have very strong views. It is the 651 Members of Parliament who will make decisions about whether certain things are done. However, we must think about all the other people who have a great interest in what happens to the catering services of this building.
  We have seen in the evidence given to the Committee some very idiosyncratic views which have been put forward with great passion, as one might imagine, from elected representatives of the people. However, there are many other people who may have the same strength of view and who certainly have great strength of numbers. We must think of them. The Palace is not just for Members of Parliament, although we are entitled, while the public give us the privilege of being here, to have the enjoyment of those facilities. We have a responsibility to those who work for us—those who work for the nation in maintaining this Palace—to ensure that facilities are provided.
  It is a matter of balance. We cannot get it right by saying, "Oh, this area of the Palace must be a facility for Members of Parliament; forget the rest." When one has to try to balance the needs of Members' staff, visitors and Members themselves, one gets into awful difficulties when one is in a confined arrangement. We do not have excess space that we can freely dispose of, in this direction and that direction, to cater for all needs. The proposals for the consideration of the House tonight are very carefully balanced to try to give something to everybody and to ensure that we maintain standards for all.
  I refer briefly to St. Stephen's tavern. I am tempted to adopt the words of Sir Winston Churchill—that it is
  "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
  So it has seemed to all the bodies of the House that have had to consider what should happen to St. Stephen's tavern. We were quite right to knock on the head the possibility of its being a visitors' centre. I am sure that the proposals that we are putting before the House are much more practical and I hope that they can be fulfilled in time. I also hope, however, that we shall not lightly dispense with the idea of St. Stephen's tavern. It is the possible expansion chamber for our needs, particularly if we are sensitive to the needs of staff if we take hold of the Westminster Hall cafeteria for a visitors' centre at some stage. We must be sure that we have sufficient cafeteria space and bar space for our staff. Perhaps St. Stephen's tavern would provide that opportunity.
  Finally—and I hope not frivolously—I refer to the possibility of having a kiosk in Westminster Hall. I must take as many visitors round this Palace as any other hon.
  954
  Member does and I take delight in encouraging my constituents to come to the Palace of Westminster. I passionately believe that we should open this place as much as possible to the people who put us here. A visit to the Dutch Parliament by the Catering Committee made us realise how poor we are in presenting ourselves to visitors. We can do much better, but there are limitations that the Palace imposes upon us.
  Something that gives great delight to visitors is the opportunity to buy some little souvenir of their visit to the Palace. None of us should underestimate the thrill that people feel about visiting the Palace. I will own, without, I hope, being silly, to feeling a thrill about being here anyway, as an hon. Member. The thrill is all the greater for our constituents, who may visit the Palace just once in their lives. We should give them the opportunity to make a simple purchase. That may seem trivial, but it is important.
  We all know that the current kiosk is situated out of place for the needs of the many people whom we have the pleasure to escort around the building. Logic dictates that there should be something at the end of the tour and the end of the tour, logically and inescapably, is Westminster Hall. We must take a broad view about its use, bearing in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said, that its history is colourful. It has embraced a great many functions, not least as a market stall site, so, as a temporary measure, we should not eschew the idea of providing a facility there for visitors to buy souvenirs.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham that we should be rightly concerned that we are not frivolous in our expenditure of money. In the same breath, we should acknowledge that if we expose those thousand or more visitors a day to the possibility of the simple pleasure of purchasing a souvenir at the Palace, that will help the finances of the operation. That will tend to reduce the taxpayers' burden for all that we seek to provide.
  I honestly believe that we can tell the public that we are not being frivolous. Yes, there is a large price tag attached, but it has been thought through. The proposals are an attempt to represent the needs of all the people who use the Palace, not least the public. We owe it not just to ourselves and to all who work and visit here, but to future generations to make some sensible decisions and to get on with it.
  11.42 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: I will be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  I know from personal experience what a thankless task it is serving on the Catering Committee. I therefore congratulate the Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), and other hon. Members on their work. Some progress has been made given that we are debating the report.
  We have heard a lot about whether spending money on essential work is wasteful. If the Government were prepared to pass legislation to remove Crown immunity—I have been promised that by Ministers in answers to parliamentary questions—we would not be having a debate on whether it is right to spend a certain amount to bring the House up to the standards that comply with existing health and safety legislation which applies to the rest of the country. I hope that the Leader of the House will acknowledge that the Government are prepared to

  955
  introduce such legislation, because it would then be as clear as clear could be that the money has to be spent, otherwise we will have to pay a high price.
  As has been said, we must remember that we are talking not just about the Members who work here but about our staff, the Officers of the House and the thousands of people who visit this place on special occasions to lobby their Member of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of that.
  If we complied with existing health and safety legislation, I would never see another mouse in the Pugin Room, as I did a couple of weeks ago. There is a mouse in the House and that is unacceptable. This Victorian Palace is completely outdated and our kitchens would be closed down if the Crown immunity legislation was enforced. We must spend the money necessary to bring the House up to an acceptable standard.
  I return to the issue of environmental health officers. I have no doubt, from incidents in which I have been involved, that, if Westminster were prepared to allow environmental health officers to visit and carry out inspections, this place would be closed down—and closed down from tomorrow, never mind anything else.
  Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Lady agree that many catering establishments throughout the country are absurdly and grossly overregulated, and that many of them have been forced out of business by the oppressive bureaucracy which goes with the regulations?
  Ms Walley: I speak as vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, although I have no pecuniary interest to declare. I must tell the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) that two wrongs do not make a right. People who visit this place are entitled to expect high standards, and we should be leading the way.
  Let me raise another couple of health and safety issues. It is an outrage that the staff employed by the Catering Committee do not yet have all the facilities which they should have, and which the law requires staff elsewhere to have. The fact that they do not have proper rest room accommodation—that they must go down to the ladies' toilets and lock themselves in the toilet for a lengthy period if they want a cigarette, and also go there to change—is unacceptable. It is something which we could change if we were prepared to undertake a comprehensive review of the accommodation in this place; we could give these issues the top priority that they deserve.
  As for the small matter of whether we could perhaps change and reorder the different facilities that we have, frankly, I am disappointed that the report does not address the banqueting facilities. I believe that our constituents have a right to come and visit us and lobby us. As we have heard, they want to come and look round the building: they want to see this important Palace, which is so rich in history. When my constituents travel down from Stoke-on-Trent, it is difficult for them to find toilet facilities, never mind a basic cup of tea. I resent the fact that we have all those banqueting rooms which can be booked at great expense, yet constituents who come down to participate in the democratic process do not have access to basic facilities. I would like to see that matter addressed. I am pleased that there is some reference to remedying that with regard to the so-called policemen's cafeteria in
  956
  Westminster Hall, and the changes that could be made there. However, I am disappointed that we have no time scale for that.
  I have a sense of déjà vu from my days on the Catering Committee: we are talking about exactly the same issues three, four or five years on. Although we have some proposals which could, in the fullness of time and subject to this and that, bring about some change, we do not have any firm guarantees. I must tell the Chairman of the Catering Committee that I would like a firm guarantee that our constituents, rather than all the activities that take place in the banqueting rooms, will be given priority.
  Dr. Spink: What about the money that that brings in?
  Ms Walley: Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman says about bringing in money, I think that my constituents who are not able to pay £35 for a special lunch have as much right to visit this place as those who pay huge amounts of money.
  Finally, I turn to the issue of St. Stephen's tavern. I have long advocated that that building should be seen as part of the Westminster complex—it should be seen as part of the Palace. I do not know the best use for that building. I have always taken the view that it is a place where schoolchildren, groups of pensioners and groups of constituents could go. I see from the report that my recommendation has not been accepted, and I am disappointed about that. But I still feel strongly that, given all the demands for extra accommodation, not least day care, creche and child care facilities for the thousands of people who work here, we should keep St. Stephen's. We should send not only the Catering Committee but the Accommodation and Works Sub-Committee, or whatever it is called these days in its revamped form, on some sort of exercise; it could come back with positive proposals for St. Stephen's so that we can start to address the lack of facilities. Then the whole thing would slot into place.
  I appreciate that time is brief, so I shall confine myself to those few points at this stage.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I am proud to be one of the seven members of the Catering Committee. I recognise that many of the myriad kitchens that we have are antiquated and that most of them need an injection of funds. The only question is: how much money is needed, and where should it come from?
  Do we really need an army of staff and caterers on the payroll—more than 300 of them—to provide the catering in the Commons? Or should we do something different, and not cater under our own flag for the police, the security staff, the researchers, the secretarial staff, Officers of the House and Library staff?
  The reports are thorough, and I pay tribute to the Committee's Chairman. But I do not believe that we have yet dealt with the problem of how to pay for its chief recommendations.
  Conservative Members are committed to deregulation and contracting out. We insist that local authorities privatise and open their services to competition, but we do not do that here in the Palace of Westminster. It is a closed public monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer. Instead of contracting out our canteens and cafeterias, as the British Airports Authority does so successfully at Heathrow, we insist on keeping control and paying an army of staff—of

  957
  whom we are proud and who serve us well. We really should consider alternative ways of operating our catering establishments.
  At Heathrow the catering outlets were losing a mint before Sir John Egan arrived to do the splendid job that he does. He said, "We are airport operators, not caterers." Here at Westminster, we are legislators, not caterers. Sir John cleared the available space at Heathrow, and then said to certain well-known outlets, "Why don't you come in and put in all the equipment you need? You pay for it, and operate your business here free of charge and rent. In return for the franchise, we will share the profits with you." I believe that the BAA takes about 20 per cent. of the profits.
  Amazingly, the many catering outlets at Heathrow now make enormous profits, and are open 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
  Mr. Roger Gale: No, they are not.
  Mr. Steen: If my hon. Friend wants to intervene, I shall give way. If not, perhaps he will let me continue.
  Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that a combination of Dunkin Donuts and Burger King would satisfy hon. Members of this House?
  Mr. Steen: We do not have to go for those chains. There is a wide variety of outlets at Heathrow, including wonderful Italian restaurants, health food restaurants and other restaurants declared by Egon Ronay to be among the best in Britain. I do not know whether my hon. Friend considers him a good judge of quality, but I certainly do. We should consider the lead that has been given at the BAA in the context of this report.
  The BAA has turned space that it ran at a loss—to encourage passengers to fly from Heathrow—into profitable outlets where millions of people enjoy the best food ever; and the BAA makes enormous profits as a result. Why not do something similar here, even if not in all our outlets? We may need to keep the Members' Dining Room and the Strangers' Dining Room, but why cannot outlets in some of the places occupied by canteens, such as the Churchill Room and the Press Restaurant, be contracted out?
  There are many talented men—and women—on the Catering Committee. I hope that the members of the Catering Committee, rather than the officials, might choose some of the outlets. We might even taste the food. I have been a member of the Catering Committee for two years, and I am desperately waiting for the opportunity to speak about food, let alone taste it.
  I would welcome an opportunity to contract out to private enterprise some of the canteen and cafeteria space. If I may say so to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), that would be a most sensible way of considering the funding of some of the expensive and important work in this very important Palace, which we could fund not through the public purse but through the private purse.
  Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the standard of catering in some of the cafeterias is sometimes appalling? Is there any reason why private sector caterers should not have an opportunity to show that they can do better?
  Mr. Steen: I pay tribute to the work that is done by the staff in the Palace, in difficult circumstances, but it is also true that some of the tiny Italian cafés dotted around the capital produce magnificent food in space in which one could not even swing a cat. I have great difficulty in understanding why the quality that one can obtain in commercial outlets cannot be provided here, where we have much more space.
  The Members' Tea Room is a good example of an enormous amount of space, yet it is always argued that we cannot improve the quality without new facilities. I question that. One does not always have to spend more money to produce the quality items. I agree that considerable work needs to be done in the Palace, but I question whether it must be funded from the public purse.
  My idea is that the report might be accepted, with certain modifications, but that the way that it is funded should be considered. If we went down the route of privatisation and the contracting out of some of the outlets, there might be a 20 per cent. return of profits, which would be paid to the Exchequer, whereas at the moment we have to fund those outlets ourselves.
  The food would also improve dramatically. We could have health food. We could have all the types of food that have been mentioned by Opposition Members as well as Conservative Members. The catering could be run commercially—not in house by our enormous work force.
  I shall not discuss the phasing of that, which would need to be decided by the experts, but I am worried about the amount of money that the taxpayer is asked to pay to run the Palace, and that is one of the ways that we could find to inject funds from outside.
  One criticism might be made about contracting out—that the Serjeant at Arms might well say that the question of security would prevent him from accepting that proposal. I believe that there are many ways round the question of security. I believe that the running of the Palace of Westminster can be done equally well if we inject private money and private enterprise. The Catering Committee's report is an important step in identifying the work that needs doing. I am sure that, with the Finance and Services Committee taking a new approach to funding, we can do that without any criticism from the taxpayer, and we can make great progress by bringing in the private sector.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Although I should like to be associated with all the congratulations that have been given to the Catering Committee, in the few minutes that are available to me I want to make an argument that has yet not been made, although to an extent it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). It is the alternative that I presented to the Catering Committee in a letter in October which I do not think has been given a great deal of consideration.
  The groups that need our prime attention are those on the Line of Route, the 100,000 people who come to the House every year. When we decide, how can we put into some kind of hierarchy those who most deserve the resources of the organisation and those who least deserve them? We do not have the information. Although the suggestions about the Line of Route are worth while, we

  959
  are told that they will not be implemented for about six years, if then. There is an alternative that should be implemented.
  We have all had the experience that thy hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) so vividly described, and it is a disgrace that that continues. Prime attention should be given to those who have been neglected, the parties of schoolchildren and elderly people who come here. I suggested to the Catering Committee that the Line of Route be reordered so that it ends up on the Terrace where people might spend a few moments and then use the banqueting facilities there.
  Information on who uses the banqueting facilities is a state secret, nobody knows. Over a number of years have asked, "Who are these people? Are they deserving groups? Are they cultural groups or charities?" An examination of the invitations that I have had showed that two out of 20 were charities and that the rest were either lobbyists or commercial organisations.
  I tried another way of finding out which groups are entertained there. I asked for a breakdown of the political colour of the hon. Members who book those rooms and I was told that in 1991, Dining Rooms A and B were booked 1,566 times—1,399 times by Conservative Members and 167 times by Labour Members. That is 90 per cent. compared with 10 per cent. Although the letter was written many months ago and has nothing to do with recent events, it is interesting to note that there is an almost exact correlation in the two main parties between hon. Members with consultancies. Some 85 per cent. of Conservative Members who are eligible have outside consultancies and directorships, compared with 14 per cent. of Opposition Members.
  That is the only information, and one is tempted to conclude from it that those banqueting rooms are used mainly for entertainment that is commercial in character. We know that some of it is political in character. I have informed an hon. Member that I intended to refer to an organisation that is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. It is called the Vivian Bendall Parliamentary Dinner Club and it exists for
  "functions sometimes held at the House of Commons, the financial benefits from which go to the Ilford North Conservative Association."
  In 1991 there was a celebrated court case in which art hon. Member whom I have not informed was involved. His constituency chairman was a Mr. Andrew Mudd and it was claimed that American visitors paid for the privilege of entertainment in the Palace.
  A limited amount of entertainment space is involved, and if we are to cater for the most deserving groups of people who come here in great numbers, there must be a loss. I urge the Catering Committee to consider again not the long-term reordering of Westminster Hall but eating into the banqueting facilities that are used by commercial organisations that could afford to pay for them.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is treading a dangerous path. He should recognise that a large number of my hon. Friends book those rooms for entirely worthy charitable organisations for receptions that are attended by large numbers of Labour Members.
  Mr. Flynn: I have made the point that I am aware of that, but I asked for transparency and I have not got it. In questions over a period of five years I have asked for a list of the organisations. That information is not divulged. All
  960
  that is available are the names of hon. Members, and that is all that I have to go on. If I believed that they were being hired by charities—[Interruption.] It is not true. Hon. Members would try other methods to find out. The atmosphere in the House, which has been vividly described by the press in the past few days, is of almost soft corruption. That has become part of the Palace of Westminster: soft corruption has become endemic here, and part of that is the use that is made of the banqueting facilities.
  12.4 am
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and the members of his Catering Sub-Committee for the report. I also thank the professional advisors to both the Catering Sub-Committee and the Finance and Services Committee.
  The report is a substantial piece of work which deals comprehensively with a range of issues. The approach adopted by the Committee was the right one. It took evidence widely and then approached its task with vigour. It is the clearly expressed wish of the House to comply with hygiene legislation and, separately, with health and safety legislation as though that applied to the House prior to the removal of Crown immunity. Hence the concentration on the refurbishment of kitchen facilities set out so clearly in the report.
  Times have changed for this Palace. There is an increase in the numbers working here and the way in which we do our jobs has changed. There are more full-time Members of Parliament, who are serviced by more full-time professional research staff. Hence there is more pressure on the catering facilities. The Committee has responded in the only way possible. Of course, there is a range of disputes about who can use what. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) told us of the extent of the pressures on the facilities of the House. The key—frankly, the only answer—is to make adequate provision and that is clearly what the Committee set out to do.
  I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who said that we are talking about provision not just for ourselves and for those who work here, but for those who come to see us. We need to make provision for visitors to this place. I like the imaginative idea of a visitors' centre and I congratulate the Committee on it. It has dealt with the matter in the right way. I like the history of the building and I know that many visitors are enthralled by it. Of course there will be disagreements, of course it will not be easy to satisfy everyone, but I think that the Committee has done its best and in a way that is financially prudent as well as encapsulating the scope of all the issues that were in front of it.
  12.6 am
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I suppose that I could be thought to be wearing a number of hats tonight—as a member of the House of Commons Commission and of the Finance and Services Committee and as Leader of the House. It is principally in the latter capacity that I felt it appropriate to say a few words.
  I join hon. Members in the thanks expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and, indeed, the hard-working members of his Committee from

  961
  both sides of the House. It is an observable fact to anyone who has been here for more than a few years that the pressure on our refreshment facilities has been growing steadily and has put huge demands on people.
  I want to place firmly on the record the fact that I think that Sue Harrison, the Director of Catering Services, and her staff have responded splendidly to those pressures against a background of very difficult circumstances. Even the most cursory tour of the facilities that lurk in the basement and behind the scenes—and I have done more than just a cursory tour—rapidly reveals that everything that they have achieved has been despite, not because of, the facilities with which they have to work. There must be a limit to what they can be expected to achieve, whether in quality or efficiency, in working conditions that often leave much to be desired—although that is putting it mildly—which border on the antique and which suffer from some of the deficiencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford emphasised.
  There has been a variety of piecemeal and ad hoc improvements over the years. The Catering Committee, after a great deal of very thorough work, has concluded that the problem now needs to be addressed more strategically with an overall modernisation plan, systematically planned and executed over about five or six years. I must say straightforwardly to the House that it would be difficult for anyone to say that, in principle, the Committee has not made an extremely strong case, not only in the interests of Members of Parliament but, as has been repeatedly emphasised, in the interests of staff and those who visit this building.
  Within the structure of the domestic Committees as we now operate, if the House agrees the motion, the details of implementing the report will be a matter for decision by the Finance and Services Committee and the Commission. I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee. I agree that it is right that some of the earlier plans for refurbishment of the Refreshment Department have been postponed, so that some £2 million which would have gone on further short-term improvements, but without resolving the strategic problems, can now be applied to the strategic plan.
  I also agree with my right hon. Friend that it is right for the £2.5 million trading surplus to be used to reduce what would otherwise be the cost to public funds. That is a legitimate concern, which some of my hon. Friends and others raised. I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that each year's expenditure will be looked at in the context of that particular year's Estimates, with the aim of finding the remainder of the funds for the project within the normal scale of financial provision of the works vote.
  Against that background, I hope that the House will agree to my hon. Friend's motion.
  12.11 am
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: With the leave of the House, I thank my colleagues on the Catering Committee for their support during the debate. It is clear that there is much work for us yet to do in seeking to address the many concerns expressed tonight. We were already acutely aware of most of them, and I have no doubt that we will be bending our minds to them.
  I see tonight's exercise, as does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the light of the Ibbs structure working, with the domestic Committees talking and working together and producing reports that are surveyed and analysed by the Finances and Services Committee, a report going to the Commission, and financially accountable action flowing as a consequence. That is an important improvement in the way that the House runs its affairs.
  Because the House did not previously have a structure to the way that it ran its affairs, we had years of what I lightly called deferred maintenance—but I shall now call it botched, unstructured, ad hoc, non-maintenance. It led to a state of chaos below stairs and back of house, with everything in the wrong order and in the wrong place, and needing radical action.
  The Committee was acutely aware of the need to be prudent, to phase, and to avoid the expenditure of hunks of money that would be indigestible in the way that the House is run—that it would all flow in a series of bite-size pieces that enable proper planning. One hazard of this building is that, once the structure is opened up, it is not clear what is there. That problem hit the House of Lords, where what started as a £3 million business ended up a £11 million business because no preparatory work was done. We wish to avoid that pitfall.
  We will examine the Line of Route. The advice that we received was that, for security reasons, it is best to keep visitors on the Line of Route and away from the Terrace. We are acutely aware of the need to provide visitor facilities. As soon as the Members and Strangers cafeterias are completed and we deal with whoever lunches in the Westminster Hall cafeteria, we can provide those facilities. We need to crack ahead with the programme as quickly as possible, and then we shall have long overdue visitor facilities.
  We shall continue the consultation for which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) asked. We are consulting the Administration and Works Committee, and we shall examine the relocation of offices—
  It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 July.]
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Catering Committee of Session 1993–94, on Refreshment Services for the House of Commons (House of Commons Paper No. 75), and the First Report from the Catering Committee of Session 1992–93, on Refreshment Provision for Line of Route Visitors (House of Commons Paper No. 307).

  Mr. Charles Edward Winter
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  12.13 am
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the case of Mr. Charles Edward Winter. He is a constituent of mine who, on the face of it, has suffered over the past 12 years from a disturbing combination of incompetence, dishonesty, collusion and suppression of evidence, from 1985 to the present day. He has been as much the victim of circumstances as of malpractice on the part of a host of professionals to whom he went for help.
  In 1981, Mr. Winter was a wealthy hotelier. He is now bankrupt. The circumstances of his bankruptcy have driven him to make rash threats against those whom he considers responsible for his present situation.
  Mr. Winter owned the Queen's hotel in Bishopton lane, Stockton-on-Tees, with his second wife, Anne Barlow. It burned down in 1981, leaving Mr. Winter to pursue a long and involved insurance dispute. The final settlement fell far short of the value which he attached to the hotel. Furthermore, he feels that the accountant, John Chilton of Chipchase Manners, whom he instructed to deal with his claim, acted negligently. Indeed, Mr. Winter was awarded £100,000 damages against that man.
  Similarly, Mr. Winter strongly believes that his legal representation in the matter—Robin Bloom of Jackson and Company—gave him wrong and harmful advice in respect of it and was therefore negligent. He also has a grievance against firms of solicitors—Paul Bennett of Punch Robson for allegedly suppressing legal evidence in the form of documents since 1982, and later Booth and Company in Leeds from 1985. He also alleges perjury on the part of Robin Bloom of Jackson and Company, who did not bring this written evidence to light until 1993.
  Mr. Winter attributes his subsequent bankruptcy largely to a threefold negligence. First, he claims that the damages that he was awarded were insufficient and that the accountant, Mr. Chilton, gave him an untrue picture of his own means. He also transferred assets to his wife so as to reduce his legal liability. His house, which was apparently worth only £60,000 last year, when the matter was in the courts, is now advertised in the local newspaper at £300,000.
  Secondly, the barrister who took Mr. Winter's case acted negligently in failing to apply for costs to be paid by Mr. Chilton and said that if Mr. Winter did not accept the situation he would make a recommendation to the legal aid board that Mr. Winter was being unreasonable, and his legal aid would be withdrawn.
  Thirdly, there was the suppression of written evidence, which could have helped him between 1982 and 1993.
  Mr. Winter believes that these three facts have contributed to his being made bankrupt, which he would otherwise have avoided.
  From 1982 there followed a protracted period during which Mr. Winter sought justice on the points that I have described, as well as with regard to a large capital gains bill, which was disputed between himself and his second wife, from whom he had become estranged and whom he subsequently divorced in 1982.
  To advise him on this latter point Mr. Winter instructed a separate firm of solicitors, Bolsover, Manning and Scott,
  964
  whose handling of his case he found to be far from satisfactory. Lacking all confidence in his legal representation in his divorce proceedings, he instructed a further set of solicitors—Punch Robson—to deal with matters relating to ancillary relief, and to ensure that the ex-Mrs. Winter met her side of their joint tax obligations in respect of the cash received on the insurance policy on the Queen's hotel. Incredibly, Mr. Winter has reason to believe that these solicitors—Punch Robson and Harvard and Company—acting for Ms Barlow, his ex-wife, acted in collusion rather than properly on his behalf, and that as a result they strung out the proceedings over 12 years, to the point where Mr. Winter was finally broken, financially and otherwise.
  Over the course of these unfortunate events Mr. Winter has tried time and again to pull his life back together again. He has remarried and with his third wife, Linda, he has attempted a number of business ventures. But the cost and stress of his various actions has weighed heavily against him. Consequently he has remained largely unemployed and was declared bankrupt in February 1993, after spending £160,000 on solicitors' fees, being allowed to go into debt for £300,000 and having bankruptcy finally enforced upon him by the Inland Revenue. His losses now total over £1 million according to expert witnesses. He is also faced with the loss of the home he now lives in and the site of the Queen's hotel.
  You will not be surprised, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that these events have left Mr. Winter a very bitter man. He feels that, having paid so many professional people for advice, he should have received the correct advice and should have gone back into business fairly quickly. Instead, he is bankrupt. He has sought to resolve the matter for 11 years, writing to the ombudsman, to the solicitors' and barristers' complaints organisations and even to the European Court.
  As a final cry for help, he resorted to threatening to kill Paul Bennett, John Chilton and Mr. Harvard, for which he was duly put on remand in custody for eight and a half months. When the matter came to court the judge, Mr. Justice Hannah, recognised the effect that the collusion of the solicitors had had on my constituent.
  The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to bring the case of Mr. Winter to the attention of the House. Clearly there is little scope for intervention in the internal affairs of a self-regulating body such as the legal profession. However, I sincerely hope that all the relevant papers from all the firms to have had a hand in Mr. Winter's affairs can be placed before an independent representative of that profession for independent scrutiny. Those documents are all held by Mr. Winter's trustee in bankruptcy, and an eminent Queen's counsel is now being consulted.
  I should like to press my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the Inland Revenue to review their decision to declare Mr. Winter bankrupt. I should also like them to reconsider the size of his capital gains tax bill. Perhaps in that light they will be able to give Mr. Winter an opportunity to restart in business, and thus to try to get back on his feet and start earning his own living. He has not been able to do that for the past 12 years.
  The case is extremely complex. In summary, Mr. Winter seeks justice for himself in five ways. First, he would like the £55,000 that was paid to the Inland Revenue to be returned, plus interest backdated to 1989. Secondly, he would like the Queen's hotel site to be restored to his sole name. Thirdly, he feels that there should be a

  965
  guarantee that no enforcement proceedings will be lodged against his home, thus protecting himself and his new family from homelessness. Fourthly, he would like £160,000 worth of solicitors' fees back on the ground that all the solicitors whom he instructed failed in their duties on his behalf. Lastly, he would of course like the restoration of the £1 million loss that Ernst and Young and his property advisers, Storey Sons and Parker, estimated that he had suffered.
  I am sorry to have to tell the House that my constituent has suffered severely from stress as a result of those protracted proceedings, and he is now in North Tees hospital suffering from pneumonia and a blood clot above his heart. That has been brought about by the stress of all the proceedings. I very much hope that Mr. Winter will soon be able to make a full recovery, and I am sure that that process will be greatly helped by anything that the Minister can say to comfort him this evening.
  12.21 am
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I shall begin by picking up the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I am sure that the whole House would want to echo what he said about our good wishes for Mr. Winter's restoration to good physical health. The story that my hon. Friend has told is one with which we would all feel deep sympathy. Clearly it is an unhappy story in which a whole series of things have gone wrong with Mr. Winter's life. None of us could listen to it without feeling deep sympathy with him over the turn that his life has taken.
  I have discussed Mr. Winter's case with my hon. Friend, and I know that he has taken a long-standing and deep interest in it. He has sought, not only in this debate but in correspondence with a wide range of interested bodies, such as the Inland Revenue and others, to argue that case to the best of his ability, and to offer Mr. Winter advice on how he might be able to improve the position in which he finds himself.
  However, having said all that, I must confess that I find myself at some disadvantage in trying to suggest how I, as the Minister with direct responsibility for the Inland Revenue, can help in Mr. Winter's case. The reasons for that are various. Not the least of them is the fact that, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, the relationship between Ministers and the Inland Revenue does not allow a Minister to intervene directly in a particular taxpayer's affairs. The Inland Revenue is established by law as an independent body, and it is a responsibility of the commissioners of the Inland Revenue, not of the Minister responsible for the Department, to make individual decisions about specific taxpayer cases.
  That being said, I have asked the Inland Revenue to review Mr. Winter's case once again in order to see whether anything can be done to alleviate the situation in which he finds himself. There is not much doubt in my mind—the judgment reached by the Inland Revenue confirms this—that the handling of the case from the narrow point of view of the Inland Revenue does not lend itself to any revision which could help Mr. Winter.
  The circumstances are, as my hon. Friend has recounted, that, as a result of the fire in the hotel in
  966
  1981–82, an insurance claim was made by Mr. Winter which represented a substantially larger sum of money than the sum that he had originally paid for the hotel, with the result that, since it was not reinvested in the hotel or in a similar activity, no roll-over relief was available and a capital gains tax liability crystallised.
  Mr. Winter appealed unsuccessfully against that assessment and the capital gains tax due was confirmed. I know that Mr. Winter feels—I have some sympathy with him—that if he had been properly advised at the time, he might have acted differently, with the result that the capital gains tax liability might not have crystallised. I accept that it is possible to think in retrospect of how different behaviour by Mr. Winter might have avoided the crystallisation of that tax liability, but the Inland Revenue cannot deal with what might have been; it has to deal within the law with what happened.
  The fact of the matter is that Mr. Winter did not act in a way that allowed him to claim roll-over relief, so the tax liability crystallised, leaving the Inland Revenue with a statutory responsiblity to collect the tax due within the terms of the law. I emphasise that I understand how, in retrospect, it is possible to see how affairs might have been differently handled, but, from the point of view of the Inland Revenue, they were not differently handled and it had to deal with the facts as they were.
  Then we come to what the Inland Revenue does when a tax liability has crystallised and it has the responsibility to collect it. The liability crystallised during the tax year 1981–82 and it was only earlier this year that the Inland Revenue took action which led ultimately to the bankruptcy of Mr. Winter. No one could conclude that the delay between 1981–82 and the ultimate action to provoke the bankruptcy of Mr. Winter earlier this year constituted anything other than very patient action by the Inland Revenue, reflecting the recognition on the part of its officials of the difficult circumstances in which Mr. Winter finds himself.
  However, the task of the Inland Revenue is not merely to be sympathetic to an individual taxpayer, which it has been in this case, but to deliver its broader responsibilities to taxpayers in general to collect tax that is due from people whose actions have led to the crystallisation of a tax liability.
  That is the circumstance in which the Inland Revenue finds itself in Mr. Winter's case and, therefore, it is difficult to argue that the Inland Revenue should have acted differently, either in dealing with the assessment of liability on the facts available, or in dealing with the collection of that liability in the difficult circumstances in which Mr. Winter finds himself.
  We have considered Mr. Winter's circumstances in detail. We, and I am sure all hon. Members, feel considerable sympathy with him in the sad tale that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South related, but I do not believe that any of the judgments that were reached by Revenue officials in the course of that story were wrong. Even if I did, it is not within the competence of a Minister to instruct or to lean on the Inland Revenue in its dealings with an individual taxpayer.
  Having considered the matter, I conclude that the Inland Revenue acted reasonably and within the powers that are theirs and theirs alone to exercise. While I can offer my hon. Friend and, more pertinently, Mr. Winter sympathy on the position in which he finds himself, I cannot offer my

  967
  hon. Friend any prospect that the Inland Revenue will act differently or in a way that will alleviate the unfortunate position in which Mr. Winter finds himself.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve midnight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ten O'clock Rule
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 628, if he will make an assessment of the suitability to current conditions of the Ten o'clock rule.

  Mr. Newton
  Although I am having discussions with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about the sittings of the House, I do not envisage putting forward proposals to change Ten o'clock as the normal end to the main parliamentary day. Nor was such a change envisaged in the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, though it was an aim of that report's proposals that Members should more frequently be able to leave for their constituencies after about seven o'clock on Thursdays.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC Television Archives
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the cost to the BBC of digitising its television archives.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. The format in which the BBC keeps its archives is a matter for the corporation.

  Longford Hall
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 976, if he will list the items of work which English Heritage indicated needed to be carried out within six months of its report on Longford hall, Stretford, to maintain the building in its then existing condition; which works were carried out; and which were not.

  Mr. Brooke
  Works carried out to Longford hall by Trafford metropolitan borough council in December 1993 to January 1994 comprised structural repairs to the Derby room and the south-east corner of the building, repairs to the roof, gutters and drainpipes, rot treatment of walls and floors within the basement to the rear of the original building and the ground floor above and the insertion of ventilation grilles and the removal of debris. Security works were also carried out last year. These were the only works of those in English Heritage's report dated 9 June 1993 which related to the original building and which were also necessary to preserve that part of the building pending a decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on its future.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Gordon McNally
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasion prior to November 1991 he was present at functions where Mr. Gordon McNally was present.

  The Prime Minister
  None, so far as I am aware.

  Coastguard Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has held about the Department of Transport's proposed efficiency savings for the Coastguard Service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no such discussions. However, as I stated on 7 July 1994,Official Report, column 446, in response to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has discussed with the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency the proposals he put forward in response to my right hon. Friend's target, that the Department as a whole should achieve a 20 per cent. efficiency gain. My right hon. Friend has not yet taken any decisions on these proposals.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  The Prime Minister
  None of the organisations, agencies or other bodies under my departmental responsibility have been privatised since 1990. Plans for privatisation involving my departments will be considered on their merits as part of a prior options exercise and the results will be announced as appropriate.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 20 June,Official Report, column 11, if he will make a statement on discussions at the G7 summit in relation to nuclear technical assistance to the Government of the Ukraine.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement on the Group of Seven summit in Naples on 11 July 1994,Official Report, columns 667–69.

  Former Members of Parliament
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members who were defeated in the last two general elections who have since become members of
  483
  quangos and other organisations to which the Government nominates; and if he will state the organisation to which the former hon. Members were nominated, the duties undertaken and the salary.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister how many overseas visits have been made in 1994 by Ministers; during how many of them Ministers participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; who were those Ministers; and in which countries those activities took place.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: As far as I am aware, Ministers made 287 overseas visits in their official capacity between 1 January and 30 June 1994. None of those was undertaken for purposes of fundraising for the Conservative party. No central record is kept of any occasions on which Ministers may have attended fundraising events which were incidental to their visit.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what specific measures he is taking to improve the forecasting of numbers and particular expertise needed at different levels of the judiciary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Circuits will be required to identify the number of vacancies which are expected to arise a year in advance of the financial year in which they will occur. Based on changes in work load, retirements and other factors they will be expected to identify the number

  Total

  Women

  Black

  Asian

  High Court Judges

  95

  6

  —

  —

  Circuit Judges (includes Official Referees)

  510

  29

  —

  3

  District Judges (excludes District Judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division)

  290

  25

  —

  1

  Masters and Registrars of the Supreme Court and District Judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division

  49

  6

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates

  46

  6

  —

  —

  Provincial Stipendiary Magistrates

  34

  2

  —

  1

  Recorders

  866

  38

  4

  5

  Assistant Recorders (excludes Assistant Recorders in Training)

  385

  58

  6

  2

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of(a) High Court judges, (b) circuit judges and (c) district judges in office on 31 March had served in the present posts at this level (i) for less than a year, (ii) for less than five years, (iii) for more than 10 years and (iv) for 20 years or more.

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Less than 1 Year

  Less than 5 Years

  More than 10 Years

  More than 20 Years

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  High Court Judges

  15

  (14)

  52

  (49)

  15

  (14)

  1

  (1)

  Circuit Judges

  9

  (46)

  43

  (220)

  26

  (132)

  4

  (21)

  District Judges (including District Judges of Principal Registry of the Family Division)

  12

  (37)

  44

  (139)

  34

  (107)

  6

  (20)

  484
  and location of the likely vacancies. This will enable vacancies to be advertised well in advance and appropriate individuals to be identified to fill them quickly as and when they arise.

  The Department is also developing an information system to determine the future number of High Court judges needed at any one time, having regard to the need to maintain the High Court bench as a compact collegiate body.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many responses he has received to his consultation paper "Developments in Judicial Appointments Procedures".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Some 22 responses had been received as at 7 July 1994.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total number of judges serving at 31 March as(a) High Court judges, (b) circuit judges, (c) district judges, (d) masters and registrars of the Supreme Court and district judges of the principal registry of the family division, (e) metropolitan stipendiary magistrates, (f) provincial stipendiary magistrates, (g) recorder and (h) assistant recorders; and how many in each are (i) part-time appointments, (ii) women, (iii) black and (iv) Asian.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of office holders as at 31 March 1994 is set out in the table. All the posts listed are full time except recorders and assistant recorders. The figures for black or Asian office-holders are believed to be correct, but arrangements for the formal recording of the ethnic origin of applicants for judicial office only began on 1 October 1991, so such information may be incomplete. In any event, the figures do not include those of other ethnic minority origin.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information relating to 31 March is not readily available. However, the percentages for the different periods of service, together with, in brackets, the relevant number of judges, as at 6 July 1994 is set out in the table below. Column B includes the figures in column A. Similarly, column C includes the figures in column D. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole figure.
  485
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges have retired on health grounds since June 1979.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There have been 48 such retirements since June 1979.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he is giving to the suggestion of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that judicial performance should be more closely monitored.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Royal Commission's recommendations numbered 249 and 251 remain under active consideration by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the senior judiciary and the chairman of the Judicial Studies Board. The recommendations have to be set in the context of the essential constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary from the Executive and from each other. Any measures taken must have full regard to this overriding principle. The Government will respond to these two recommendations when their consideration of these difficult issues is complete.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the expected number of working days per year for each category of judge in England and Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  District judges are expected to sit 215 or more days per year. Circuit judges are expected to sit 210 or more days per year. High Court judges and judges of the Court of Appeal usually sit throughout the legal terms, 189 days, but may well sit outside those times. There is no expected number of working days for the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what parallel category of civil servants is used by the Top Salaries Review Body as a relevant basis for considering salary scales for the judiciary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under the revised terms of reference which were introduced in July 1993 at its request, the Senior Salaries Review Body is required, when making recommendations, to have regard to the need to maintain broad linkages between the remuneration of the three main remit groups, while allowing sufficient flexibility to take account of the circumstance of each group.

  The two linkages which presently exist between the judiciary and the senior civil service are between High Court judges and civil servants at grade 1 level, and between the Cabinet Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice.

  In its 1994 report, the SSRB recommended that the practice of offering identical salaries across the remit groups should be discontinued in future years provided that, in accordance with its terms of reference, the review body ensures that a broad linkage is maintained. The Government have accepted that recommendation.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary., Lord Chancellor's Department (1) under what circumstances a member of the judiciary can be dismissed;

  (2) how many members of the judiciary have been dismissed (a) since June 1979 and (b) since May 1965 as of 31 March;
  486
  (3) what are the current disciplinary procedures for members of the judiciary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle of the constitution and is protected by the provisions governing judicial tenure. Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Supreme Court judges may be removed by Her Majesty only on an address presented by both Houses of Parliament. Circuit judges may be removed by the Lord Chancellor on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour. The statutory provisions governing the removal from office of other members of the judiciary vary, but in general relate similarly to incapacity or misbehaviour, or the equivalent. One circuit judge was removed from office on the ground of misbehaviour in 1983. No other instance of removal from full-time judicial office since 1965 is known.

  Given the independence of the judiciary, it is not generally open to the Lord Chancellor to comment on, or intervene in, decisions or comments made, or the conduct of legal proceedings, by a judge in the exercise of his judicial functions. The appropriate recourse in relation to such matters lies in the available processes of appeal or review. Subject to this overriding principle, where a question about the conduct of a judicial office holder is raised with the Lord Chancellor, he may see fit to seek the comments of the office holder concerned before considering what, if any, course of action he should take within the powers available to him.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what was the total number of judges serving in all categories as of 31 March;

  (2) what was the total number of judges serving in all categories employed (a) full-time and (b) part-time as of 31 March.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of full-time judges at 31 March 1994 is set out in the following table:

  Number

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  10

  Heads of Division (excluding Lord Chancellor)

  4

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  29

  High Court Judges

  95

  Circuit Judges

  510

  District Judges (including District Judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division)

  308

  Total

  956

  At 31 March 1994, some 185 practitioners had been authorised to sit as deputy High Court judges, 43 retired judges had been appointed to sit as deputy circuit judges and 745 practitioners and retired district judges were authorised to sit as deputy district judges. Some 866 practitioners were authorised to sit as recorders and 385 as assistant recorders. In addition, certain retired Supreme Court judges and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are also willing to sit from time to time. There are other part-time judicial office-holders.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information he has on the social class origins of current members of the judiciary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No information is held on the social class origins of current members of the judiciary. Aggregated information relating to the educational
  487
  background of the judiciary is not readily available. The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint to judicial office, entirely on merit, those who satisfy the relevant statutory conditions for appointments and are considered best qualified to fill the posts.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges currently serving would, if they retired at 70 years of age, leave after fewer than 20 years' service.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table sets out the numbers of judges in office on 6 July 1994 who would have served in full-time judicial office in the United Kingdom for fewer than 20 years if they were to retire on their 70th birthday and, in the case of those already over 70, the numbers who had completed fewer than 20 years service by that date. The figures take into account previous service in other full-time judicial offices in this country, except in the case of serving circuit judges where information relating to earlier service is not readily available. The total numbers of judges in post on 6 July 1994 are shown in brackets.

  Number

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  3 (10)

  Supreme Court Judges

  87 (128)

  Circuit Judges

  254 (510)

  District Judges1

  56 (313)

  1Including District Judges of Principal Registry of the Family Division).

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what specific measures he is taking to increase the number of judges moving from the High Court family division to the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Appointments to the Court of Appeal are made by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Before making his recommendations, the Prime Minister receives advice from the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor's advice on appointments to the Court of Appeal is based on the operational needs of the Court of Appeal and the suitability of the available candidates. He does not envisage special measures to increase the number of judges promoted to the Court of Appeal from the family division of the High Court.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to abolish judicial tenure.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. The role of the judiciary is to administer justice in accordance with the laws of England and Wales without fear or favour, affection or ill will. In order to do so, judges must be independent. Security of tenure for the judiciary as established by the Act of Settlement and subsequent statutory provisions is essential in maintaining and supporting the principle of judicial independence.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will list the publications which will carry judicial advertisements; and on what basis those national publications will be chosen;

  (2) when he expects to report on the results of his consultation on the judicial appointments system;
  488
  (3) in implementing the proposals in his consultation paper, in what circumstances he will disregard an interview panel's recommendations in favour of alternative information;

  (4) if he will continue to take soundings regarding judicial appointments; and if these will be used to determine the short listing of applicants for posts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 4 July,Official Report, column 1. The consultation paper "Developments in Judicial Appointments Procedures" proposes that the interview panel's recommendations will constitute only one element of the information which the Lord Chancellor will have at his disposal, but that it will be a valuable and important one to which he will attach appropriate weight. The consultation paper also emphasises the Lord Chancellor's commitment to the continuation of the systematic collection of views and opinions about candidates and their work from a wide spread of judges and senior practitioners who are in a position to assess them. No decision has yet been taken in respect of the publications in which any advertisements might appear.

  The Lord Chancellor is now considering the responses received to the consultation paper and will make an announcement as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) High Court judges, (b) circuit judges and (c) district judges in office on 31 March received university education at Oxford or Cambridge.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Aggregated information relating to the university background of judges is not readily available, but the results of a special exercise carried out last year showed that at 1st January 1993, 68–81 per cent.—of the then 84 High Court judges had attended Oxford or Cambridge universities. The special exercise showed that the equivalent figure for the then 482 circuit judges was 261—54 per cent. The survey did not extend to district judges.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what considerations underlie his proposal that judges should serve 20 years to qualify for a pension.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The requirement that judges should serve 20 years to qualify for full pension benefits is contained in the new pensions scheme under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. This is to allow the judicial pension scheme to conform to the taxation requirements which now apply to all other private and public sector pension schemes as a result of the Finance Acts 1987 and 1989 and the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges have retired on health grounds with fewer than 20 years' service since(a) June 1979 and (b) April 1992.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There have been 47 such retirements since June 1979, of which four have taken place since April 1992. These figures refer to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, judges of the Supreme Court, circuit judges and district judges.
  489
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the pay scale of each category of judge in England and Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The salaries of the judges in England and Wales are as follows:

  £

  Lord Chancellor

  120,179

  Lord Chief Justice

  118,179

  Lords of Appeal

  —

  Master of the Rolls

  109,435

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  —

  President of the Family Division

  —

  Vice-Chancellor

  104,922

  High Court Judges

  95,051

  Official Referees

  —

  Senior Circuit Judges

  82,641

  Circuit Judges

  —

  Senior District Judge

  69,497

  District Judges

  56,974

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many barristers have declined to become High Court judges in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  The numbers of barristers who have declined to allow their names to be recommended to Her Majesty the Queen for immediate appointment to the High Court bench in England and Wales in recent years are set out below. All those who declined, with one exception, have made it clear that they hope to be considered again for appointment to the High Court bench in the future. Numbers before 1988 are not readily available.

  Number

  1988–89

  —

  1989–90

  —

  1990–91

  —

  1991–92

  1

  1992–93

  6

  1993–94

  2

  11994–95

  —

  1To date.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what legislative action would be necessary for the changes he announced on 7 July 1993 to the judicial appointment system to take effect.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what specific consideration he is giving to the establishment of a judicial appointments commission.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. It remains the Government's view that the establishment of such a commission would impair direct ministerial accountability to Parliament for judicial appointments. Moreover, the Government have yet to hear any convincing argument that the quality of those appointed by a Commission would be likely to be any better than that of those appointed under present arrangements.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of each category of judge in office on 31 March were(a) under 50, (b) 51 to 60, (c) 60 to 70 and (d) over 70 years of age.
  490
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information relating to 31 March is not readily available. The information as at 6 July 1994 is set out in the table below. The age bands have been adjusted in the table to prevent double counting.

  Under 50

  50–59

  60–70

  71 and over

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  0

  0

  8

  2

  Supreme Court Judges

  8

  55

  63

  2

  Circuit Judges

  66

  233

  201

  10

  District Judges (including District Judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division)

  118

  123

  72

  0

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) High Court judges, (b) circuit judges and (c) district judges in office at 31 March were appointed (i) as a result of promotion within the judiciary, (ii) as practising barristers, (iii) as practising solicitors and (iv) after serving on the High Court family division.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Thirteen of the 95 High Court judges in office on 31 March 1994 were appointed as a result of promotion within the full-time judiciary. One was previously an Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The remaining 81 were appointed from the Bar, including two barristers who were not in private practice. One Chancery division judge and five Queen's bench division judges had previously served as judges in the family division of the High Court.

  The complete information relating to circuit judges is not readily available. Of the 510 circuit judges in office on 31 March 1994, 450 had been barristers and 60 had been solicitors: these figures include those who were appointed to the circuit bench from other full-time judicial offices.

  No district judges in office on 31 March 1994 were appointed as a result of promotion within the full-time judiciary. Of the 308 district judges then in office, including district judges of the principal registry of the family division, 296 were appointed from solicitors, including academic and employed solicitors, and 12 from the practising Bar.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received following his proposals that judges will have to serve 20 years to qualify for a pension.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The requirement that judges should serve 20 years to qualify for full pension benefits is introduced by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. Responses to the proposals in the consultation paper issued before the passing of the 1993 Act were received from the following groups or individuals, in order of receipt:

  The President of the Pension Appeal Tribunal

  The Judge Advocate General

  The President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals

  The Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges

  Sir Bryan Roberts KCMG

  The Senior Master, Queen's Bench Division

  The Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate

  The President of Industrial Tribunals

  The Senior District Judge, Family Division

  His Honour Judge Micklem

  The Association of District Judges

  491

  The Provincial Stipendiary Magistrates

  The Judges' Council

  The Top Salaries Review Body

  The Chief Taxing Master

  The Chief Chancery Master

  The Master of the Court of Protection

  The Chief Social Security Commissioner

  The Chief Immigration Adjudicator

  The General Council of the Bar

  The Law Society

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many copies of his consultation paper "Developments in Judicial Appointments Procedures" were sent to laypersons, as defined in the paper itself.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Approximately 700 copies of the consultation paper have been distributed to organisations and individuals including the National Consumer Council, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Copies were also sent to any who requested them from my Department. It is not possible to determine how many of these are not lawyers.

  High Court Bench (Solicitors)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors have been appointed to the High Court bench since section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 came into force.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 came into force on 1 January 1991, one solicitor, who was a serving circuit judge, has been appointed to the High Court bench.

  Legal Training
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what responsibilities he has relating to legal training.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's role is governed by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Under that Act, amendments made by authorised bodies to their rules and regulations require the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the four designated judges. The Lord Chancellor is also required to approve applications under section 55 of the 1990 Act—preparation of probate papers—and, in doing so, must be satisfied about the arrangements for training.

  Judicial Posts (Election)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to hold elections for any judicial posts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. The Government do not believe that election would provide a suitable basis for appointment or be compatible with the principle of judicial independence. The Lord Chancellor's proposals for developments in the judicial appointments system were set out in a recent consultation paper. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 4 July,Official Report, column 1.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. A number of the functions of the departments, agencies and other bodies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible are currently under review. Privatisation will be considered as one of a range of possible options. At present, no firm plans have been made concerning any of the functions under review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Nigeria (Extradition)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the immigration or residency status of Colonel Tony Nyiam and Great Ogboru, formerly of Nigeria; what requests he received in respect of the extradition of those individuals following the failed military coup in Nigeria in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not our normal policy to disclose information relating to a person's immigration status, but no extradition requests in respect of these two individuals have been received.

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the cost of the May inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total reported costs of this inquiry, as at 7 July, is £2,150,000.

  Ms Emma Humphreys
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ask the Parole Board to reconsider its position regarding a release date for Ms Humphreys;

  (2) what representation he has received concerning the case of Ms Emma Humphreys who is currently serving a life sentence at Holloway prison;

  (3) what consultations he has had with the Parole Board about its recent refusal to grant Ms Humphreys a date for release or to move her to an open prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the practice of the Secretary of State to consult the independent Parole Board when the board decides not to recommend the release or the transfer to open prison conditions of a prisoner serving the mandatory life sentence for murder. The Secretary of State has not consulted the Parole Board in the case of Ms Humphreys and sees no grounds for asking the Parole Board to reconsider its recent decision in her case. A further Parole Board review of her suitability for release will begin in May 1995.

  From time to time, the Secretary of State has received representations about the safety of Ms Humphreys's conviction for murder. Those representations have not provided sufficient grounds for him to refer her case to the

  493
  Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Representations made by Ms Humphreys concerning her release on life licence were considered by the Parole Board when it last reviewed her case in May 1994.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many towns and cities there are known to be proposals to introduce closed circuit television for crime prevention;

  (2) how many city centres now have closed circuit television for crime prevention; and what is his assessment of its effectiveness.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The most recent information available indicates that across the United Kingdom there are 220 CCTV schemes either in operation or planned. Local assessments show that CCTV systems have been extremely effective in reducing crime and the fear of crime in a number of areas, particularly when they have formed part of a package of crime prevention measures. A current Home Office study of the effectiveness of the Birmingham city centre system is being extended to include schemes in other areas.

  Refugees and Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to diminish waiting times for asylum seekers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  With the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 last July, procedures have been streamlined and decision times reduced for applications received after implementation, which are being given priority. The new procedures and the level of applications are being closely monitored.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has made for the Vietnamese refugees in response to the Home Office report on refugees and asylum seekers;

  (2) what plans he has made in response to the Home Office report on refugees and asylum seekers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The report of the first stage of the research into refugee settlement, which is currently being revised, does not contain specific policy recommendations. The report on the second stage, which includes Vietnamese refugees within its scope, is being prepared and has not yet been seen by Ministers. When completed, any findings which might have policy implications will receive careful consideration.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England and (e) the United Kingdom as a whole occurred in houses or buildings which did not have smoke detectors in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The year 1994 is the first year in which the Home Office has collected data on the presence or absence of a smoke alarm in a fire attended by a local authority fire brigade. Before 1994, the Home Office collected only whether or not the fire was discovered by a smoke alarm.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those convicted of driving without insurance received a fine of £5,000 last year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available to me shows that no fines of £5,000 were imposed during 1992 for driving without insurance. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers have been disqualified from driving after having been convicted of driving without insurance in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table gives the available information which relates to the number of convictions for driving without insurance in England and Wales, for which disqualification from driving was imposed. The number of persons involved is likely to be less because some may have been convicted for more than one of these offences.

  Disqualifications imposed for the offence of driving without insurance

  Year

  Number

  1988

  18,045

  1989

  18,747

  1990

  17,569

  1991

  19,531

  1992

  20,727

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners are currently in custody from Wales (i) by county, (ii) by sex and (iii) in total.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewes to Mr. Allan Rogers, dated 12 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking how many (a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners are currently in custody from Wales (i) by county, (ii) by sex and (iii) in total.
  The available provisional information is for 31 May 1994 and is given in the attached table. It relates to the population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales who were recorded centrally as being first committed to custody by a Welsh court. Those persons for whom no court first committing was recorded accounted for five per cent. of the total population in custody, excluding those held in police cells and non-criminal prisoners.

  Population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 May 1994 committed by courts in Wales1

  County of Welsh court first committing

  Numbers held in a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Males

  Clwyd

  77

  228

  Dyfed

  70

  108

  Gwent

  87

  255

  Gwynedd

  41

  134

  495

  County of Welsh court first committing

  Numbers held in a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Mid Glamorgan

  110

  630

  South Glamorgan

  87

  220

  West Glamorgan

  64

  147

  Powys

  93

  242

  Total

  629

  1,964

  Females

  Clwyd

  —

  8

  Dyfed

  5

  4

  Gwent

  3

  4

  Gwynedd

  1

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  17

  South Glamorgan

  1

  10

  West Glamorgan

  4

  6

  Powys

  1

  10

  Total

  18

  63

  1Provisional figures.

  Chief Superintendent Rank
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against retaining the rank of chief superintendent within the police force; if he will make it his policy to retain the rank of chief superintendent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's decision to abolish the rank of chief superintendent and reallocate the range of current responsibilities of that rank within a restructured single superintendent rank is opposed by the superintendents' associations. Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary supports the reform of the superintending rank, and the Association of Chief Police Officers favours the retention of the rank of chief inspector rather than that of chief superintendent.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Howard
  DTELS—formerly the Directorate of Telecommunications—was sold to National Telecommunications Ltd. on 1 March 1994. Epsom, Kempton Park and Sandown Park racecourses were sold by the Horserace Betting Levy Board on 29 April 1994 to Racecourse Holdings Trust. There are no firm plans for further privatisations.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he plans for the accommodation of young offenders in Wales following the decision to send offenders aged 12 years and over to secure units and to cease to send boys aged 15 and 16 years to prison; if he will make it his policy that such offenders will not be sent outside Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Five new secure training centres are to be established for the purpose
  496
  of detaining those 12 to 14-year-old juveniles who may be sentenced to serve the new secure training order. The centres will hold offenders sentenced by the courts in England and Wales, but on present plans, none will be located in Wales.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already announced a grant amounting to £5·1 million to meet the capital cost of a new local authority secure unit at Neath in west Glamorgan. In due course, it is intended that the unit should accommodate inter alios most 15 and 16-year-old juveniles residing in Wales who may in future be remanded to local authority accommodation with a security requirement instead of to a Prison Service establishment, as well as those whose detention is ordered under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and who it is decided should be held in child care establishments.

  Police Training
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources the Government intend to make available to the police service to enable adequate training to be given to all police staff as a result of the enactments of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: It is for individual chief officers to arrange, out of normal police funds, for the training of their officers, having regard to any relevant changes in legislation. Any requirements for centrally produced training material will be considered within the Police Training Council.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the amounts spent by the police on training in all areas in each of the last five years at 1990 constant prices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: I regret that this information is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 492, what has been (a) the total number of newly built council homes and (b) that number as a percentage of the stock, in each council area for the period since 1 April 1979.

  Sir George Young
  A table has been deposited in the Library showing the cumulative total of housebuilding completions for each local authority in England as reported by them for the period between 1 April 1979 and 31 March 1994. The table also shows this housebuilding as a percentage of the local authority dwelling stock reported as at 1 April 1993, and as estimated for 1 April 1979. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by the Local Government Commission to date on opinion polling; and what assessment he has made of the usefulness of such polling.

  Mr. Curry
  The cost of opinion polling carried out for the Local Government Commission during the course of its reviews is a matter for the commission itself, within its overall budget. It is also for the commission itself to determine the value of those public opinion surveys.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Local Government Commission has spent on direct communication with the public where it invites replies via freepost.

  Mr. Curry
  This is a matter for the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what formula the Local Government Commission uses to assess the intangible costs and benefits of local government reconstruction in North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  Section 3 of the revised policy guidance which my Department issued to the Local Government Commission in November 1993 gives advice on the treatment of intangible costs and benefits. How the commission incorporates this advice into its recommendations on particular review areas is a matter for it.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hours per week Sir John Banham devotes to the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Curry
  The time commitment of the chairman varies from month to month, according to the demands of the review timetable. He works on average two days a week.

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy prior to the issue of any variation order to authorisation AI 2813 of 17 November 1993 made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and issued for the burning of Cemfuel that he will engage in consultations with the cement company.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that the authorisation AI 2813 relates to the burning of Cemfuel at Castle Cement's Ribblesdale works. The HMIP is in consultation with the company over a variation to this authorisation. No variation has yet been issued.

  Estimated total annual waste arisings by sector

  United Kingdom

  Sector

  Annual arisings (million tonnes)

  Date of Estimate

  Status1

  Source

  Percentage of total arisings

  Agriculture

  280

  1991

  NC

  MAFF

  21

  Mining and quarrying

  colliery and slate

  51

  1990

  NC

  DOE

  13

  china clay

  27

  1990

  NC

  DOE

  7

  quarrying3

  30

  1989/90

  NC

  QI4

  8

  Sewage sludge5

  35

  1992

  PC

  MAFF/WSA6

  9

  Dredged spoils7

  29

  1992

  PC

  MAFF

  7

  498
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances an existing authorisation for the burning of Cemfuel might be subject to a variation order from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution such that the burning of the fuel would again be put on a trial basis.

  Mr. Atkins
  An existing authorisation for the burning of Cemfuel might be subject to a variation order from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to put the burning onto a trial basis if, in the light of up-to-date experience, the conditions attached to the authorisation were seen not to provide sufficient information to monitor the environmental effects of the burning.

  Biological Diversity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the second session of the intergovernmental committee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity held in Nairobi in June.

  Mr. Atkins
  The second meeting of the intergovernmental committee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity took place in Nairobi from 20 June to 1 July 1994. Progress was made to prepare for the first meeting of the conference of the parties to be held in Nassau, the Bahamas from 28 November to 9 December 1994. The meeting reached consensus on important administrative and procedural issues for the conference of the parties, including most of the rules of procedure, a set of administrative financial rules and criteria for an open competition between organisations to host the permanent secretariat. Preliminary discussions took place on other substantive issues that the conference of the parties will consider, including the financial mechanism, biosafety, a clearing house mechanism and the scientific and technical subsidiary body.

  Waste
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the proportionate contribution of each category of waste arising to the total waste generated in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table shows the best available estimates of waste arisings, by sector. Most of the estimates are very approximate, and relate to the period around 1990. It is not possible to update them on an annual basis.
  499

  Sector

  Annual arisings (million tonnes)

  Date of Estimate

  Status1

  Source

  Percentage of total arisings

  Household8

  20

  —

  C

  DOE

  5

  Commercial9

  15

  —

  C

  DOE

  4

  Demolition and construction10

  32

  190

  C

  DOE

  8

  Industrial

  blast furnace and steel slag

  6

  1990

  C

  DOE

  2

  power station ash

  13

  1990

  C

  DOE

  3

  other11

  50

  —

  C

  DOE

  13

  Total

  388

  1NC=Not classed as a controlled waste under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act (Controlled Waste Regulations) 1992; PC=sewage sludge is classed as a controlled waste as defined in the Environmental Protection Act (Controlled Waste Regulations) 1992 except when disposed of on agricultural land or within the curtilage of sewage works at which it arises; dredged spoils are classed as a controlled waste when licensed for disposal under the Food and Environmental Protection Act. See Schedule 6 of the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulation, 1988. C=controlled wastes under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act (Controlled Waste Regulations) 1992.

  2Refers to wastes from housed livestock only. Wet weight.

  3Excludes wastes from opencast coal mining. Includes wastes from primary aggregate extraction comprising the overburden and any contaminating materials found in the quarry, most of which is used as infill when the quarry is abandoned. Waste arisings are estimated at 10 per cent. of annual aggregate production.

  4Quarries inspectorate.

  5Wet weight arisings, estimated on the basis of 4 per cent. solid content on average.

  6Water Services Association.

  7The data are for all United Kingdom waters, ie, external and internal waters.

  8Estimated maximum value of 20 million tonnes which includes up to 5 million tonnes from civic Amenity Sites.

  9Rounded to nearest 5 million tonnes, of which approximately 5 million tonnes is wastes normally collected from retail shops and small commercial premises by Local Authorities.

  10Refers only to hard materials from construction sites, eg, brick and concrete and road planings.

  11Rounded to nearest 10 million tonnes.

  Local Councillors
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what circumstances it is possible for a person to be an employee of a local authority to which he is, or may consider becoming, an elected member.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the provisions of section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 a person who is employed by a local authority is disqualified from being elected to, or being a member of, that local authority. Under section 116, a person cannot be employed by an authority for 12 months after he or she ceases to be a member.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the degree of influence which the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development has on(a) the World bank and (b) The International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Atkins
  At its meeting in May, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development agreed to aim at a more fruitful co-operation with the Bretton Woods institutions to promote sustainable development through sound macro-economic policies and a favourable international economic environment.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will urge the World Trade Organisation to allow the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development to be represented at meetings of its committee on trade and the environment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom fully supports the case for admitting the United Nations Commission on 500
  Sustainable Development as an observer to the committee on trade and environment, to be established in the World Trade Organisation.

  Housing Association Grants
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to amplify his advice to local planning authorities on sustainable development contained in PPG13; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend proposes to publish a good practice guide to PPG13 later this year. Together with the Department of Transport, my Department will also commission and publish research designed to improve our understanding of the relationship between transport and land use and will monitor the implementation of the policies contained in PPG13 through development plans, local transport policies and individual decisions.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps his Department will take to mitigate the effect on tenants on low incomes of changes in housing association grant rates for 1995–96;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding the changes in housing association grant rates for 1995–96.

  Sir George Young
  Decisions on the housing association grant rates that will apply in 1995–96 have not yet been taken. Before reaching a decision, I shall carefully consider the implications of lower grant rates on a range of issues, including the likely impact on the rents that tenants have to pay.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints he has received about the operation of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 through harassment by landlords.
  501
  Sir George Young
  From time to time, this Department receives letters from mobile home residents alleging harassment by site owners. Although we do not keep a numerical record of such complaints, they do not form a significant proportion of the correspondence we receive on mobile home issues. Harassment of an occupier of a mobile home can constitute a criminal offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

  Environmental Protection Group (Newsletter)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he published his Department's most recent environmental protection group research newsletter; how many copies were printed; at what cost; and to whom it has been distributed or made available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The 1994–95 environmental protection group research newsletter was first published in April 1994. To date, 800 copies have been printed, at a cost of £578·13. The newsletter is available on request and has been sent to organisations within both the public and private sector as well as to individual members of the public.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce a decision regarding council tax liability for severely mentally impaired people.

  Mr. Curry
  We are still considering this matter.

  National Forest Strategy
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to implement the national forest strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The national forest is an ambitious and imaginative environmental project to create a new forest in the heart of the country, in an area where much of the land has been despoiled by mineral working. The consultation exercise carried out earlier this year by the Countryside Commission confirmed that there is overwhelming local support for the venture. I am now announcing my intention to set up a new lead body to take the project forward.

  The establishment of this body marks a milestone towards achieving our manifesto commitment to development of the national forest. The forest will bring many benefits to the area through improved landscapes and other environmental benefits, economic and leisure opportunities. It is an excellent example of sustainable development—environmental improvement which will also bring economic regeneration. In the longer term the forest will provide a national asset of the same kind as the ancient forest of Dean or the New forest, to be enjoyed by future generations.

  The Countryside Commission national forest development team has provided a firm foundation for the new body to build on. The creation of the forest will require the participation of several partners, including the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Commission, local authorities and private landowners. A new independent body will be able to co-ordinate and promote new partnerships and act as a catalyst for local and national initiatives in the forest area.
  502
  The body will be a company limited by guarantee. The members of the company will be myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We shall appoint a chairman and directors in due course. It is my intention to seek parliamentary approval, through an amendment to section 153 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to provide financial support for the company's administration and special project initiatives.

  Our long-term aim for the forest is to create new woodlands covering about one third of the 200 square mile area. All the planting in the forest will be voluntary. There is no question of compulsory land purchase. In addition to forest planting, the body will encourage the development of leisure and recreation, rural enterprise, habitat protection, restoration of mineral workings and community involvement. These ventures will be funded through the body's project funds and through existing forestry and other grant mechanisms.

  Compulsory Purchase Order (Hastings)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to announce his decision on the Hastings Central Cricket and Recreation Ground Compulsory Purchase Order 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend announced today his decision to confirm the compulsory purchase order and to issue the associated certificate relating to exchange land.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of borrowing have been undertaken by each urban development corporation in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The level of borrowing undertaken by each urban development corporation in each year since 1981 is as follows:

  Urban development corporation

  Amount (£)

  Year

  Birmingham Heartlands

  Nil

  —

  Black Country

  Nil

  —

  Bristol

  Nil

  —

  Central Manchester

  350,000

  1992–93

  Leeds

  Nil

  —

  London Docklands

  Nil

  —

  Merseyside

  184,700

  1982–83

  Merseyside

  130,000

  1983–84

  Merseyside

  125,000

  1984–85

  Merseyside

  605,000

  1985–86

  Merseyside

  55,000

  1986–87

  Plymouth

  Nil

  —

  Sheffield

  Nil

  —

  Teesside

  276,500

  1987–88

  Trafford Park

  Nil

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  Nil

  —

  Urban and Regeneration Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of urban and regeneration expenditure listed for each separate urban programme area in each year since 1980–81 at(a) cash prices and (b) current prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: Tables showing urban programme expenditure in cash and current price terms will be placed in the Library.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report on the progress of the private sector advisory forum; and what further plans he has for strategic contracting out of civil service functions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The private sector forum met on 8 July to discuss issues emerging from the competing for quality programme. The forum provided an opportunity for the Government and the private sector to exchange experience on the progress of the competing for quality programme so far. No individual market tests were discussed, nor any specifics of Departments' future plans. We will be considering how to take these discussions forward with the private sector. I do not prejudge whether an activity should be contracted out strategically. For each activity which is examined in the competing for quality programme, a number of options, including abolition, privatisation, contracting out, market testing with an in-house bid, and securing in-house efficiencies are considered.

  Efficiency Unit Scrutiny
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received the report of the efficiency unit scrutiny of Government research establishments; and if he will ensure its publication before the end of July.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The report on the efficiency scrutiny of civil public sector research establishments was published yesterday, 11 July. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the full report of the efficiency unit's scrutiny of the use of consultants in Government Departments will be published; and whether the unit intends to draw up good practice guidance for Departments along the lines of that issued recently by the Audit Commission to local authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The report of the efficiency unit's scrutiny on the Government's use of external consultants will be published shortly. It is a key task of the efficiency unit to disseminate "best practice" to Departments and agencies, and the scrutiny is likely to make recommendations which will assist in sharing and promoting good practice in the purchasing and managing of external consultancy.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None of the organisations, agencies or other bodies under my departmental responsibility has been privatised since 1990. Plans for privatisation involving my departments will be considered on their merits as part of a prior options exercise and the results will be announced as appropriate.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the next steps that he will propose to the European Union for a resolution of the crisis in Greek-Macedonian relationships.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Member states of the European Union regularly discuss the dispute between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We support the European Commission's action in referring to the European Court of Justice the unjustified trade restrictions placed by Greece on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We were disappointed by the Court's decision not to indicate interim measures, although the main case continues. We support the United Nations mediation process under Mr. Vance, and urge both parties to re-engage constructively in negotiations with him.

  UNESCO
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost of rejoining UNESCO might be if(a) the United Kingdom rejoined without the United States of America and (b) the United Kingdom and the United States of America both rejoined; what the benefits of rejoining might be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The annual cost of resumed United Kingdom membership of UNESCO would be around £8 million if the United States also rejoined, or £11 million if it did not. The principal benefit to the United Kingdom of rejoining UNESCO would be the enhancement of our ability to participate in the work of the organisation, but any benefit must be weighed against the financial costs. We keep the issue of resumption of membership under close review. No decision has yet been reached.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to offer protection to critics of the Government of China currently resident in Hong Kong after 1997.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Sino-British joint declaration, which is a legally binding international treaty, provides that the rights and freedoms provided for by Hong Kong's present laws shall be maintained after 1 July 1997. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the freedom to demonstrate will remain protected.

  Mr. Han Dong Fan
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet Mr. Han Dong Fan, chairman of the independent Chinese trade union movement, on his forthcoming visit to Britain.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to do so.

  Social Development Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the United Kingdom Government's objectives at the world summit on social development.
  505
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our objectives for the world summit on social development are to strengthen effective international cooperation and co-ordination around the three core issues of the summit, which are:

  (i) the enhancement of social integration

  (ii) the alleviation and reduction of poverty

  (iii) the expansion of productive employment

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the Falkland Islands about the ratification of the non-proliferation treaty of Tlatelolco.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom ratified the two additional protocols to the treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America, treaty of Tlatelolco, on 11 December 1969. Under article 1 of additional protocol 1, the United Kingdom agreed to apply various articles of the treaty, including article 1—denuclearisation in respect of warlike purposes—in those territories for which it is internationally responsible within the treaty zone. This includes the Falkland Islands.

  Although there is no nuclear activity in the Falkland Islands, the Legislative Council of the islands, as required by the protocol, passed a Bill entitled "The Nuclear Safeguards Ordinance 1993" on 16 November 1993. This ordinance will give effect, in the Falklands, to an agreement between the United Kingdom, the IAEA and Euratom for the application of safeguards as envisaged in the treaty of Tlatelolco.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have decided to privatise the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations as an independent foundation (Cm 2376) and to study options for the future ownership of the Natural Resources Institute. A "Prior Options" study of Wilton Park executive agency will commence in September 1994.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any provisions of the treaty for enlargement of the European Union signed in Corfu on 24 June which change the powers, constitution, or procedures of the institutions of the European Communities other than by changes of numbers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following provisions in the treaty of accession change the powers, constitution or procedures of the institutions of the European Communities other than by numerical change to allow for the representation of the new member states in these institutions:Article 2(2) of the treaty gives the Council (acting unanimously) power to decide upon indispensable adjustments in the case that not all the applicant states deposit their instruments of ratification in due time.
  Article 12 of the Act of Accession alters the second paragraph of the EC Treaty and the corresponding Articles of the other Community Treaties, to give the Council (acting unanimously) power to determine the order in which the office of the President shall be held by each member state.
  506
  Articles 154, 155, 156 and 157 of the Act of Accession give the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice respectively, powers to make such adaptations to their rules of procedure as are rendered necessary by accession.
  Article 4 of Protocol 8 to the Act of Accession gives the European Parliament the power to verify the credentials of representatives elected to the Parliament in the Member States in the period between ratification of the Treaty and its entry into force.

  Clayoquot Sound (Conservation)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of the United Kingdom Government to the Government of Canada, concerning conservation in Clayoquot sound.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: The decision on land use in the Clayoquot sound area of Vancouver Island was for the Government of British Columbia to make. The Canadian Government and the British Columbia authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about logging in the Clayoquot sound region.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Latin America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study Her Majesty's Government have been making with the European Commission of late to the expansion of waterways allowing Bolivia access to the Atlantic; and what help is being given through EC sources or directly.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Mercosur countries—Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay—and Bolivia are working together to design the Hidrovias project to re-condition the navigation and port facilities along a stretch of waterways between Caceres in Brazil and Nueva Palmira in Uruguay. They have approached the European Community for assistance in implementation. Following the agreement between the Hidrovia intergovernmental committee and the Inter-American Development bank, the Commission is considering a request to meet the costs of technical feasibility studies for development of ports, incluing Puerto Bush and Puerto Quijarro in Bolivia.

  We have not been involved in these activities bilaterally, but will play an active role in discussions in Brussels of the proposals.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what EC programmes to transfer technology to Latin America the United Kingdom is participating.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Latin America benefits from both DG XII's life science and technology for developing countries programme and the international scientific co-operation initiative. United Kingom laboratories, principally in universities and Govenrment centres, participate actively in both programmes. In both cases, the focus is on joint scientific research.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of EC aid to Latin America, earmarked for the relief of poverty in cities.
  507
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  For 1994, the total value of the European Community's budget lines for "Technical and Financial Assistance" and for food aid for Latin America is 232·5 mecu, about £182 million. Technical and financial assistance in Latin American developing countries includes operations concerning the environment, women, drug abuse control, democratisation, regional co-operation and disaster prevention and reconstruction measures.

  The Commission does not earmark funds to specific sectors but high priority is given to aid projects designed to alleviate urban poverty. Projects of this kind are at present under preparation for Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Guatemala. Projects for Brazil and Guatemala have recently been approved.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of the Alpha programme, designed to update the curriculum of Latin American universities; and what is the value of the United Kingdom's contribution to the programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ALFA programme is worth 40 mecu, about £31 million, over five years, of which 32 mecu, about £25 million, will come from the European Community economic co-operation programme with Latin America. The United Kingdom contributes to this by means of its contributions to the Community budget.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of (i) British and (ii) EC aid to anti-pollution projects on(a) the Sao Paulo river, (b) the Tieté river cleaning project and (iii) the Nitecoy bay cleaning project; what consideration has been given to the public health and environmental impact of both projects; and what encouragement has been given to private capital in Europe to invest in the projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is no British bilateral or European Community aid to any pollution projects on the Sao Paulo river, Tieté river or in Nitecoy bay. Several bodies encourage private investment in the region, including: the European Community investment partners scheme, the European Investment bank and the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Neither the Overseas Development Administration nor the European Commission is aware of any application to these schemes for financing projects in those areas.

  Indo-British Forestry Initiative
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the papers to be presented from the United Kingdom to the Indo-British forestry initiative workshop to be held in New Delhi in July.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly. I will also include the papers being presented to the workshop by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, which were prepared with British assistance.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Luxury Cars (Italian Tax)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has made to the Italian Government on the subject of the taxation of luxury cars in Italy;

  (2) what representations he has made to the European Commission on the subject of the taxation of luxury cars in Italy;

  (3) what representations he has received on the effect of the Italian taxation system on exports of luxury cars to Italy.

  Mr. Needham
  Officials have made written and oral representations in Brussels in support of a formal complaint to the Commission by a British car manufacturer. The British embassy in Rome has raised the issue with the Italian Government. We have made clear our willingness to discuss further action to help British car manufacturers affected by the Italian tax.

  Import Restrictions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what non-military products from eastern and central European countries are subject to restrictions on imports into the European Union in the form of(a) quotas, (b) tariffs, (c) certificates of quality or (d) other requirements.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of the trading arrangements between the Community and the eastern and central European countries are set out in the association agreements and their annexes and protocols concluded between the EC and Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Romania and Bulgaria. Copies of these agreements have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, anti-dumping remedies exist against certain imports of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, iron and steel products and polyester fibres. There are also Community-wide tariff quotas in place on imports of certain steel products from the Czech and Slovak Republics. Goods supplied to the Community market are subject, product for product, to common testing, certification, standardisation and safety requirements as appropriate and necessary whether imported or of domestic EC manufacture.

  Free Trade
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made on the development of free trade between the European Union and(a) Russia, (b) other CIS states, (c) the Baltic republics, (d) the Visegrad group, (e) Romania, (f) Bulgaria, (g) Slovenia and (h) Albania.

  Mr. Needham
  The European Union recently signed partnership and co-operation agreements with Russia and Ukraine. Each of those agreements provides for the parties to examine in 1998 whether circumstances allow the beginning of negotiations on the establishment of a free trade area between the EU and Russia and Ukraine respectively. Similar agreements now under negotiation with other republics of the former Soviet Union are not so specific but allow for development of the trade provisions as circumstances permit. Negotiations for free trade agreements have recently been concluded with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These should enter into force on 1 January 1995.
  509
  The trade provisions of the association agreements signed between the EU and the Visegrad countries, Romania and Bulgaria envisage free trade with all those countries by 2002 at the latest. The EU is committed to opening its market first, and has put into effect a number of further concessions agreed at the European Council in Copenhagen in June 1993. From 1 January 1995, nearly all imports of industrial products from the Visegrad countries will enter the EU without restrictions.

  The EU will shortly begin negotiations with Slovenia for a similar association agreement with free trade as one of its aims. The EU has a bilateral trade and co-operation agreement with Albania. There are no plans at present to go beyond this by entering into a free trade agreement.

  Universal Postal Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 116, which body at Community level will define the list of reserved services made available to the operators of the universal postal service under the proposed reserved services directive of the European Union.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that the European Commission has not yet reached a view on whether the legal basis for its proposed directive defining the set of services which may be reserved at national level should be article 90 or article 100A of the treaty of Rome. In either event, we would expect the European Council and the European Parliament to play a full part in the process.

  Seville Expo '92
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the final cost to Her Majesty's Government of the Seville Expo '92; and if he will separately identify costs and contingent liabilities consequent upon the liquidation of Joanna Bickerton Associates.

  Mr. Needham
  The final costs have yet to be settled. As stated in my answer of 3 May 1994,Official Report, column 415, I will write to the hon. Member when they are. The final costs will include the ex gratia payments of £220,307 made by the Department, without any admission of liability, to the liquidator of Joanne Bickerton Associates and certain suppliers of Joanna Bickerton Associates.

  Chinese Silk and Silk Products (Imports)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects to be able to renegotiate the size of the United Kingdom's EC quota for the import of silk and silk products from China;

  (2) what representations he has received about the size of the United Kingdom's EC quota for the import of silk and silk products from China;

  (3) what plans he has to increase the size of the United Kingdom's EC quota for the imports of silk and silk products from China;

  (4) what percentage of the EC's imports of silk arid silk products from China is allocated to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  The silk quotas are set and allocated on an EC-wide basis: no member state has a pre-determined share. Traditional silk importers throughout the EC receive 510
  an allocation based on a percentage of their trade in 1992, while newcomers receive a small fixed amount. Following over 2,000 complaints about the quotas from United Kingdom traders, the Government have been pressing hard for an increase in the levels for this year and the Commission is expected to make a proposal to this effect shortly. For 1995, the Commission has already opened negotiations with China for a bilateral agreement on silk imports as part of which the Government will be looking for a significant increase in future access levels.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on answering parliamentary questions which seek information previously published in the monthly review of external trade statistics.

  Mr. Needham
  The CSO is resuming publication of the monthly review of external trade statistics, this month, as "Business Monitor MM24". All the statistical series published in it are available from the Central Statistical Office's central shared database, access to which is available from the Library of the House. The policy on questions seeking information published in the monthly review will be consistent with that for other publications which are available in the Library of the House, or whose contents are available on the central shared database.

  Fur Imports Ban
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what documentation his Department has received from the Canadian Government in support of their application for a one-year suspension of the fur import ban provided for in EC Regulation No. 3254;

  (2) if he will give details of the representations he has received during the last year from (a) the Canadian Government, (b) the Canadian fur trade and (c) the British fur trade regarding EC Regulation No. 3254 banning the import of certain furs;

  (3) how many times he or his officials have met members of (a) the Canadian Government and (b) the Canadian fur trade during the past year to discuss the effects of EC Regulation No. 3254.

  Mr. Needham
  EC Regulation 3254/91, which was due to come into force on 1 January 1995, has been suspended for one year. Work is continuing in the international standards organisation on a trap standard. Ministers and officials in my Department regularly meet our Canadian opposite numbers. We have met the Canadian Government over the last year on a number of occasions to discuss trade issues, including the EC leghold trap regulation. In the course of those contacts, Canada provided information on the progress made in replacing leghold traps with alternative trapping methods. The Government took this information into account when preparing the United Kingdom position on the Commission proposal to suspend the regulation. Neither the Canadian nor the United Kingdom fur trade has made any representations to my Department during the last year.

  Health Care Sector Group
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, 4 July,Official Report, column 10, who will serve on the health care sector group; and when he expects it to be operational.

  Mr. Needham
  I intend that membership should be drawn from a wide cross section of the health care sector. I hope to appoint a chairman in the near future and that the group will be operational in the autumn.

  Nuclear Plants (Ukraine)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what examination his Department, consultants to his Department or the Atomic Energy Authority has re-conducted of the analysis conducted by the European bank for reconstruction and development for the G7 nations into the future visibility and capacity of Goskomatom, Ukraine's civil nuclear operator, safely to manage its nuclear plants; and if he will arrange for a copy of the EBRD study to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the request of the G7, the EBRD and the World bank carried out a joint fact-finding mission to Kiev

  Value of Electrical Goods Imported into the United Kingdom (£ millions, current prices)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January to April 1994

  Japan

  2,983

  2,801

  2,897

  3,058

  3,358

  1,176

  Taiwan

  498

  429

  460

  565

  751

  289

  South Korea

  408

  313

  287

  337

  477

  157

  Singapore

  510

  583

  686

  662

  1,109

  357

  Note:

  Electrical goods are classified as heading 716 and divisions 75–77 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Futons (Safety)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the risk to health of the continued use of boric acid powder as a fire retardant in futons.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A review of the scientific literature has been undertaken by the Department of Health and no evidence has been found that suggests that boric acid used as a fire retardant in a futon presents a risk to the user.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing imports and exports of finished consumer goods, intermediate goods and capital goods each quarter since the second quarter of 1992, distinguishing between EEC and non-EEC countries.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is stored in the Central Statistical Office's central shared database, access to which is available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish a table showing imports 512
  to assess the options for, and cost of, improving nuclear safety in Ukraine. It would not be normal practice to place a report of such a mission in the Library of the House.

  Clean Technology (South Africa)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to promote environmentally clean technology on his forthcoming visit to South Africa; and whether any representatives of the British Nuclear Industrial Forum will accompany him on his trip.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans specifically to promote environmental clean technology on his forthcoming visit to South Africa. No representatives of the British nuclear industrial forum will accompany him on his trip, although two member companies will be represented.

  Electrical Goods (Imports)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of electrical goods imported in each of the years 1989 to 1994 from(a) Japan, (b) Taiwan, (c) South Korea and (d) Singapore.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is in the following table.

  and exports of semi-finished and finished manufactures from and to each EEC country for each quarter since the second quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  Information for 1992 is published in "Business Monitor MM20" whilst information for 1993 is published in "Business Monitor MQ20". Copies of these publications are available from the Library of the House.

  Imported Retail Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake a survey to find out(a) the proportion of non-food, non-fuel, non-alcoholic goods sold retail which are imported and (b) the effect movements in the exchange rate have had on prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1990, the following privatisations have been undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry and the former Department of Energy:
  513

  1990 Sale of 12 Regional Electricity Companies

  1991 Sale of National Power and PowerGen

  1992 Sale of British Technology Group

  Plans for future privatisations are as follows:

  (i) On 17 February this year, I announced the Government's intention to privatise the commercial activities of the Atomic Energy Authority, Official Report, columns 922–924.

  (ii) My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced plans for the future of the National Engineering Laboratory, Laboratory of the Government Chemist and National Physical Laboratory on 14 April this year, Official Report, columns 251–253.

  (iii) The Government expect to return the coal mining activities of British Coal Corporation to the private sector by the end of the year.

  On 30 June, the Department published a Green Paper on "The Future Of Postal Services" (Cm 2614). The Green Paper set out a number of options for the future of the Post Office. The Government's preferred option is to allow Royal Mail and Parcelforce to operate as a private company owned by the public and employees, with the Government retaining 49 per cent. of the shares. This is subject to a consultation period, after which a decision will be made.

  My right hon. Friend is reviewing the scope for privatisation or contractorisation of the Patent Office and Companies House as part of the required periodic agency review process, which considers a range of possibilities from abolition to maintenance of the status quo.

  Latin America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what help he gives to British companies in producing catalogues designed to promote British goods in Latin America.

  Mr. Needham
  A commercial publicity support package is available to companies participating in an overseas trade fair, exhibition or outward mission.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he had had with the Institute of Export about training people in Latin American studies.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department liaises with the Institute of Export on a number of matters. The institute, through its 21 regional centres and its magazine "Export

  Latin America Summary of ECGD cover position as at July 1994

  Market

  Medium term Cover availability

  Cover availability for cash SGs

  Consensus category

  ECGD underwriter

  Telephone

  Comments

  Argentina

  3DX

  R

  2A

  Martin Crane

  071-512 7320

  Cover available

  Bolivia

  0

  R

  3

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  No cover available

  Brazil

  4DX

  Y

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  Cover available for the private sector. Public sector cover on a case by case basis

  Chile

  4

  Y

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  Cover available

  Colombia

  4

  Y

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  All facilities available

  Costa Rica

  0

  R

  2B

  Nick George

  071-512 7557

  No cover available

  Cuba

  0

  R

  2B

  Nick George

  071-512 7557

  No cover available

  Ecuador

  0

  R

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  No cover available

  El Salvador

  2DX

  Y

  3

  Nick George

  071-512 7557

  Cover available

  Guatemala

  0

  R

  2B

  Nick George

  071-512 7557

  No cover available

  Honduras

  0

  R

  3

  Nick George

  071-512 7557

  No cover available

  Mexico

  3

  Y

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  All facilities available

  Nicaragua

  0

  R

  3

  Nick George

  071-512 7557

  No cover available

  Panama

  0

  R

  2A

  Nick George

  071-512 7557

  No cover available

  514
  Today", ensures that its members are fully informed of opportunities in Latin America and elsewhere, drawing on the support and advice of the Overseas Trade Services.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the engineering industry and related consultants on the export of invisibles to Latin America and problems of credit cover.

  Mr. Needham
  There have been no representations to my Department from the engineering industry or related consultants on the export of invisibles to Latin America and the provision of export credit support for the same sector.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what help he is giving to British water companies to export expertise to Latin America.

  Mr. Needham
  I have established a water sector group of the Overseas Project Board under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Its overall aim is to help the United Kingdom water industry to maximise its share of overseas markets for its products and skills. In addition, British water companies are given maximum support in exploiting opportunities in Latin American markets by Whitehall Departments and our embassies overseas.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the credit cover given to Latin American countries by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the United Kingdom's major industrial competitors.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government are committed to improving the competitiveness of United Kingdom exporters. We have capped the premium rates in certain markets where these may be out of line with the rates charged by our main competitors. We have restored export credit cover for markets emerging from the debt crisis earlier than would normally have been the case. We have recently revised the project financing and overseas investment insurance scheme to provide more flexible support for exporters. A summary of the official export credit support provided by the Government to United Kingdom companies exporting to Latin America is being sent to the hon. Member and to the House of Commons Library. The cover available from the United Kingdom is broadly comparable with that provided by our major industrial competitors.
  515

  Market

  Medium term Cover availability

  Cover availability for cash SGs

  Consensus category

  ECGD underwriter

  Telephone

  Comments

  Paraguay

  2

  Y

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  All facilities available

  Peru

  0

  R

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  No cover available

  Uruguay

  4

  Y

  2B

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  All facilities available

  Venezuela

  4

  Y

  2A

  Stan Rosenthal

  071-512 7558

  Cover available for the private sector and PDVSA. (Public sector cover on a case by case basis)

  Key:

  Medium term cover availability

  4 = All facilities generally available. Cover may be limited, but at least £50 million is currently available, to be allocated on a first come, first served basis.

  3 = All facilities generally available. Cover may be limited, but at least £50 million is currently available, to be allocated on a first come, first served basis, but also subject to portfolio controls, i.e. Amber Zone Budget.

  2 = All facilities generally available. Cover may be limited, currently with less than £50 million available, to be allocated on a first come, first served basis.

  1 = No cover available but under review.

  0 = No cover available.

  DX = Limited cover available and only for projects which aid recovery.

  Cover availability for cash SGs (Specific Guarantees) for projects or one-off services contracts

  Y = Yes.

  N = No.

  R = Refer to Underwriter.

  Consensus category

  1 = Relatively rich countries with officially supported finance at Commercial Interest Reference Rates (CIRRs). Maximum credit period 5 years (exceptionally 8·5 years).

  2A = Intermediate countries, with officially supported finance at Commercial Interest Reference Rates (CIRRs). Maximum credit period 8·5 years.

  2B = Intermediate countries, with officially supported finance at Commercial Interest Reference Rates (CIRRs). Maximum credit period 10 years.

  3 = Relatively poor countries, with officially supported financing at SDR-based rate or CIRRs. Maximum credit period 10 years.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what encouragement he gives to British exporters to make contact with trading organisations and decision-making provincial Governments in the provinces of Argentina and with greater Buenos Aires.

  Mr. Needham
  The British embassy in Buenos Aires encourages individual United Kingdom companies and trade missions to visit the provinces of Argentina where many business opportunities can be found.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussion he has had with the incoming Government of Venezuela about trading with the Venezuelan utilities.

  Mr. Needham
  Discussions have taken place between officials, including the DTI export promoter, and representatives of the Venezuelan Government about the supply of United Kingdom goods and services to utilities in the gas, electricity and water sectors.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in the marketing plan process in relation to South America.

  Mr. Needham
  Market plans have been prepared for each of the United Kingdom's major markets in Latin America and are updated to reflect changes in the markets.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has about the number of export promoters he has brought in from the private sector to his Department to promote trade to South America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Eight export promoters covering Latin America have been seconded from the private sector.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the results of the study undertaken by his
  516
  Department between October 1992 and March 1993 on exports to Colombia, particularly in relation to railway rehabilitation.

  Mr. Needham
  The report of the United Kingdom-Colombia trade facilitation group was published and a copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Railways were identified as a sector offering good opportunities for United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade why he has raised the cost of ECGD cover to Argentina; and what estimate he has made of the effect on United Kingdom trade.

  Mr. Needham
  ECGD premium rates vary as a result of regular reviews of the risks associated with doing business in different markets.

  It is difficult to assess in isolation the effect of ECGD premium rates on trade, but the impact of the recent increase for Argentina is likely to be negligible.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contracts Her Majesty's Government have with chambers of commerce in major Latin American cities.

  Mr. Needham
  British embassies, visiting export promoters and officials from my Department have frequent contacts with chambers of commerce in the major cities of Latin America. Visiting United Kingdom business men are also encouraged to contact them as these chambers can offer valuable assistance.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what level in their companies were the business men who accompanied the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his visit to Latin America; and what his policy is towards persuading British companies to send their most senior executives to Latin America.
  517
  Mr. Needham
  It is a matter for individual Ministers to decide whether it is appropriate for a business team to accompany them, although this is now increasingly done. United Kingdom companies invited to join the business teams are encouraged to be represented at levels which will maximise the opportunities offered by the visits. This is generally at senior executive or board level which was the case, for example, with the recent visit to Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Unfair Consumer Contracts Directive
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 231, on what basis he has formed the view that the European directive on unfair consumer contracts does not apply to the sale of real property; what steps he has taken to ensure that this is the view of the European Commission and the European court; and what assistance and support is available to any British company required to defend an action in Europe seeking to apply the directive to real property.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The recitals to the directive make it clear that the intention is to prevent the use of unfair terms in contracts for the sale or supply of goods or services. Since real property is neither a good nor a service the presumption must be that the scope of the directive does not extend to transactions in real property, but it would be for the courts, if necessary, to rule on whether a particular contract term fell within the scope of the Directive. Any dispute must be settled by the parties to that dispute.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 231, if he will make a statement setting out precisely his understanding of the term "goods" in connection with the European directive on unfair consumer contracts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The term goods is not defined in the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. In the United Kingdom goods are generally taken to mean moveable as opposed to fixed property. It would be for the courts, if necessary, to interpret the terms used in the directive.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what were the green ticket payments made to Electricité de France in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 for electricity supplied through the interconnector;

  (2) which regional electricity companies act as agents for Electricité de France in the distribution of green ticket payments for electricity supplied through the inter connector.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: These are commercial matters for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much electricity in megawatt hours and percentage terms was supplied to the English and Welsh electricity markets from(a) British fossil-fuelled power stations, (b) hydro-electric stations, (c) other British renewable sources, (d) Electricité de France from nuclear and or hydro-electric sources and (e) Electricité de France from fossil-fuelled power stations.
  518
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: In 1993, the electricity supplied to the public distribution system in the United Kingdom—that is, excluding electricity generated by companies for their own use—was as follows:

  GWh

  Per cent.

  Fossil fuelled power stations

  215,667

  68·0

  Nuclear stations

  80,979

  25·0

  Hydro-electric stations

  3,676

  1·0

  Other renewable sources

  1,470

  0·5

  Net imports from France

  16,716

  5·0

  The electricity imports from France are from Electricité de France. Those regional electricity companies with output contracts with EdF can show that the electricity that they import from France is supplied from designated nuclear stations.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much in cash and percentage terms of the fossil fuel levy paid by the electricity consumers was paid in each of the last three financial years to(a) Nuclear Electric, (b) British renewable energy electricity generators and (c) Electricité de France.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 11 July I994]: Electricité de France does not receive payments from the fossil fuel levy. Payments to Nuclear Electric and British renewable electricity generators, in cash terms and as a percentage of levy receipts in the relevant year, have been as follows:

  Nuclear Electric

  Renewables

  Year

  £ millions

  per cent.

  £ millions

  per cent.

  1991–92

  1,281

  97

  12

  1

  1992–93

  1,291

  96

  29

  2

  1993–94

  1,139

  92

  68

  6

  Note: The balance of levy receipts is used to finance payments to British Nuclear Fuels plc in respect of nuclear electricity generated by its plant, and to cover certain other costs such as administration costs.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the total expenditure in 1993–94 on regional finance assistance to industry to the(a) Northern, (b) Yorkshire and Humberside, (c) east midlands, (d) south-west, (e) west midlands and (f) north-west regions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: Information on total expenditure on regional financial assistance in 1993–94 is not yet finalised. It will be published in the next edition of "Regional Trends" produced by Central Statistical Office.

  Post Offices (Peckham)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of all branch and sub-post offices in Peckham in the event of any change in status of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The Government have set out their views on the future of the nationwide network of post offices in their Green Paper "The Future of Postal Services". I know of no reason why post offices in Peckham should be treated differently from those in other parts of the country.

  Fire Safety Regulations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to alter fire safety regulations on flame-proof material for children's night clothing and for furnishings.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The fire safety regulations that control the fire retardency of children's night clothing are the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985. The regulations concerned with furnishings are the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended. Both those sets of regulations were considered as part of the overall review of legislation under the Deregulation initiative. To establish whether any changes to those regulations were necessary, my Department has taken account of the responses

  £'000

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  North East

  2,726

  3,141

  13,385

  4,247

  4,396

  4,696

  5,256

  North West

  2,755

  3,685

  3,609

  3,610

  4,099

  4,470

  4,835

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,601

  2,098

  2,300

  2,685

  2,872

  3,065

  3,394

  East Midlands

  1,116

  1,431

  1,594

  1,728

  1,863

  2,142

  2,378

  West Midlands

  2,042

  2,571

  2,945

  3,134

  3,640

  4,067

  4,691

  South West

  1,011

  1,390

  1,459

  1,616

  1,706

  1,924

  2,245

  South East

  1,389

  2,427

  2,664

  2,875

  3,094

  3,418

  4,053

  Eastern

  —

  —

  2392

  1,123

  1,310

  1,515

  1,777

  1Responsibility for import licensing transferred to North East Region during 1989–90.

  2Separate office for Eastern region established in October 1989 (formerly part of South East Office).

WALES

  Snowdonia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were killed or injured while walking or climbing in the Snowdonia national park in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many legal actions were initiated by the Development Board for Rural Wales which were(a) discontinued and (b) settled out of court for each year in the period 1983 to 1993;

  (2) if the legal fees incurred by the Development Board for Rural Wales form part of its management running costs;

  (3) how much the Development Board for Rural Wales spent on legal fees in each year in the period 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have asked the chief executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many legal actions were initiated by the Welsh Development Agency which were(a) discontinued and (b) settled out of court for each year in the period 1983 to 1993.
  520
  received during consultation with individual businesses, trade associations, local authorities, fire prevention, medical and consumer interests. After considering the results of the review, I have no plans to propose amendments to the nightwear regulations or the furniture and furnishings regulations.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Following is the running cost expenditure for each regional, now Government, office:

  Mr. Redwood
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the legal fees incurred by the Welsh Development Agency form part of its management running costs.

  Mr. Redwood
  Legal fees are charged to the relevant budget within the agency, including, where appropriate, management running costs.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the legal fees incurred by the South Glamorgan health authority form part of its management running costs.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  South Glamorgan health authority's procurer management running costs for 1993–94 included legal fees.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many legal actions were initiated by the South Glamorgan health authority which were(a) discontinued and (b) settled out of court for each year in the period 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the South Glamorgan health authority spent on legal fees in each year in the period 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:
  521

  South Glamorgan health authority's expenditure on legal fees

  £

  1983–84

  24,698

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  0

  1987–88

  27,395

  1988–89

  26,283

  1989–90

  44,755

  1990–91

  142,532

  1991–92

  178,298

  1992–93

  128,202

  1993–94

  104,114

  Source: South Glamorgan Health Authority Annual Accounts.

  Active registrations of capitation patients by family health service authority and age group at end March 19941

  0–2 year olds

  3–5 year olds

  6–9 year olds

  10–14 year olds

  15–17 year olds

  Number

  Rate2

  Number

  Rate2

  Number

  Rate2

  Number

  Rate2

  Number

  Rate2

  Clwyd

  2,670

  16·7

  9,644

  60·5

  15,621

  74·7

  18,768

  71·8

  9,732

  63·2

  Dyfed

  2,134

  17·1

  6,923

  53·7

  11,651

  66·6

  15,088

  68·2

  7,817

  63·5

  Gwent

  3,347

  17·8

  10,972

  58·1

  17,390

  72·5

  20,292

  71·7

  10,172

  63·4

  Gwynedd

  1,275

  14·5

  4,578

  50·9

  7,249

  63·8

  9,532

  64·6

  4,868

  57·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,583

  15·9

  12,360

  52·7

  19,806

  65·9

  23,481

  66·6

  11,229

  57·4

  Powys

  626

  14·7

  2,554

  58·6

  4,002

  69·1

  4,874

  65·2

  2,572

  59·3

  South Glamorgan

  4,141

  23·5

  11,366

  64·8

  17,190

  78·5

  19,811

  78·7

  9,192

  66·5

  West Glamorgan

  4,304

  30·8

  9,901

  69·7

  15,367

  80·1

  18,271

  79·0

  8,892

  68·4

  1Excludes lapsed registrations (registrations lapse in December if no visit has been made in the previous calendar year).

  2Per hundred resident population. 1992 mid year estimated population data has been used.

  Fishing, River Dee
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from nets fishermen on the River Dee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department has received a number of letters about the introduction in 1992 of National Rivers Authority byelaws for the protection of migratory fish stocks, and about National Rivers Authority proposals to reduce the commercial net fishing season to protect spring salmon runs.

  Economic Planning Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to set up an economic planning council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. I announced on 16 March 1994 my intention to establish a Welsh Economic Council, an advisory body, which I have now done. The second meeting of the council is scheduled for later this month.

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra moneys he intends to provide to assist local authorities in their delivery of community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 25 January 1994,Official Report, column 229.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for the period January to March the statistics on the active registrations of capitation patients for dental treatment in each family health service authority area in Wales, disaggregating the figures by each category and, for each, giving the actual number of patients and the take-up rate for each age group per 100 local population.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table, showing patients according to the age groups used by the Dental Practice Board.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner fundholding(a) practices and (b) applications there are in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 18 GP fundholding practices in Clwyd covering 43 per cent. of the population. Another practice is preparing to become a fundholder from 1 April 1995, which will increase population coverage to 45 per cent.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of general practitioner fundholding in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 117 fundholding practices in Wales, covering one third of the population. A further 29 practices are preparing to become fundholders from 1 April 1995, at which time population coverage will increase to 40 per cent.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of collecting and publishing the information contained in the patients charter comparative performance guide 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The budget for the comparative performance tables exercise was £45,000.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.
  523
  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1990, no decisions have been taken to privatise any organisations for which my Department has executive responsibility, but the possibilities are kept under continuing review.

  Pollution
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what warnings he has issued in relation to tropospheric ozone levels, nitrogen oxide and other noxious gases concentrations in the atmosphere in(a) Cardiff and (b) elsewhere in Wales over the past three years; what provision he has made to inform asthmatics, bronchitics, children and pregnant women of smog risks during days of high concentrations of pollution; what arrangements he has made for requests to reduce the use of cars in cities at such times of high concentrations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the issuing of warnings to relevant vulnerable groups concerning concentrations of pollution above World Health Organisation maximum safety levels in Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The Department of the Environment operates a United Kingdom-wide public information service on air quality. Under those arrangements, air pollution information is sent, free of charge, to the BBC, ITN, the Press Association and all national newspapers which receive the Met Office forecasts. A freephone air quality and health advice information line and bulletins for CEEFAX and TELETEXT forms part of this system. The information released includes, in times of poor air quality, advice on what individuals can do to help reduce pollution, for example by cutting down on car usage. Advice on what asthma sufferers and others can do to minimise any health effects is also provided.

  When air quality is expected to be poor the Department of the Environment also issues warnings of this via specific press notices: this has happened on two occasions in the last three years, on 20 December 1991 and 1 July 1994. In view of those arrangements, no specific consultation has been considered necessary on this matter with South Glamorgan health authority.

HEALTH

  General Whitley Council
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are involved in servicing the general Whitley council and its committees; what is the annual cost of running the council; and how many NHS staff are covered by the Whitley council.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are currently four staff working in the General Whitley Council management side secretariat. It is not possible to provide information about the running of the full council except at disproportionate cost. All national health service staff employed on national terms and conditions are covered by the general Whitley council.

  Health Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what pilot studies and other research have been conducted into the merging of family health services authorities and district health authorities; and whether she will make a statement;

  (2) what consultancy or start-up costs have been expended to date in respect of the possible merging of family health service authorities and district health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All district health authorities and family health services authorities are expected to develop effective joint working, and there have been many commentaries on the benefits of this well-established Government policy. There can be no research or pilot studies on merging authorities as no such merger can take place without a change in legislation, and consequently no costs have been expended in this area.

  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the perinatal mortality rate and (b) the neonatal mortality rate in each district health authority in England and Wales for 1985, 1990 and 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Mental Health Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the plans of the Social Services inspectorate to follow up a thematic study in relation to the mental health services in 1994–95.

  Mr. Bowis
  The social services inspectorate is planning to hold a workshop for staff of the local authorities who participated in the mental health thematic study.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the 1993 report by the Social Services inspectorate and the NHS executive of the special study on the impact of new community care arrangements on mental health services has yet been published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The 1993 report by the social services inspectorate, together with the national health service executive, of the study on the impact of new community care arrangements on mental health services entitled "Monitoring and Development: Community Care Monitoring, Special Study, Mental Health Services" was published in April. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a report by the Social Services inspectorate on the inspection of local authorities' arrangements to support mentally ill patients discharged from hospital will be published.

  Mr. Bowis
  Later this year.

  Children's Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will give details of the further studies to be undertaken by the social services inspectorate into the placement of children in homes unregistrable under the Children Act 1989;

  (2) if she will publish the results of the further studies to be undertaken by the social services inspectorate into the placement of children in homes unregistrable under the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  In the light of the social services inspectorate study of the provision of small unregistered children's homes in the north-west of England, published in February, a further study of a wider sample of local authority social services departments' practice is being undertaken. The aims of the study include the establishment of a national data base and a review of the application and understanding of the relevant regulations made under the Children Act.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what period of time a child can be placed in a home registrable under the Children Act 1989, but whose application has not been granted; and what regulations govern the placement.

  Mr. Bowis
  An application for registration as a registered children's home which has not been granted or refused within 12 months is, under paragraph 1(9) of schedule 6 of the Children Act 1989, deemed to have been refused by the local authority. The placement of a child by a local authority in an establishment awaiting decision on an application for registration is governed by the Arrangements for Placement of Children (General)

  Number of places as at 31 March:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  National Health Service beds1

  73,000

  68,300

  62,700

  59,600

  Private nursing homes2

  89,600

  109,000

  124,000

  144,300

  Local authority residential homes3

  103,600

  96,100

  85,000

  75,400

  Private residential homes3

  144,700

  154,500

  158,200

  161,400

  1Source KH03 returns, geriatric beds and beds for elderly mentally ill people.

  2Source K036 returns, general specialty, elderly people.

  3Source RAC5 returns, homes whose primary purpose is the care of elderly or elderly mentally ill people.

  Foster Families
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what period of time a child can be placed on a fee-paying basis with a family who are not registered as foster carers; and what regulations govern the placement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Private fostering is governed by part IX of the Children Act 1989 and the regulations made under it. For children placed by a local authority with foster carers, this is, inter alia, governed by the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991 which provide, in regulation 3(1), that, except in the case of an immediate placement, a child is not to be placed unless the foster parent is approved under that regulation.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 413, what was the most recent report from her Department or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before the pending report of the July 1993 survey, showing how
  526
  Regulations 1991, the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991, the Representations Procedures (Children) Regulations 1991, the Contact with Children Regulations 1991 and the Definition of Independent Visitors (Children) Regulations 1991.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a person needing hospital treatment must pay in order to receive treatment in a hospital of their own choice within the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is a fundamental principle of the national health service that NHS treatment is free of charge unless there is a specific statutory power to charge.

  Elderly People (Continual Care)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of elderly people in need of continual care were accommodated in(a) NHS beds, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) private residential homes in each district health authority in England for the years 1989–90, 1991–92 and the latest available figures.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of places in England available for people with long-term care needs are shown in the table. The figures include provision for elderly mentally ill people and people who need continuing specialised medical or nursing care in other age groups. Information by district health authority on local social services and private sector residential care could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  many children among any section of the population were in families with a nutritionally inadequate diet and had intakes which were, specifically, for any three or more of the nutrients measured for a necessary diet, below the levels recommended in any, or all, of the reference nutrient intake, estimated average requirement or the lower reference nutrient intake, or any of their immediate predecessors.

  Mr. Sackville
  The most recent relevant report is the report from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy on the "Diets of British Schoolchildren", published in 1989. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Disabled Young Adults
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress health authorities have made in implementing the recommendations made in the report,
  527
  "An Assessment of Health Related Needs of Physically Handicapped Young Adults"; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report was independent and was commissioned by the Department of Health. It was distributed to regional and district health authorities in March 1993 to help them consider how best to meet the needs of disabled young adults. The priorities and planning guidance 1994–95 (EL(93)54), issued to the national health service in June 1993, requires district health authorities to ensure that rehabilitation services address the special needs of disabled young adults, particularly those moving from child to adult services. The Department has made available £149,000 in 1994–95 to fund a series of projects within the national health service, which aim to develop and improve transition services for physically disabled school leavers.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the contribution made by television programmes encouraging young persons to experiment with anabolic steroids; and what research her Department has carried out on this subject.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are concerned at the risk to health arising from the misuse of anabolic steroids. The Department has not carried out any research on the impact of television programmes on young people. We are currently discussing with media companies initiatives to encourage young people not to experiment with drugs or solvents.

  Departmental Staff (Travel Costs)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of how many return trips are taken by Department of Health staff between London and Leeds(a) per week, (b) per month and (c) annually; and at what cost.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  NHS Executive Outposts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the numbers of staff employed by the NHS executive outposts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 31 March, a total of 53 staff were employed in the seven national health service executive outposts.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each wave the start-up costs for each NHS trust hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 17 May 1993,Official Report, column 29 and to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 18 May 1992, Official Report, column 63, and to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 12 May, Official Report, column 222.

  NHS Trust Applications
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each wave(a) the cost of assessing applications to become NHS trusts, (b) the number of applications assessed and (c) the consultants used to make the assessment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 November 1993,Official Report, column 225. Updated information for the fourth wave is shown.

  Cost £

  Number of Assessments

  Lead Management consultants

  305,012

  156

  Touche Ross

  Hospitals (Comparative Performance)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of collecting and publishing the information contained in the patients charter comparative performance guide 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The final cost of producing the first set of national health service performance tables has not yet been finalised.

  AIDS
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the reasons for the reduction in the AIDS support grant to the London borough of Brent.

  Mr. Sackville
  For 1993–94, AIDS support grant allocations were made on the basis of bids submitted by local authorities. Local authorities not receiving AIDS support grant were given money under the healthy alliances scheme for HIV prevention and joint working with health authorities. For 1994–95, local authorities were invited to submit expenditure plans against indicative allocations of both AIDS support grant and healthy alliances moneys. Those allocations were based on confidential information available for the first time and supplied to the Department by the public health laboratory service on the distribution of AIDS cases by local authority area. Where this formula would mean a reduction in grant in 1994–95, local authorities were advised that there might, in exceptional circumstances, be some scope to adjust allocations on a transitional basis and that applications for additional grant could be made.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which organisations representing old people she has received representations alleging age discrimination within the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has received representations from the following organisations:

  Age Concern (England);

  Association of Retired Persons;

  British Geriatrics Society;

  Pensioners' Liaison Forum, North West;

  Pensioners' Action Committee, Tameside;

  Age Concern Leicestershire;

  Age Concern Coventry;

  529

  Northern Pensioners' Association, Crewe and District Branch;

  Bury Pensioners' Association;

  National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners;

  The Methodist Church, Brentwood.

  Those representations have not identified individual instances of discrimination.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that age discrimination is eliminated from the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have consistently made it clear that there are no exceptions within the health service to the fundamental principle of equal treatment on the basis of clinical need. The patients charter reaffirms this right. Decisions about individual patient care are for the clinicians responsible for the case, but the patient's ability to benefit must always be the primary consideration.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individual complaints she has received to date from(a) Coventry, (b) the west midlands and (c) nationally about age discrimination in the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has received approximately 400 letters since April, many of them identical, expressing concern about alleged discrimination. We are not aware of any identified instances relating to services in Coventry or the west midlands.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to her departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans she has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Sackville
  No part of the Department of Health, its agencies, or related bodies have been privatised since 1990. Apart from the possible sale of a small part of the Public Health Laboratory Service involving up to four staff, there are no firm plans to privatise any parts of these organisations at present. However, privatisation is one of the "prior options" which must be considered before a next steps agency is created; or when an agency or non-departmental public body is the subject, respectively, of a framework or quinquennial review.

  Equal Treatment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that equal treatment for all on the basis of clinical need is adhered to.

  Mr. Sackville
  Providing equal treatment for all on the basis of clinical need is one of the principles of the national health service. This right is reflected in the patients charter.

  Day Nurseries
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of three to five-year-olds attend publicly funded day nurseries.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected by the Department of Health relates to the number of children aged under five attending local authority day nurseries and the number placed and paid for by local authorities in other types of day nursery. At 31 March 1993, there were 8·8 children per thousand aged under five in these two categories.

  Bradford Community Health Trust
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she has had with representatives of Bradford community health trust; what matters were discussed; and what action she has taken following such discussions;

  (2) if she will instruct the Bradford community health trust to close the secure unit located at Lynfield Mount hospital in Bradford; and if she will establish an independent public inquiry into how a remand prisoner escaped from the grounds of the hospital at the end of June.

  Mr. Bowis
  Officials from the national health service executive have regular discussions with Bradford community health national health service trust and have asked Professor Michael Schofield, chairman of the trust, to keep them informed, following the escape of a patient from Lynfield Mount hospital. We understand that the trust is to establish an independent external review panel to look at the policies and procedures of the special care unit at the hospital and that the panel's recommendations will be made public.

  Sigthin
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the drug Sigthin has been prescribed on the national health service over the past three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are unaware of any drug by the name of Sigthin.

  NHS Management
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the NHS executive and how many chief executives of(a) purchasers, (b) providers, (c) family health service authorities and (d) NHSE outposts have no graduate qualifications; and how she controls the quality of senior NHS management.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: Of the 17 directors in the national health service executive, including the chief executive, 15 are graduates and one has accountancy qualifications. They are subject to departmental annual appraisal procedures, including mid-year reviews based on set objectives. Information on the number of chief executives in the national health service without graduate qualifications is not available centrally. Senior NHS management are also subject to individual appraisal review of their success in meeting locally set objectives for delivering health care. Their levels of remuneration are firmly linked to their performance.

  Death Rate
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each year from 1979(a) the number of deaths that were expected annually in each health region and (b) the number of actual deaths that occurred in each health region using (i) England as standard, (ii) Wessex region as standard and (iii) Northern region as standard.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: This information will be placed in the Library.

  Lesbians (Parental Rights)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward proposals to prevent lesbians being given parental rights.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply. There are no plans to bring forward such proposals.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received from the Gay Hussar group in regard to strategies for reforming the EU common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Jack
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have received any such representations.

  Biological Diversity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation her Department had at the second session of the intergovernmental committee of the convention on biological diversity held in June in Nairobi; and if she will make a statement on the relevance of the decisions taken at the meeting for the completion of partnership agreements between the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Agricultural Research Centre involved in gene bank development.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom delegation comprised officials from the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Delegates to the meeting recognised and supported the intention of the Food and Agriculture Organisation to conclude agreements with the international agricultural research centres to place certain of their seed banks under its auspices.

  Animal Health and Veterinary Group
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to make an announcement of the conclusions of the review of her Department's animal health and veterinary group.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I intend to issue a consultation document shortly.

  EC Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of stock of beef, in tonnes, held in intervention in the United Kingdom; and if she will give details of the age profile of the stock.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Intervention Board. I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 12 July 1994:
  532
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about current beef stocks in intervention in the United Kingdom, and the age profile of these stocks.
  The information is set out in the attached table:

  Beef stocks at end of May 1994

  Year of origin

  Weight (tonnes)

  1990

  784

  1991

  6,980

  1992

  30,845

  1993

  15,139

  1994

  Nil

  Total

  53,658

DEFENCE

  China
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of arms spending by China.

  Mr. Aitken
  China's official defence budget for 1994 is 54·4 billion yuan—about US$6 billion—although there is also a considerable amount of military-related expenditure which does not fall to the Chinese defence budget.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Aitken
  No part of my departmental area of responsibility has been privatised since 1990. The next areas likely to reach that stage are the royal dockyards, for which tenders will be issued in due course. As announced in "Next Steps Review 1993" (Cm 2430), possible defence agency candidates covering a wide range of defence support activity are subject to a prior options review during which the scope for privatisation is explored. Likewise, the scope for privatisation is considered in other areas as part of my Department's "Competing for Quality" programme. For instance, as announced by the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 31 March 1993 Official Report, column 197, work is continuing to transfer the services' married quarters estate to a housing trust in the private sector on 1 April 1995. The scope for private sector involvement in defence support business has also been considered as part of the defence costs study on which we shall be making an announcement shortly.

  RNAD Trecwn
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when RNAD Trecwn was declared surplus; when tenders were invited to market RNAD Trecwn; and what were the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. Hanley
  RNAD Trecwn was declared surplus on 1 August 1992 and tenders were invited from estate agents and surveyors to market the site on 28 January 1994. The
  533
  intervening period was used to allow consideration to be given to the possibility of establishing a European armaments decommissioning facility at Trecwn.

  RAF Hendon and Peninsula Barracks
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date information was provided to the hon. R. Philipps or Crown Ridge Industries Ltd., on the details of(a) RAF Hendon (East Camp) and (b) Peninsula barracks, Winchester.

  Mr. Hanley
  In addition to being available from other sources, details of my Department's sites are widely disseminated by officials to many companies and individuals and no central records are maintained. As far as can be ascertained, however, no specific details of RAF Hendon (East Camp) or Peninsula barracks have been supplied to the hon. Rhodri Philipps and/or Crownridge Industries.

  The hon. R. Philipps was, however, provided in October 1993 with a list which is available to the public on request, naming all major sites in disposal or coming up for disposal. This is likely to have included brief details of Peninsula barracks and RAF Hendon (East Camp).

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the decisions were made(a) to dispose of Peninsula barracks, Winchester and (b) to invite tenders.

  Mr. Hanley
  The initial decision to vacate and dispose of Peninsula barracks was made in 1980, but this was dependent upon reprovision of the barracks on a green field site north of Winchester. Occupation of the new barracks started in 1986 and vacation of Peninsula barracks was completed in 1988.

  The site was initially marketed in July 1988, but the developer selected went into liquidation in 1990. The MOD with the Crown Estate, as joint owners of the site, pursued the planning application submitted by this developer and finally obtained planning permission in September 1993.

  Peninsula barracks was remarketed in January 1994 and an offer for the freehold was accepted in June 1994.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the decisions were made(a) to dispose of RAF Hendon (East Camp), and (b) to invite tenders.

  Mr. Hanley
  The initial decision to dispose of RAF Hendon (East Camp) was made in 1988 and the site has been marketed since 1989. Since that time some 7 acres of the site have been sold and a further five acres provisionally allocated for the use of the adjoining RAF museum.

  The remainder of the site was remarketed in January 1994, with a closing date for informal tenders of 31 March 1994.

  Testing Laboratories
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the MOD establishments which are accredited NAMAS—national measurement accreditation service—testing laboratories.

  Mr. Aitken
  Establishments in my Department and in defence agencies which are NAMAS accredited for calibration or testing purposes are listed in the table:534

  Royal Air Force Electrical Standards Laboratory, Deeside, Clwyd

  Defence Research Agency, Aquila, Kent

  Defence Radiological Standards Centre, Aldermaston

  Army Calibration and Standards Laboratory, Army Base Repair Organisation, Old Dalby, Leicestershire

  Defence Radiological Protection Service, Gosport, Hampshire

  Defence Research Agency Dunfermline, Rosyth, Scotland

  Defence Research Agency, Fort Halstead, Kent

  Defence Research Agency, Bridgwater, Somerset

  Defence Research Agency, Civil Marine Group, Portsmouth, Hampshire

  Environmental Test Centre, Foulness, Essex

  Proof and Experimental Establishment, Pendine, Dyfed

  Proof and Experimental Establishment, Eskmeals, Cumbria

  Proof and Experimental Establishment, Shoeburyness, Essex

  Proof and Experimental Establishment, Lavington, Wiltshire

  Test and Evaluation Establishment, Chertsey, Surrey

  Defence Clothing and Textile Authority (Quality and Product Support Division) Oxfordshire

  Royal Military College of Science, Swindon, Wiltshire

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by RAE Aberperth on sending electronic equipment for calibration at NAMAS accredited laboratories in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The figures for calibration of electronic equipment not arranged within the MOD and thus incurring charges are as follows:

  £

  1993–91

  523·34

  1992–93

  1,511·78

  1993–94

  2,135·57

  Stores Depot (Exeter)
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on refurbishing the Royal Navy stores depot in Exeter in each of the last five financial years.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to break down all the costs of expenditure on specific refurbishment from that of general works, maintenance and fire prevention measures at RNSD Exeter; however, overall expenditure in these areas in each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  Cost £

  1989–90

  515,000

  1990–91

  1,000,000

  1991–92

  650,000

  1992–93

  900,000

  1993–94

  1,400,000

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of closing the Royal Navy stores depot in Exeter;

  (2) what plans his Department has to conduct a full impact study of the effects of closing the Royal Naval stores depot in Exeter.

  Mr. Hanley
  Stores depots, including Exeter, were examined by the defence costs study, the outcome of which we hope to announce shortly.

  Chinook Helicopter Crash
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Chinook helicopter that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June was scheduled to land.
  535
  Mr. Hanley
  The Chinook helicopter that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June was scheduled to land at Fort George, Inverness.

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the amount of expenditure by his Department on training employment, enterprise, employment measures and labour market services in each year since 1979–80 in each region in(a) cash terms and (b) 1993–94 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Business Initiative Schemes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate for the business basics scheme for 1994–95.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Funds for the business start-up scheme have been transferred to the single regeneration budget in 1994–95. Provision for the single regeneration budget includes £70·122 million for business start-up support in that year.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was spent on business initiative 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Expenditure in 1993–94 on the business start-up scheme was £82 million.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the extent of(a) financial support and (b) training time offered by the business basics programme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Although now within the single regeneration budget, the business start-up scheme is expected to continue in 1994–95 to offer financial support within the previous range of £20 to £90 per week, plus a training element, both determined locally by training and enterprise councils. TECs may, however, provide start-up support in whatever form they consider appropriate to their local circumstances.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) women and (b) men took up the business initiative scheme in each month from April 1993 to April 1994, and give the extent of (i) financial support and (ii) training time.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Support is given under the business start-up scheme to help unemployed people set up their own businesses. The scheme is delivered by training and enterprise councils, which may provide these services under different titles. The numbers of people taking up the support between April 1993 and April 1994 are set out in the table. Financial support in 1993–94 ranged from allowances of £20 to £90 per week, for between 26 and 66 weeks. Training time was at the discretion of the local TECs.
  536

  Business Start-Up Scheme 1993–94—England. 4-Weekly Entrant Statistics

  Period Ending

  Entrants

  25 April 1993

  2,771

  23 May 1993

  2,699

  20 June 1993

  2,553

  18 July 1993

  2,470

  15 August 1993

  2,357

  12 September 1993

  2,544

  10 October 1993

  2,680

  07 November 1993

  2,730

  05 December 1993

  2,587

  02 January 1994

  1,819

  30 January 1994

  2,560

  27 February 1994

  2,732

  27 March 1994

  4,005

  1993–94

  34,507

  Individual totals for women and men for the various periods are not available. However, available data suggest that the overall proportion for the year—women: men—was approximately 31 per cent: 69 per cent.

  Crown Notices
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Crown notices have been served and Crown prosecutions initiated in each of the past 10 years; and whether he has any proposal relating to Crown immunity in Government Departments and agencies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following table shows the number of Crown enforcement notices issued over the last 10 years for which figures are available:

  Crown enforcement notices issued by Health and Safety Executive's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates (a), 1983–1992–93

  Year of issue (b)

  Improvement

  Deferred prohibition

  Immediate prohibition

  Total

  1983

  47

  3

  11

  61

  1984

  38

  —

  12

  50

  1985

  27

  2

  6

  35

  1986–87

  7

  1

  2

  10

  1987–88

  13

  1

  5

  19

  1988–89

  8

  —

  5

  13

  1989–90

  5

  —

  7

  12

  1990–91

  18

  —

  4

  22

  1991–92

  5

  —

  5

  10

  1992–93

  4

  2

  5

  11

  (a) Includes notices issued by the Quarries Inspectorate for years since 1990–91.

  (b) Figures for the calendar years 1983 to 1985 and the financial years beginning 1 April for subsequent years.

  Under the present law, Crown bodies cannot be prosecuted, but administrative procedures are in place for the censure of Crown bodies in circumstances where prosecution would otherwise be considered. The number of censures in each of the past 10 years is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  —

  1986

  —

  1987

  —

  1988

  1

  1989

  —

  1990

  3

  1991

  —

  1992

  3

  1993

  —

  1994

  1

  537
  The Government have no immediate plans to change the current position, which is that Crown bodies are bound by health and safety legislation and Health and Safety Executive inspectors seek to ensure that the law is complied with and that Crown employers meet standards of good practice found elsewhere. I understand that the HSE is considering the implications of removing Crown immunity from prosecution under health and safety legislation.

  Work Experience
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage work experience schemes for pupils in their final year at school.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government announced on 24 May,Official Report, column 198, that they have asked training and enterprise councils and their partners to ensure that all pupils in their final year of compulsory education can have at least one week's work experience. An additional £23 million will be provided over the three years to 1997–98 to support this.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The majority of the Employment Department's skillcentres were privatised in 1990. There has been no other privatisation since.

  We intend to privatise the Health and Safety Executive's electrical equipment certification service when a suitable legislative vehicle is available.

  Engineering Industry (Training)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has now completed his review of the engineering construction industry training board; and if he will make a statement.

  Holiday

  England and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  Monday January 2 In lieu of January 1

  BH

  BH

  —

  Monday January 2 New Year

  —

  —

  BH

  Tuesday January 3 In lieu of January 1

  —

  —

  BH

  Friday March 17 St. Patrick's Day

  —

  BH

  —

  Friday April 14 Good Friday

  BH

  BH

  BH

  Monday April 17 Easter Monday

  BH

  BH

  —

  Monday May 1 Early May Bank Holiday

  —

  —

  BH

  Monday May 8 Early May Bank Holiday

  BH

  BH

  BH

  Monday May 8 Bank Holiday

  —

  —

  BH

  Monday May 29 Spring Bank Holiday

  BH

  BH

  BH

  Wednesday July 12 Battle of the Boyne anniversary (Orangemen's Day)

  —

  BH1

  —

  Monday August 7 Summer Bank Holiday

  —

  —

  BH

  Monday August 28 Summer Bank Holiday

  BH

  BH

  —

  Monday December 25 Christmas Day

  BH

  BH

  BH

  Tuesday December 26 Boxing Day

  BH

  BH

  BH

  BH=Bank/public holiday.

  1indicates a provisional date, still subject to proclamation by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  538
  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to announce that the review of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board has now been completed.

  The review was wide-ranging and thorough. It included consultation with representatives of employers and employees in the engineering construction industry and an independent survey of all employers in scope to the board. There was widespread support from the industry for the retention of a statutory board with the power to raise a levy on employers.

  While it remains Government policy that sector training arrangements should normally be non-statutory, the Government are persuaded that different considerations continue to apply in the engineering construction industry. Since becoming an independent board in 1991, the ECITB has made substantial progress towards modernising training in its industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that it will be reconstituted as a statutory training board with effect from 23 July, until the end of March 1998, which will enable it to build on these achievements.

  I shall be writing to the chairman of the new board in due course to set out in more detail the Government's expectations of the board. A copy of that letter will be placed in the Library.

  May Day Bank Holiday
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on which day the May day bank holiday will fall during 1995 and 1996; and if he will list the dates of all the public holidays that have been fixed for 1995.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: On 16 December 1993 I announced that, for 1995 only, the early May bank holiday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be moved from the first Monday in May to the second Monday, 8 May, to link with events on and near VE day commemorating the 50th anniversary of the ending of the second world war. In Scotland, the anniversary will be marked by an additional day's bank holiday on the second Monday in May for 1995 only. In 1996, the early May bank holiday will revert to the first Monday in May. The bank and public holidays fixed for 1995 are set out in the following table:

  Railway Signalmen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 354, concerning the increase in real earnings of railway signalmen compared with white collar

  Gross weekly earnings of full-time employees—Pay unaffected by absence; at April

  Percentiles

  25 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  Real increase in pay 1979–1989

  Railway signalmen, and shunters etc.

  Men

  5·3

  13·7

  21·8

  Women

  —

  —

  —

  All manuals

  Men

  6·0

  9·8

  13·4

  Women

  10·3

  12·2

  16·6

  Private sector non-manuals

  Men

  23·1

  33·7

  40·7

  Women

  30·8

  40·8

  50·3

  Increases in pay 1989–1993

  Railway signalman, and shunters etc.

  Men

  26·5

  18·1

  21·7

  Women

  —

  —

  —

  All

  26·5

  18·1

  21·7

  All manuals

  Men

  1·6

  2·2

  2·3

  Women

  3·6

  4·7

  7·0

  All

  2·8

  2·2

  2·3

  Private sector non-manuals

  Men

  -0·1

  1·2

  2·8

  Woman

  9·3

  10·6

  12·0

  All

  6·6

  5·1

  4·7

  Gross pay levels

  Percentiles

  1993

  25 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  Mean

  Railway signalmen, and shunters etc.

  Men

  260·3

  323·4

  429·4

  365·5

  Women

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All

  260·3

  323·4

  429·4

  365·5

  All manuals

  Men

  201·2

  256·4

  324·0

  274·3

  Women

  130·5

  162·2

  205·8

  177·1

  All

  181·4

  239·1

  308·8

  256·6

  Private sector non-manuals

  Men

  253·9

  356·4

  498·3

  421·9

  Women

  167·0

  218·9

  293·3

  250·8

  All

  201·9

  289·8

  422·4

  353·4

  Source: New Earnings Surveys

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether railway signalmen are classified as skilled workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For statistical purposes, railway singalmen are classified as skilled manual workers.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in real earnings of non-manual workers in(a) electricity, (b) office
  540
  workers, if he will break down the figures to show the deciles in each case for 1979 to 1989 and 1989 to 1993 together with the actual earnings in April 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is set out in the table. Railway signalmen are classified as skilled manual workers and therefore information for manual workers is also included in the table.

  machinery, etc., (c) retail distribution, (d) railways, (e) banking etc., (f) banking and bill discounting, (g) business services, (h) accountants, auditors and tax experts, (i) social security, (j) higher education and (k) school education since 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  541

  Real percentage increase in average gross weekly earnings between April 1989 and April 1993 for full-time non-manual employees

  Industry

  Percentage increase

  Production and distribution of electricity

  14·8

  Manufacture of office machinery and data processing equipment

  3·2

  Retail distribution

  6·7

  Railways

  12·1

  Banking and finance

  9·9

  Banking and bill discounting

  8·0

  Business services

  5·2

  Accountants, auditors, tax experts

  11·0

  Social Security

  29·3

  Higher Education

  9·8

  School education (nursery, primary, secondary)

  15·5

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

SCOTLAND

  Maternity Units
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make funds available for the introduction of video monitoring cameras at all maternity units;

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of bar-code tagging newly born infants at all maternity units;

  (3) if he will consult urgently the Royal College of Midwives on proposals for security at maternity units;

  (4) if he will extend the pilot schemes for tagging newly born infants at Edinburgh Simpson hospital and Law hospital;

  (5) what proposals he has for introducing better security procedures at maternity units.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is for health boards and NHS trusts to consider and implement the most appropriate security measures to meet the needs of individual maternity units. It is for health boards to decide on the priorities for the extra funds which have been made available to them. My right hon. Friend does not propose to consult the Royal College of Midwives on this matter but any views which the college wishes to offer should be conveyed to health boards and NHS trusts. In addition he will arrange for the lessons drawn from the pilot schemes at Law hospital and Simpson Memorial maternity pavilion, Edinburgh to be disseminated.

  The cost of bar code tagging would be relatively inexpensive since the electronic tags themselves are cheap, but the main costs would be on the scanning and alarm systems. There are several different types of security systems on the market, but an average cost would be between £15,000 and £20,000 for a large maternity unit.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of non-administrative staff in maternity units are part-time or temporary workers.

  Mr. Stewart
  Identification of temporary staff and of staff working solely within maternity units is not possible from data held centrally.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions his Department has given to consultants regarding a review of the functions of the Scottish Legal Aid Board; and if he will make it his policy to place a copy of any report in the Library.
  542
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In accordance with current practice, the Scottish Office Home and Health Department is at present seeking the views of interested parties on the quinquennial policy and financial management review of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. As part of that process, a small number of interviews with a range of interested individuals are being organised by the Scottish Office central research unit. Professor Alan Alexander, professor of local and public management at the university of Strathclyde, who is a member of the steering group set up to oversee the review, is providing assistance with the analysis of the results of these interviews. No further consultancy input to the review has yet been commissioned. My right hon. Friend will consider in due course how the results of the review should be publicised.

  Scottish Enterprise and SDA
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Development Agency spent on legal fees in each year in the period 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested for the Scottish Development Agency was not maintained centrally and is therefore not available. The level of spend on legal fees by Scottish Enterprise is an operational matter for that body and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Occupational Therapy (Children)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that a locally based paediatric occupational therapy service is provided for children in the Forth Valley health board area.

  Mr. Stewart
  Forth Valley health board has proposed, as part of its development plans for 1994–95, to set up a community paediatric occupational therapy service which will form part of a local community paediatric team.

  Sherriff Court Actions
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ordinary actions were raised in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Paisley, Dundee, Airdrie and Stornaway sheriff courts in(a) November 1992, (b) November 1993, (c) January 1994 and (d) May 1994.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures for ordinary actions are set out in the table:

  November 1992

  November 1993

  January 1994

  May 1994

  Glasgow

  946

  803

  458

  669

  Edinburgh

  552

  442

  271

  377

  Aberdeen

  303

  260

  197

  280

  Paisley

  261

  239

  110

  152

  Dundee

  189

  170

  107

  156

  Airdrie

  179

  202

  70

  110

  Stornoway

  12

  18

  9

  5

  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the perinatal mortality rate and (b) the neonatal mortality rate in each health board for 1985, 1990 and 1993.
  543
  Mr. Stewart
  The information is given in the table.

  Perinatal mortality for Scotland Per 1,000 total births live and still

  Neonatal mortality for Scotland Per 1,000 live births

  Health board

  1985

  1990

  1993

  1985

  1990

  1993

  Borders

  5

  4

  5

  2

  5

  —

  Forth Valley

  10

  11

  11

  8

  6

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10

  5

  9

  3

  4

  4

  Fife

  10

  7

  9

  5

  3

  4

  Grampian

  11

  9

  9

  7

  4

  3

  Highland

  7

  8

  10

  4

  4

  4

  Lothian

  11

  8

  9

  7

  5

  3

  Tayside

  7

  12

  9

  4

  4

  3

  Orkney Islands

  21

  11

  4

  9

  7

  —

  Shetland Islands

  13

  6

  6

  10

  —

  3

  Western Isles

  5

  12

  14

  —

  6

  7

  Strathclyde health areas

  Argyll and Clyde

  10

  7

  12

  5

  4

  4

  Ayrshire & Arran

  9

  8

  8

  7

  4

  4

  Greater Glasgow

  10

  10

  10

  5

  5

  5

  Lanarkshire

  9

  8

  10

  5

  5

  4

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the legal fees incurred by Scottish Enterprise form part of its management running costs.

  Mr. Stewart
  Legal fees incurred by Scottish Enterprise do not form part of its management running costs but are part of a programme budget operated by the Legal Department, and from which the cost of any appropriate external legal advice would be met.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by wave the start-up costs for each NHS trust hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 7 December 1993 Official Report, column 77.

  Spanish and Portuguese
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many schools(a) Spanish and (b) Portuguese are taught; and how many (i) teachers and (ii) pupils are involved.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Results from the September 1993 schools census show that there were 9,981 pupils taking Spanish in 167 education authority secondary schools in Scotland. No pupils took Portuguese. At September 1992, the latest year for which information is available, there were 274 teachers teaching Spanish in education authority secondary schools; teachers teaching Portuguese are not separately identified in the school census.

  At September 1993, 571 pupils in 10 education authority primary schools had contact with a subject specialist teacher in Spanish. No primary pupils had contact with a subject specialist in Portuguese. No information is held centrally on the numbers of teachers involved in teaching Spanish or Portuguese in primary schools.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the results of the meeting of officials of his Department with Lothian River Purification Board and the ferruginous pollution problems of the River Almond and Breich water.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Senior officials of the Scottish Office Environment Department attended the launch of the Forth River Purification Board's water quality initiative on 16 May 1994. Topics highlighted by the board included the problem of ferruginous pollution from abandoned mines. No substantive discussions took place about individual rivers.

  Courts
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets have been set for completing office business in the sheriff courts and supreme courts; and what performance was secured in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  The targets set for completion of office business in the sheriff courts in 1993–94 are set out later. These targets remain in force for 1994–95. The percentage figures following each target indicate the proportion of sheriff courts achieving the target figures or better in the course of the year. More detailed information on the performance of individual court offices will be made available to local court advisory committees. Similar targets are in force in the supreme courts and all of these were achieved in 1993–94.

  Targets for sheriff clerk offices and performance 1993–94

  Per cent.

  To issue the first deliverance in all ordinary writs, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt.

  98

  To issue the first deliverance in all summary cause actions (including small claims), or return to sender, within three working days of receipt.

  97

  To draft, in preparation for signature, all final ordinary decrees in absence (excluding divorce) within one working day of receipt of the minute craving decree.

  94

  To draft, within seven days of receipt of the affidavits, in preparation for signature, all final decrees in undefended ordinary actions of divorce or return the affidavits to the sender.

  92

  545

  Per cent.

  To draft, in preparation for signature, all decrees in actions of divorce under the simplified procedure within one working day of expiry of the period of notice.

  97

  To issue extract decrees in all ordinary actions (excluding divorce) within three working days of the date of ordinary or the expiry of the days of appeal—whichever is the later.

  89

  To issue all summary cause/small claim extract decrees within one working day of the due date.

  96

  To issue extract decrees in all ordinary actions of divorce within one working day of the due date.

  88

  To issue extract decrees of divorce under the simplified procedure within one working day of the due date.

  90

  To issue the first deliverance in all petitions for sequestration/liquidation, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt.

  95

  To prepare for signature the first deliverance in all adoption petitions within one working day of a correct petition being received.

  93

  To scrutinise and accept or reject commissary petitions and inventories within two working days of receipt.

  96

  To issue Confirmation within three working days of acceptance of inventory.

  94

  To conduct small estate interviews within seven days from the time an interview is requested.

  98

  To process juror claims for payment, or return to sender, within two working days of receipt.

  96

  To process postal fines (other than unidentified payments) on day of receipt.

  99

  To issue warning letters, means enquiry citations, warrants, extracts, etc, and transfer fines within seven days of the trawl.

  99

  To remit all non-Exchequer receipts to entitled parties within 14 days from the end of the last accountancy period.

  98

  To effect a card reconciliation of all outstanding financial penalties on a monthly basis.

  100

  To reply to letter pleas within one working day of the court.

  99

  To order social enquiry and other reports within one working day of the court.

  99

  To complete probation, community service, compensation and fines supervision orders within two working days of the court.

  100

  To issue juror citations in the first instance at least 21 days prior to a jury sitting/trial.

  98

  To reply to all letter inquiries except those which require extensive investigation within two working days of receipt.

  95

  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what objectives for reducing court waiting periods have been established; what targets have been set for 1994–95 in respect of court waiting periods for the supreme and sheriff courts; and if he will make a statement about the performance of the supreme courts and each of the sheriff courts in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  The programming of court business is a matter for the judiciary. Acting in co-operation with the judiciary in the supreme and sheriff courts, the Government seek to provide the resources which will allow speedy access to justice. Having regard to the time required by parties to have their cases properly prepared the following objectives have been adopted:the Lord President of the Court of Session has accepted the recommendations of a Committee chaired by Lord Maxwell relating to the reduction off waiting periods in the Supreme Courts: the target is to reduce waiting periods to the recommended levels and, subject to any acceleration in the rate of increase in court work, maintain waiting periods at that level: for certain categories of hearing, additional targets involving much reduced waiting periods, have been set;
  546
  Sheriffs Principal have agreed to overall targets of reducing waiting periods for summary criminal trials in the Sheriff Courts to 12 weeks or less and to hold them at that level; and to maintain waiting periods at 12 weeks or less for civil cases in the Sheriff Courts.
  The main targets for waiting periods for 1994–95 are set down as follows: "waiting period" is the period between a trial or proof being requested or an appeal being received and the date assigned expressed in weeks. Similar targets applied in 1993–94 and national performance for that year is noted in the second column in the table.

  Target

  1993–94 Performance

  Crimianl Appeal Business

  Summary prosecutions:

  Notes of Appeal against Sentence and Stated cases (accused in custody)

  4

  4

  Court of Session

  (a) Ordinary proofs

  20

  20

  (b) Defended Consistorial proofs

  17

  18

  Sheriff Courts (National average as at 31 March 1994

  (a) Civil proofs/debates

  12

  11·6

  (b) Summary Criminal Trials

  12

  15·2

  In 1993–94 waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for civil debates/proofs in 81 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  Waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for summary criminal business in 72 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  Performance of individual sheriff courts at 31 March 1994 is set out in the following table.

  Weeks

  Court

  Civil proofs

  Summary criminal trials

  Hamilton

  14

  12

  Glasgow

  14

  25

  Inverness

  13

  11

  Cupar

  13

  13

  Dundee

  13

  16

  Paisley

  13

  14

  Dumbarton

  12

  10

  Dunfermline

  12

  13

  Peterhead

  12

  12

  Stirling

  12

  12

  Wick

  12

  12

  Jedburgh

  11

  11

  Kirkcudbright

  11

  11

  Ayr

  11

  12

  Kirkcaldy

  11

  11

  Dingwall

  10

  10

  Oban

  10

  11

  Elgin

  10

  9

  Haddington

  10

  13

  Duns

  10

  10

  Banff

  10

  10

  Linlithgow

  10

  20

  Stranraer

  10

  11

  Falkirk

  10

  10

  Forfar

  10

  10

  Stornoway

  10

  10

  Selkirk

  10

  10

  Stonehaven

  9

  9

  Dumfries

  9

  9

  Peebles

  9

  10

  Tain

  9

  10

  Lanark

  9

  10

  Arbroath

  9

  11

  Aberdeen

  9

  13

  Kilmarnock

  9

  16

  Dunoon

  8

  8

  Edinburgh

  8

  11

  547

  Weeks

  Court

  Civil proofs

  Summary criminal trials

  Alloa

  8

  8

  Greenock

  8

  10

  Perth

  8

  8

  Portree

  8

  4

  Rothesay

  8

  10

  Airdrie

  8

  16

  Lerwick

  7

  7

  Campbeltown

  6

  10

  Dornoch

  6

  8

  Lochmaddy

  6

  10

  Fort Willliam

  6

  14

  Kirkwall

  6

  6

  In addition, the sheriffs principal have agreed that sheriff court programmes should be designed to ensure that the number of trials adjourned due to lack of court time should not exceed 5 per cent. of the total number set down, a target met in 83 per cent. of sheriff courts.

  NHS Statutory Audit
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he proposes to make in the arrangements for NHS statutory audit in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that, following discussions between the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland and my officials, I have agreed to transfer responsibility for NHS statutory audit to the commission under the terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 as amended by section 36 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The Accounts Commission for Scotland, as it will then be called, will take responsibility for all the statutory audit work of health boards, NHS trusts, GP fundholders and

  Police custody

  Date of death

  Sex

  Age

  Force area

  Cause of death

  1989

  8 January 1989

  Male

  76

  Strathclyde

  Hypostatic pneumonia

  2 February 1989

  Male

  47

  Strathclyde

  Subdural haemorrhage

  7 February 1989

  Male

  67

  Lothian and Borders

  Intracranial pressure

  24 April 1989

  Male

  19

  Fife

  Hypoxic brain damage due to hanging

  4 May 1989

  Male

  65

  Strathclyde

  Hypoxia

  4 June 1989

  Male

  76

  Strathclyde

  Fracture of the skull

  21 June 1989

  Male

  16

  Strathclyde

  Aspiration of gastric contents

  24 August 1989

  Male

  68

  Strathclyde

  Acute peritonitis

  8 October 1989

  Male

  49

  Strathclyde

  Intra-cerebral haematoma

  4 November 1989

  Male

  56

  Strathclyde

  Acute subdural haematomas

  1990

  2 January 1990

  Male

  43

  Strathclyde

  Acute renal failure

  14 January 1990

  Male

  22

  Lothian and Borders

  Acute pulmonary and cerebral oedema

  6 February 1990

  Male

  62

  Strathclyde

  Head injury

  12 February 1990

  Male

  51

  Strathclyde

  (1) Fatty degeneration of the liver

  (2) Chronic alcoholism

  5 May 1990

  Male

  64

  Strathclyde

  (1) Lung abscess

  (2) Bronchopneumonia

  (3) Chronic bronchitis and emphysema

  14 June 1990

  Male

  42

  Lothian and Borders

  Subarachnoid haemorrhage

  16 June 1990

  Male

  53

  Central Scotland

  (1) Bilateral bronchopneumonia

  (2) Polmonary Ehromboembolism

  15 November 1990

  Male

  22

  Lothian and Borders

  Aspiration of vomit

  22 November 1990

  Male

  26

  Lothian and Borders

  Aspiration of vomit

  30 November 1990

  Male

  60

  Tayside

  (1) Cranial cerebral injuries

  (2) Blunt force trauma

  548
  other health bodies in Scotland from 1 April 1995. It is envisaged that the audit programme will continue to be shared between the public sector and private audit firms.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the forthcoming policy and financial management review of Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Lang
  As part of the Government's rolling programme of five-yearly policy and financial management reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will conduct a thorough review of Scottish Homes during 1994–95. The first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study. This will include an examination of the scope for discontinuing, privatising, contracting out or transferring to another body some or all of the functions carried out by Scottish Homes. This will include looking at how it takes forward the Government's housing policies in Scotland, the key objectives of which are: promoting greater housing choice, in particular home ownership; improving housing supply and quality; and making best use of scarce public sector resources. This study is now under way and I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 16 September 1994 to:

  Mr. D. F. Middleton

  Assistant Secretary

  The Scottish Office Environment Department

  Room 417

  St. Andrew's House

  Edinburgh EH1 1DG

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give brief details of all deaths in custody, including those in police stations, in Scotland since 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: Details of deaths which occurred in custody since 1989 are provided in the following tables:
  549

  Date of death

  Sex

  Age

  Force area

  Cause of death

  1991

  28 February 1991

  Male

  42

  Strathclyde

  Pulmonary oedema and congestion

  1 May 1991

  Male

  52

  Strathclyde

  Intracerebral haematoma

  25 July 1991

  Male

  62

  Strathclyde

  Inhalation of regurgitated vomitus

  28 July 1991

  Male

  32

  Lothian and Borders

  Alcoholic cardiomyopathy

  14 August 1991

  Male

  36

  Strathclyde

  Fatty degeneration of the liver

  28 November 1991

  Male

  30

  Strathclyde

  Inhalation of gastric contents

  1992

  8 February 1992

  Male

  24

  Strathclyde

  Hanging

  13 April 1992

  Male

  59

  Grampian

  Chronic alcoholism

  25 April 1992

  Male

  25

  Strathclyde

  Hanging

  2 May 1992

  Male

  29

  Grampian

  Hanging

  24 June 1992

  Male

  58

  Northern

  Ischaemic heart disease

  9 July 1992

  Male

  19

  Fife

  Hanging

  29 September 1992

  Female

  54

  Northern

  Meningitis

  1 October 1992

  Female

  57

  Lothian and Borders

  (1) Acute pulmonary oedema

  (2) Ischaemic heart disease

  (3) Previous myocardial infarction

  (4) Chronic obstruction airway disease

  10 October 1992

  Male

  45

  Strathclyde

  (1) Acute left ventricular failure

  (2) Myocardial ischaemic coronary artery thrombosis

  (3) Chronic alcohol abuse

  7 December 1992

  Male

  29

  Lothian and Borders

  (1) Chronic alcohol abuse

  (2) State of fits

  (3) Postural asphyxia

  1993

  6 January 1993

  Male

  26

  Northern

  Head injury

  14 March 1993

  Male

  34

  Strathclyde

  Pulmonary oedema

  4 April 1993

  Male

  53

  Strathclyde

  Extral-dural haematoma head injury

  12 June 1993

  Male

  36

  Strathclyde

  Coronary artery atheoma

  24 July 1993

  Male

  23

  Grampian

  Hanging

  28 August 1993

  Male

  29

  Tayside

  Chronic intravenous drug abuse

  29 September 1993

  Male

  68

  Strathclyde

  Left ventricular failure

  14 October 1993

  Male

  53

  Strathclyde

  Sub-daral haemorrhage

  24 October 1993

  Male

  40

  Grampian

  (1) Sub-dural haematoma

  (2) Head injury

  26 November 1993

  Male

  32

  Lothian and Borders

  (1) Laryngeal obstruction

  (2) Inhalation of foreign body

  1994

  5 February 1994

  Male

  31

  Strathclyde

  Sub-arachnid haemorrhage

  30 March 1994

  Male

  38

  Strathclyde

  (1) Sub-arachnoid haemorrhage

  (2) Hodgkins lymphoma

  (3) Intravenous drug abuse

  14 April 1994

  Male

  52

  Strathclyde

  Aspiration of gastric contents

  17 April 1994

  Male

  45

  Strathclyde

  (1) Gastro-intestinal haemorrhage

  (2) Rupture oesophageal varices

  (3) Alcoholic liver cirrhosis

  Penal custody

  Date of death

  Sex and age

  Sentence

  Establishment

  Cause of death

  1989

  7 February 1989

  Male 39

  Untried

  Barlinnie

  Self-inflicted wounds to left arm

  5 March 1989

  Male 31

  Life

  Shotts

  Suicide by hanging

  23 March 1989

  Male 50

  Untried

  Barlinnie

  Epileptic seizure

  4 June 1989

  Male 60

  Untried

  Aberdeen

  Death by hanging

  14 July 1989

  Male 27

  9 years

  Perth

  Death by hanging

  26 July 1989

  Male 23

  2 years

  Shotts

  Death by hanging

  18 August 1989

  Male 33

  9 years

  Edinburgh

  Not determined

  3 December 1989

  Male 17

  3 months

  Polmont

  Death by hanging

  24 December 1989

  Male 49

  5 years

  Shotts

  Subarachnoid haemorrhage

  1990

  31 January 1990

  Male 49

  12 years

  Shotts

  Coronary insufficiency and atherosclerosis

  18 March 1990

  Male 32

  6 months

  Barlinnie

  Heart attack

  9 June 1990

  Male 30

  Untried

  Barlinnie

  Death by hanging

  28 June 1990

  Male 52

  Life

  Aberdeen

  Ischaemic heart disease

  21 July 1990

  Male 55

  12 years

  Dungavel

  Murdered while on 48 hour home leave

  29 July 1990

  Male 55

  Life

  Perth

  (1) Myocardial infarction

  (2) Coronary artery thrombosis

  (3) Coronary artery atherosclerosis

  31 July 1990

  Male 39

  Life

  Barlinnie

  Death by hanging

  550 551

  Date of death

  Sex and age

  Sentence

  Establishment

  Cause of death

  26 September 1990

  Male 25

  Untried

  Barlinnie

  Death by hanging

  26 September 1991

  Male 22

  8 years

  Perth

  Infection of heart valve

  13 November 1990

  Male 37

  9 months

  Barlinnie

  Bronchopneumonia and chronic alcoholism

  9 December 1990

  Male 44

  42 months

  Shotts

  Inhalation of gastric contents due to acute morphine intoxication

  1991

  3 January 1991

  Male 34

  2 years

  Perth

  Self-strangulation

  25 January 1991

  Male 27

  3 months

  Greenock

  Death by hanging

  30 January 1991

  Male 44

  6 years

  Noranside

  Coronary artery thrombosis

  11 April 1991

  Male 22

  5 years

  Shotts

  Endotoxic shock due to intestinal obstruction

  17 April 1991

  Male 61

  3 months

  Greenock

  Heart attack

  28 July 1991

  Male 32

  60 days

  Barlinnie

  Death by hanging

  18 August 1991

  Male 31

  11 years

  Noranside

  Murdered while on home leave

  20 August 1991

  Male 37

  4 years

  Shotts

  Ischaemic heart disease due to coronary artery atheroma

  23 September 1991

  Male 19

  Untried

  Longriggend

  Death by hanging

  8 December 1991

  Male 24

  9 months, 60 days and 5 years

  Shotts

  (1) Klebsiella pneumonia

  (2) Immune deficiency

  1992

  11 February 1992

  Male 17

  Untried

  Polmont

  Death by hanging

  27 February 1992

  Male 29

  30 days

  Barlinnie

  Death by hanging

  22 March 1992

  Male 18

  11 months

  Polmont

  Death by hanging

  15 June 1992

  Male 25

  3 years

  Edinburgh

  Death by hanging

  9 July 1992

  Male 36

  5 years and 5 years

  Edinburgh

  Death by hanging

  25 August 1992

  Male 30

  Untried

  Dumfries

  Death by hanging

  18 August 1992

  Male 50

  Life

  Shotts

  Cirrhosis of the liver

  3 September 1992

  Male 27

  Untried

  Edinburgh

  Death by hanging

  2 November 1992

  Male 44

  Untried

  Edinburgh

  Death by hanging

  18 October 1992

  Male 24

  Untried

  Barlinnie

  Death by hanging

  28 November 1992

  Male 23

  Untried

  Aberdeen

  Acute infective endocarditis

  16 December 1992

  Male 52

  15 years

  Peterhead

  Fatal accident inquiry—Determination still awaited

  23 December 1992

  Male 39

  3 years

  Peterhead

  Cardiac disease and cardiac enlargement

  1993

  8 January 1993

  Male 43

  Life

  Edinburgh

  Knocked over by van

  13 January 1993

  Male 22

  Untried

  Greenock

  Death by hanging

  7 April 1993

  Male 29

  Life

  Perth

  Death by hanging

  6 May 1993

  Male 42

  3 months

  Low Moss

  Cardiac arrest following an epileptic fit

  9 July 1993

  Male 26

  6 months

  Edinburgh

  Dihydracodeine poisoning

  19 July 1993

  Male 42

  Life

  Perth

  Coronary artery thrombosis

  22 August 1993

  Male 45

  Untried

  Edinburgh

  Fall from gallery

  20 September 1993

  Male 21

  5 years

  Polmont

  Vasovagal inhibition due to hanging

  17 December 1993

  Male 23

  Untried

  Barlinnie

  Death by hanging

  1994

  7 January 1994

  Male 40

  Untried

  Greenock

  Death by hanging

  3 January 1994

  Male 39

  10 years

  Peterhead

  Metastatic Hodgkinsons Disease lymphoma

  7 January 1994

  Male 41

  8 years

  Edinburgh

  Bronchial pneumonia and Aids

  3 February 1994

  Male 18

  Untried

  Aberdeen

  Death by hanging

  Forestry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums have been expended on grants for planting of(a) broadleaf trees and (b) conifers in each of the last three years under each of the various incentive schemes in force; and what has been the average area of each planting on which grant was paid in those years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The information is set out in the table.

  Planting grants paid in Scotland (£'000s)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Conifer

  3,500

  5,600

  5,700

  Broadleaf

  4,400

  4,100

  7,300

  Total

  7,900

  9,700

  13,000

  552

  Average area approved (hectares)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  14·2

  12·6

  17–9

  Empty Properties
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the current level of empty properties owned by(a) the private sector, (b) local authorities, (c) housing associations and (d) Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The number of empty properties owned by local authorities and Scottish Homes was 18,611 and 1,632

  553
  respectively at 31 March 1993. Information on empty properties owned by the private sector and housing associations is not held centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to compile a register of members' interests of the non-executive members of NHS trusts and health boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State recently issued to health boards and NHS trusts codes of conduct and accountability which provide for relevant interests to be entered in a register which will be available to the public.

  Operation Cancellation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients, for each hospital, were not admitted within a month of a second cancellation of their operation in the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on the incidence of cancellations in each hospital is set out in the "NHS Patient Treatment and Waiting Time Bulletin". Copies of the bulletin, which is published quarterly, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The systems for collecting information on the incidence of cancellations in hospitals in Scotland do not at present provide for identification of the numbers not admitted within a month of a second cancellation.

  Gaelic Education
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when a copy of the summary of reponses to Her Majesty's inspectorate report, "Provision for Gaelic Education in Scotland" will be made available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: A summary of the 123 comments received on

  Inpatient and day case discharges1 and waiting times of patients admitted from waiting lists Year ending 31 March 19942

  Admitted within 3 months

  Admitted within 12 months

  Hospital

  All discharges

  Discharges

  Per cent.

  Discharges

  Per cent.

  Aberdeen City Hospital

  495

  494

  100

  495

  100

  Aberdeen Maternity Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  27,787

  24,574

  88

  27,648

  99

  Adamson Hospital

  1,619

  1,419

  88

  1,597

  99

  Annan Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Arbroath Infirmary

  173

  165

  95

  173

  100

  Arduthie Hospital

  6

  6

  100

  6

  100

  Arran View Nursing Home

  3

  3

  100

  3

  100

  Arran War Memorial Hospital

  377

  374

  99

  377

  100

  Ashludie Hospital

  78

  78

  100

  78

  100

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  51

  48

  94

  51

  100

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  117

  117

  100

  117

  100

  Balfour Hospital

  786

  773

  98

  786

  100

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  6,120

  4,582

  75

  5,874

  96

  Bangour Village Hospital

  7

  6

  86

  7

  100

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  3,528

  3,527

  100

  3,528

  100

  Belford Hospital

  1,115

  1,036

  93

  1,113

  100

  Belhaven Hospital

  3

  3

  100

  3

  100

  Belvidere Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Biggart Hospital

  214

  214

  100

  214

  100

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  28

  28

  100

  28

  100

  Blawarthill Hospital

  7

  7

  100

  7

  100

  Bon Secours Private Hospital3

  325

  2

  1

  11

  3

  Borders General Hospital

  7,620

  6,838

  90

  7,613

  100

  Brechin Infirmary

  6

  6

  100

  6

  100

  554
  the report is currently being produced by my officials and should be available in the Library within the next few weeks.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much subsidy in 1993 was directed to(a) council housing and (b) other public sector housing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: In 1993–94, direct subsidies to council housing through housing support grant and general fund contributions amounted to £36·1 million. In the same year, subsidies to other Scottish public sector housing amounted to £21·3 million.

  House Condition Survey
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the data on health issues collected during the Scottish house condition survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The information collected in the 1991 Scottish house condition survey consisted of two main strands: a survey to assess the physical condition of the occupied housing stock across all tenures and a socio-economic survey of the residents. The resulting data was analysed by Scottish Homes and poublished in July 1993.

  The survey was not designed to collect information on health issues.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has of the numbers and percentages of patients admitted within three months and within 12 months of being listed, and for each hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The information is shown in the table.
  555

  Admitted within 3 months

  Admitted within 12 months

  Hospital

  All discharges

  Discharges

  Per cent.

  Discharges

  Per cent.

  Bridge of Earn Hospital

  384

  308

  80

  379

  99

  Bridge of Weir Hospital

  200

  200

  100

  200

  100

  Broomhill Hospital

  29

  27

  93

  29

  100

  Caithness General Hospital

  1,484

  1,281

  86

  1,470

  99

  Cameron Hospital, Windygates

  113

  112

  99

  112

  99

  Campbell Hospital

  14

  14

  100

  14

  100

  Campbeltown Hospital

  11

  11

  100

  11

  100

  Canniesburn Hospital

  5,416

  3,807

  70

  4,728

  87

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  23

  23

  100

  23

  100

  Chalmers Hospital

  198

  196

  99

  198

  100

  Cleland Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Corstorphine Hospital

  5

  4

  80

  5

  100

  Cowglen Hospital

  5

  5

  100

  5

  100

  Crosshouse Hospital

  15,436

  11,298

  73

  15,029

  97

  Daliburgh Hospital

  81

  80

  99

  81

  100

  Dalrymple Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Darnley Hospital

  3

  3

  100

  3

  100

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  3,425

  3,111

  91

  3,402

  99

  Drumchapel Hospital

  104

  104

  100

  104

  100

  Duke Street Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  10,144

  7,504

  74

  9,868

  97

  Dunbar Hospital

  4

  4

  100

  4

  100

  Dundee Dental Hospital

  891

  860

  97

  890

  100

  Dundee Limb Fitting Centre

  126

  125

  99

  126

  100

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  8,411

  6,309

  75

  7,973

  95

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  518

  354

  68

  507

  98

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  366

  306

  84

  365

  100

  East Fortune Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Eastbank Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Eastern General Hospital

  4,656

  3,931

  84

  4,638

  100

  Edenhall Hospital

  47

  46

  98

  47

  100

  Edinburgh City Hospital

  7,966

  5,536

  69

  7,774

  98

  Edinburgh Dental Hospital

  4,343

  4,216

  97

  4,335

  100

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  18,327

  14,523

  79

  17,645

  96

  Edington Cottage Hospital

  3

  3

  100

  3

  100

  Erskine Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  9,074

  6,596

  73

  8,884

  98

  Fleming Cottage Hospital

  18

  18

  100

  18

  100

  Forfar Infirmary

  49

  44

  90

  49

  100

  Forth Park Hospital

  6

  6

  100

  6

  100

  Fourhills Nursing Home

  18

  18

  100

  18

  100

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  33

  32

  97

  33

  100

  Garrick Hospital

  931

  723

  78

  912

  98

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  7,320

  6,258

  85

  7,197

  98

  Gesto Hospital

  7

  7

  100

  7

  100

  Gilbert Bain Hospital

  1,121

  984

  88

  1,119

  100

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  507

  498

  98

  507

  100

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  22,855

  20,630

  90

  22,621

  99

  Glen O'Dee Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Glenrothes Hospital

  38

  36

  95

  38

  100

  Hairmyres Hospital

  7,438

  6,307

  85

  7,388

  99

  Homeopathic Hospital, Glasgow

  163

  141

  87

  162

  99

  Huntley Jubilee Hospital

  145

  135

  93

  145

  100

  Ian Charles Hospital

  29

  29

  100

  29

  100

  Insch and District War Memorial Hospital

  5

  5

  100

  5

  100

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  9,060

  7,309

  81

  8,930

  99

  Invergordon County Hospital

  5

  5

  100

  5

  100

  Inverurie Hospital

  75

  73

  97

  75

  100

  Johnstone Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Kincardine O'Neil War Memorial Hospital

  4

  4

  100

  4

  100

  Kings Cross Hospital

  654

  657

  99

  654

  100

  Kirkcudbright Hospital

  24

  24

  100

  24

  100

  Lady Margaret Hospital, Millport

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Law Hospital

  11,380

  9,060

  80

  11,206

  98

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  688

  685

  100

  688

  100

  Leanchoil Hospital

  38

  38

  100

  38

  100

  Lenzie Hospital

  28

  28

  100

  28

  100

  Liberton Hospital

  43

  43

  100

  43

  100

  Lightburn Hospital

  18

  18

  100

  18

  100

  Lochgreen Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Lochmaddy Hospital

  33

  33

  100

  33

  100

  Lockhart Hospital

  158

  158

  100

  158

  100

  Lynebank Hospital

  3

  3

  100

  3

  100

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  527

  525

  100

  526

  100

  Maidencraig House

  13

  13

  100

  13

  100

  Maud Hospital

  8

  8

  100

  8

  100

  556 557

  Admitted within 3 months

  Admitted within 12 months

  Hospital

  All discharges

  Discharges

  Per cent.

  Discharges

  Per cent.

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Meigle Cottage Hospital

  36

  35

  97

  36

  100

  Merchiston Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Migdale Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Milesmark Hospital

  44

  44

  100

  44

  100

  Moffat Hospital

  36

  36

  100

  36

  100

  Monklands District General Hospital

  8,707

  7,013

  81

  8,408

  97

  Montfield Hospital

  146

  145

  99

  145

  99

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  7

  7

  100

  7

  100

  Morningfield Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Nairn Town and County Hospital

  28

  28

  100

  28

  100

  Netherlea Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  19

  19

  100

  19

  100

  Nicolson Mackenzie Hospital

  13

  6

  46

  13

  100

  Ninewells Hospital

  17,103

  12,826

  75

  16,662

  97

  Northern General Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  1

  100

  Oban County Hospital

  411

  410

  100

  411

  100

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  7,392

  6,049

  82

  7,289

  99

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  51

  51

  100

  51

  100

  Portree Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  4,300

  2,793

  65

  4,212

  98

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  8,517

  6,399

  75

  8,255

  97

  Raigmore Hospital

  14,388

  11,201

  78

  14,129

  98

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  379

  311

  82

  365

  96

  Ravenscraig Hospital

  90

  90

  100

  90

  100

  Roadmeetings Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Roodlands General Hospital

  1,621

  1,280

  79

  1,619

  100

  Ross Hall Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  186

  139

  75

  186

  100

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital

  260

  236

  91

  259

  100

  Roxburghe House

  139

  139

  100

  139

  100

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  3,499

  2,521

  72

  3,436

  98

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  15,989

  13,613

  85

  15,781

  99

  Royal Northern Infirmary

  180

  180

  100

  180

  100

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  8

  8

  100

  8

  100

  Royal Victoria Hospital

  5

  4

  80

  5

  100

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  89

  89

  100

  89

  100

  Ruchill Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  4,401

  3,381

  77

  4,338

  99

  RHSC, Glasgow

  7,615

  5,362

  70

  7,516

  99

  Seafield Hospital

  54

  53

  98

  54

  100

  Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion

  557

  557

  100

  557

  100

  Southern General Hospital

  14,597

  12,389

  85

  14,137

  97

  Southfield Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Spynie Hospital

  95

  95

  100

  95

  100

  St Andrew's Hospice

  5

  5

  100

  5

  100

  St Andrews Memorial Hospital

  889

  770

  87

  886

  100

  St John's Hospital At Howden

  13,416

  9,718

  72

  12,644

  94

  St Michaels Hospital

  16

  13

  81

  16

  100

  Stephen Cottage Hospital

  24

  24

  100

  24

  100

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  14,033

  10,349

  74

  13,830

  99

  Stobhill Hospital

  10,524

  8,744

  83

  10,426

  99

  Stonehouse Hospital

  5,267

  3,905

  74

  5,237

  99

  Stracathro Hospital

  3,664

  3,205

  87

  3,655

  100

  Strathclyde Hospital

  4

  4

  100

  4

  100

  The Ayr Hospital

  6,675

  4,676

  70

  6,495

  97

  Thomas Hope Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Thornhill Hospital

  1

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Tippethill Hospital

  24

  23

  96

  24

  100

  Tor-na-dee Hospital

  29

  29

  100

  29

  100

  Turner Memorial Hospital

  72

  72

  100

  72

  100

  Turriff Cottage Hospital

  18

  18

  100

  18

  100

  Udston Hospital

  6

  6

  100

  6

  100

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  4,916

  4,581

  93

  4,916

  100

  Victoria Cottage Hospital

  55

  52

  95

  55

  100

  Victoria Geriatric Unit, Glasgow

  18

  18

  100

  18

  100

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  11,985

  9,500

  79

  11,747

  98

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  15,395

  12,200

  79

  15,048

  98

  West Highland Hospital

  1,417

  1,301

  92

  1,409

  99

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  17,104

  14,250

  83

  16,396

  96

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  22,065

  18,307

  83

  21,746

  99

  Western Isles Hospital

  1,290

  1,204

  93

  1,290

  100

  Woodcot Hospital

  2

  2

  100

  2

  100

  Woodend General Hospital

  3,557

  2,514

  71

  3,510

  99

  All Hospitals

  449,182

  362,775

  81

  439,437

  98

  558 559
  1Excludes psychiatric and obstetric services.

  2Provisional.

  3Patients admitted to the Bon Secours Private Hospital are plastic surgery waiting list initiative cases previously waiting at Canniesburn Hospital.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish, for each hospital, the percentage of patients seen within half an hour of appointment times for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Information on how long patients have to wait to be seen after their appointment time at out-patient clinics is monitored by health boards and is not collected centrally. Health boards report that few patients overall wait longer than 30 minutes; that where they do they are given an explanation and an indication of how much longer the wait is likely to be; and that where monitoring reveals a particular problem action is taken to remedy it.

  GP Fundholders
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner fundholders he expects there to be in each health board area by January 1995; and how many there are currently in each area.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: According to the latest information provided by health boards the current number of operational fundholders and estimated numbers by January 1995 are as set out in the table.

  Number of GP fundholders currently operational

  Estimated number of operational GP fundholders by January 1995

  Argyll and Clyde

  5

  5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4

  4

  Borders

  2

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  1

  Fife

  4

  4

  Forth Valley

  4

  5

  Grampian

  31

  31

  Greater Glasgow

  11

  11

  Highland

  3

  3

  Lanarkshire

  14

  15

  Lothian

  15

  18

  1High

  Medium

  Sparse

  Year

  Number of calls

  Percentage in 14 minutes

  Number of calls

  Percentage in 18 minutes

  Number of calls

  Percentage in 21 minutes

  1993–94

  90,604

  90

  89,078

  94

  29,464

  88

  1992–93

  87,668

  87

  87,652

  94

  28,095

  89

  1991–92

  82,676

  87

  83,442

  93

  24,490

  88

  1990–912

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–902

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1The Scottish target times for ambulance response to emergency calls are based on population density and are as follows:

  Density measured in people per acre

  95 per cent. of emergency calls responded to in

  Highly populated > 3 per acre

  14 minutes

  Medium populated < 3 > 0·5 per acre

  18 minutes

  Sparsely populated < 0·5 per acre

  21 minutes

  2Figures are not available for 1990–91 and 1989–90.

  560

  Number of GP fundholders currently operational

  Estimated number of operational GP fundholders by January 1995

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  9

  9

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  SCOTLAND

  103

  108

  Ambulances
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct ambulance services to remove the bull bars fitted to their vehicles immediately and instruct all ambulance services that the fitting of bull bars to emergency vehicles is prohibited on the grounds of safety.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: There are no bull bars fitted to the fleet of accident and emergency ambulances usd by the Scottish Ambulance Service and there are no plans to do so. Only 13 Land Rovers have bull bars. These vehicles are useful for work in rough terrain. The bars were supplied and fitted by the manufacturer. The Scottish Ambulance Service would comply with any safety guidance issued by the manufacturer or the Department of Transport.

  Ambulance Arrival Times
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the numbers and percentages of emergency ambulances arriving within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas, for the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information available is as follows:

  Housing
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the real-terms increase or decrease in his Department's spending on each sector of housing since 1979, setting aside borrowing consents and income gained from sale of housing stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Expenditure by the Scottish Office Environment Department and the Scottish Office Industry Department, for housing in the new towns, on housing subsidies to local authorities and new towns, which accounted for around one third of the net housing programme in 1979–80, decreased in real terms by 93 per cent. and 70·3 per cent. respectively between 1979–80 and 1993–94 consistent with our policy of ending indiscriminate subsidies and concentrating resources on tenants in greatest need through housing benefit. The Scottish Special Housing Association and Housing Corporation in Scotland were subsumed by Scottish Homes in 1989 which is funded on a different basis; no comparison with 1979–80 can therefore be made.

  Pollution
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of patients suffering ill health or death from carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, tobacco smoke, formaldehyde, asbestos, microbes and radon pollution in their homes.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Morbidity details are not available. The death data for 1992 are set out in the table.

  Deaths from Selected Causes Scotland 1992

  Number

  Number

  Carbon monoxide

  122

  Nitrogen dioxide

  —

  Tobacco smoke

  —

  Asbestosis

  8

  Formaldehyde (solution)

  4

  Formaldehyde (gas or vapour)

  —

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish, for each accident and emergency unit, the percentage of patients seen within five minutes of arrival for each of the last five years.
  562
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Information on waiting times in accident and emergency departments has not previously been collected centrally. On 31 March 1994, my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State announced waiting time targets which each health board in Scotland had agreed with hospitals providing accident and emergency services. The targets cover the maximum time to be seen and assessed; the maximum time to be seen by a doctor and have treatment comence and the maximum time for completion of treatment. Arrangements are in hand for the monitoring of performance against these targets to be carried out later in the year. Information on waiting times in accident and emergency departments is scheduled for publication in 1995.

  Hospital League Tables
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics he will collect in order to prepare hospital league tables.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The statistical requirements of the patients charter are under constant review. Over the past few years the "NHS Patient Treatment and Waiting Time Bulletin" has expanded as more, and reliable, statistics on performance against charter standards have become available. This process will continue.

  Water Piping (Dissolved Lead)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest information for each region of the level of dissolved lead in water piping.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Such detailed information is not held centrally. Results of analysis of water samples taken from consumers' taps are held on public registers maintained by the water authorities. Summaries of this information are included in the authorities' annual reports on drinking water quality, available from each authority. Further summaries are included in the annual drinking water quality in Scotland report published by the Scottish Office, copies of which are in the Library.

TREASURY

  Pensions Contributions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the Ea ratio for each year since 1964 for working on two-thirds average and twice average earnings, where E represents the direct cost of employment, including national insurance and pension contributions, and T represents take-home pay after deducting normal PAYE and national insurance and representative pension contributions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information on pension contributions which would be necessary to answer this question is not available.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on living standards.

  External Financing Requirements

  £ million

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  British Aerospace

  1-3·0

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  National Freight Company Ltd

  10·0

  7·0

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  British Transport Docks Board

  1·0

  13·3

  -11·8

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  Enterprise Oil

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  -65·0

  -20·0

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  British Telecom

  -109·0

  250·0

  -323·0

  -225·0

  -341·0

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  British Shipbuilders (Warships)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  78·0

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  British Nuclear Oil Corporation

  -217·0

  -269·5

  -59·7

  9·5

  42·7

  31·3

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  British Gas

  -409·0

  39·0

  -230·0

  -45·0

  -189·0

  -190·0

  -684·0

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  British Airways

  304·0

  167·7

  -34·7

  -173·8

  -334·6

  -211·3

  -113·0

  P

  P

  P

  P

  P

  British Airports Authority

  18·0

  1·9

  1·7

  17·9

  9·6

  -21·0

  17·4

  -8·6

  P

  P

  P

  P

  National Bus Company

  85·0

  74·2

  62·1

  64·5

  55·7

  47·6

  -18·7

  -117·8

  -1·9

  P

  P

  P

  British Steel

  1,119·0

  766·0

  569·0

  318·0

  523·0

  411·0

  22·0

  -290·0

  -392·0

  P

  P

  P

  Water (England and Wales)

  n/a

  280·1

  291·3

  350·0

  286·4

  207·5

  106·8

  34·1

  11·2

  -4·6

  P

  P

  Girobank

  2n/a

  -3·5

  -4·5

  -11·7

  -2·4

  -3·1

  -9·1

  -18·9

  -25·0

  -16·9

  P

  P

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  140·0

  -221·2

  -153·8

  -485·0

  522·9

  -467·6

  -1,325·0

  -1,261·0

  -1,773·0

  -1,2620·0

  -209·1

  P

  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board

  42·0

  -60·1

  -2·0

  -20·0

  41·6

  -39·3

  -11·8

  4·3

  -9·5

  33·1

  2·8

  -22·6

  South of Scotland Electricity Board

  32·0

  127·7

  127·3

  253·0

  285·1

  229·1

  235·7

  124·3

  132·5

  -307·1

  -108·9

  -47·8

  1BAe figure for 1980–81 up to 31 December 1980.

  2Girobank was a part of the Post Office EFR in 1980–81.

  P=Privatised.

  n/a=Not applicable.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of corporation tax received from formerly publicly owned companies since each privatisation has taken place.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Corporation tax paid by formerly publicly-owned companies since 1987–88 is as follows:

  Year

  £ billion

  1987–88

  1·5

  1988–89

  1·6

  1989–90

  1·5

  1990–91

  2·1

  1991–92

  2·3

  1992–93

  2·3

  1993–94

  1·9

  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of income tax paid, in the most recent year for which figures are available, by people aged(a) over 65 years, (b) over 70 years and (c) over 75 years.
  564
  Mr. Portillo
  Government policies provide a firm basis for sustained growth with low inflation. That is the best way to protect the living standards of all groups.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the net contributions to public finances from the formerly publicly owned companies in the five years prior to their privatisation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The net contributions to public finances, represented by the negative external financing requirements—EFRS—for ex-nationalised industries in the years leading to their privatisations, is shown in the table below. The positive EFRs represent a cost to the public finances. Data in previous years are not available on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates for 1994–95 are given below:

  Total income tax liability

  £ billion

  Taxpayers aged 65 years or over

  5·0

  Taxpayers aged 70 years or over

  3·0

  Taxpayers aged 75 years or over

  1·6

  All taxpayers

  69·7

  Royal Taxation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the broad categories of spending which are tax deductible under the memorandum of understanding on royal taxation; and what limitations there are on the items which are classified as tax deductible.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Appendix A to the memorandum of understanding sets out rules for determining the head of state expenses deductible from Privy Purse income, so that income tax falls only on the income used for the Queen's personal expenditure. Paragraph 4 lists nine categories of deductible expenses. Similarly, appendix B to the
  565
  memorandum sets out four categories of expenses for the income of the Prince of Wales from the Duchy of Cornwall. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that only official expenses within these categories are deductible.

  Venture Capital Trusts
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he is making with consultations on the consultative document on venture capital trusts issued last March.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have undertaken extensive consultations on the venture capital trust proposals and are now reflecting on the points that have been made.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 9 March,Official Report, column 220, if he will make it his policy to require those landowners benefiting from conditional exemption from inheritance tax on the grounds that there is public access across their land to cause notices to be erected at suitable intervals around the perimeter of the land indicating a right of public access.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 8 March,Official Report, column 98, the owner of land which is conditionally exempt from inheritance tax is required to publicise the agreed public access arrangements. Each case is considered individually and the extent and nature of the publicity will depend on all the facts of each particular case. For new designations of scenic land in England, owners are required to display at all points of entry on to their land map boards showing the agreed public access.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total acreage of land in England where the landowners benefit from conditional exemption from inheritance tax by virtue of there being a right of public access.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The area, rounded, of land in England of outstanding scenic interest which is conditionally exempt from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax is 51,000 hectares.

  Higher. Rate Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1993,Official Report, column 970, if he will provide comparable information on higher rate tax forgone by reigon for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available data were given in my reply of 17 December.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what factors Her Majesty's Government took into account before entry into the exchange rate mechanism; what estimates of the effect on United Kingdom exports and imports were made at the time; and what was the outturn up to September 1992;
  566
  (2) what has been the change in the nominal rate for the pound sterling against the (a) deutschmark and (b) ecu since December 1989; and what has been the effect on exports, imports, output and employment in the principal import-competing and export industries, distinguishing between trade with EC countries and trade with the rest of the world;

  (3) what was the change in the real and nominal exchange rates of the pound against (a) the dollar, (b) EU countries and (c) the rest of world from (i) September 1992 and (ii) February 1993 to latest available date.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government took into account a broad range of economic and political factors before sterling's entry into the exchange rate mechanism in 1990. The exchange rate is only one factor affecting exports, imports, output and employment. It is difficult to isolate the effects of the exchange rate from that of other factors such as activity and prices in the United Kingdom and its trading partners. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 March,Official Report, column 15, which provides references to exchange rate and price data which can be used to calculate the information requested.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the import share of goods sold retail which are covered by the retail prices index; what has been the relative price increase since August 1992 of(a) such imported goods and (b) domestically produced goods.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is not available.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield from capital gains tax in each of the last five years and what were the costs of collection in each year; what proportion of the yield and costs in each year derived from the taxation of investments in unquoted companies; and what estimates he has made of each figure for each of the next two years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The requested figures for capital gains tax yield and costs of collection are:

  £ million

  Total Net Receipts1

  Cost of Collection12

  1989–90

  1,854

  34·3

  1990–91

  1,852

  39·0

  1991–92

  1,140

  43·3

  1992–93

  982

  38·4

  51993–94

  711

  4N/A

  31994–95

  900

  N/A

  31995–96

  1,000

  N/A

  1The figures quoted exclude tax on gains made by companies included in corporation tax. Some of the costs associated with companies, however, cannot be separately identified and are therefore included in the costs figures for CGT rather than for corporation tax.

  2Costs are based on total departmental expenditure. Manpower usage and costs of administration for 1989–90 onwards have been adjusted to reflect a new basis of costing therefore direct comparisons of this and later figures with earlier years may be misleading. More detail regarding this adjustment is given in the Board of Inland Revenue's Report for the year ending 31st March 1991.

  3Summer Economic Forecast rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  4The 1993–94 cost of collection is not yet available and will be given

  567
  in the Board of Inland Revenue's Report for the year ending 31st March 1994 to be published in September 1994.

  5Provisional.

  I regret that routine information on CGT yield and costs analysed by type of asset is not available. However, a recent survey of capital gains taxpayers with liabilities in 1990–91 showed that around one sixth of the disposals and one third of net chargeable gains arose from shares in unquoted companies. This survey was before changes were made to retirement relief and the introduction of reinvestment relief, which will affect the proportion of tax coming from investment in unquoted trading companies.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual loss of revenue from capital gains tax resulting from a change of tax residence by individual taxpayers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total receipts from(a) value added tax and (b) income tax for 1979 and for each subsequent financial year for which figures are available.

  Sir John Cope
  The information requested is given in the table below. It also appears monthly in "Financial Statistics" which is produced by the Central Statistical Office.

  £ million

  December 1993

  January 1994

  February 1994

  March 1994

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Spirits

  307

  115

  68

  112

  126

  128

  Percentage of alcohol revenue

  43·6

  25·4

  26·5

  32·3

  28·9

  30

  Beer

  242

  235

  133

  161

  214

  201

  Percentage of alcohol revenue

  34·3

  51·9

  51·6

  46·8

  49·1

  47·2

  Wine

  148

  93

  53

  67

  86

  87

  Percentage of alcohol revenue

  21

  20·5

  20·5

  19·2

  19·7

  20·4

  Note:—The figures for April and May 1994 are provisional.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners receiving compensation for the cost of value added tax on fuel will pay income tax on that money.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: Some 3·4 million pensioners, out of a total of 10 million, pay income tax.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the compensation for the cost of value added tax on fuel given to pensioners will return to the Treasury in the form of income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: The Inland Revenue estimates that in 1994–95, about £20 million of income tax will come from the increase in benefits to pensioners given in the value added tax compensation package.
  568

  VAT and Income tax receipts

  Year

  VAT (£ billion)

  Income tax (£ billion)

  1979–80

  8·2

  20·6

  1980–81

  11·0

  24·3

  1981–82

  11·9

  28·7

  1982–83

  13·8

  30·4

  1983–84

  15·2

  31·1

  1984–85

  18·5

  32·5

  1985–86

  19·3

  35·4

  1986–87

  21·4

  38·5

  1987–88

  24·1

  41·4

  1988–89

  27·3

  43·4

  1989–90

  29·5

  48·8

  1990–91

  31·0

  55·3

  1991–92

  35·6

  57·5

  1992–93

  37·3

  56·8

  11993–94

  39·2

  58·4

  1Provisional outturn.

  Alcohol Duties
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts and percentages of the total revenue raised by duties on alcohol arose from(a) spirits, (b) wines and (c) beers in each month since 1 December 1993 or other convenient period.

  Sir John Cope
  A breakdown of excise revenue for spirits, beer and wine from December 1993 to May 1994 is as follows:

  Consultants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultancy income has been paid under Government contracts to (i) Touche Ross, (ii) Arthur Andersen, (iii) Coopers and Lybrand, (iv) Ernst and Young, (v) KPMG Peat Marwick and (vi) Price Waterhouse in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: I know of no such cases.

  Luxury Cars
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to ensure that non-Italian luxury cars are subject to a taxation system when sold in Italy that does not discriminate against cars made in other EU countries.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials have made written and oral representations in Brussels in support of a formal complaint to the Commission by a British car manufacturer. The British embassy in Rome has raised the issue with the Italian Government. We have made clear our willingness to discuss further action to help British car manufacturers affected by the Italian tax.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the number of fathers who have left their jobs following assessment by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available. It is, however, unlikely that many fathers would leave their jobs to avoid paying maintenance for their children. Following the legislative changes in February, the maintenance assessment formula ensures that all absent parents, and their second families, are at least £30 a week better off after payment of maintenance than they would be if unemployed and receiving income support. In addition, someone who has left work voluntarily is not entitled to unemployment benefit, and income support is payable at a reduced rate.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints he has received about the workings of the Child Support Agency since its creation.

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

  Letter from J. T. Hughes to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 12 July 1994:
  In her absence the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of complaints that have been received about the Child Support Agency since its creation.
  Between 5 April 1993 and 31 March 1994, 10,886 complaints were recorded, which represents just over 1 per cent. of the 850,000 cases the Agency has taken on.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently in receipt of(a) war widows' pension or (b) war disablement pension.

  Mr. Hague
  On 30 June 1994 there were:

  (a) 49,272 war widows' pensions in payment; and

  (b) 250,315 war disablement pensions in payment.

  570
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the total cost of war widows' pension payments in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1983–84, (c) 1987–88, (d) 1992–93, (e) 1993–94 and (f) 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  Table A details actual expenditure in respect of war widows for the financial years 1978–79, 1983–84, 1987–88, and 1992–93

  Table A

  Financial year

  Amount (£ millions)

  1978–79

  117

  1983–84

  177

  1987–88

  190

  1992–93

  225

  Total actual expenditure for 1993–94 is not yet available. Table B details the current estimate of expenditure in respect of war widows for that year and the estimate for 1994–95.

  Table B

  Financial year

  Amount (£ millions)

  1993–94

  237

  1994–95

  237

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, when the hearing of a case involving a disabled person has to be resited because of difficulties of access for that disabled person from what would have been its normal venue, the resultant additional expenses can be reimbursed by the appropriate administrative department.

  Mr. Scott
  Any appellant who attends the hearing of an appeal has all travelling and associated expenses reimbursed.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the amounts payable and the earnings limits for adult dependency increases payable with invalidity benefit since 1971, (b) the changes in eligibility conditions for adult dependency increases payable with invalidity benefit since 1971, (c) the arrangements for transitional protection for each and (d) numbers of claimants receiving transitional protection under each heading.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the tables:

  (i) adult dependency increases: rates and earnings limits

  Date

  Weekly rate £

  Earnings limit £

  September 1971

  3·70

  9·50

  October 1972

  4·15

  9·50

  October 1973

  4·75

  9·50

  July 1974

  6·00

  13·00

  April 1975

  6·90

  20·00

  November 1975

  7·90

  20·00

  November 1976

  9·20

  20·00

  November 1977

  10·50

  40·00

  November 1978

  11·70

  45·00

  November 1979

  14·00

  45·00

  571

  Date

  Weekly rate £

  Earnings limit £

  November 1980

  15·60

  45·00

  November 1981

  17·00

  45·00

  November 1982

  18·85

  45·00

  November 1983

  19·55

  45·00

  November 1984

  20·55

  45·00

  September 1985

  20·55

  28·45

  November 1985

  23·00

  30·45

  July 1986

  23·25

  30·80

  April 1987

  23·75

  31·45

  April 1988

  24·75

  32·75

  April 1989

  26·20

  34·70

  (ii) Changes in eligibility conditions and details of transitional protection

  Date and description of change

  Details of transitional protection

  November 1981

  Payment for a prescribed relative discontinued

  Right to protection continues for a maximum of two years whilst entitlement remains. No longer applies.

  November 1983

  Provision made for a dependent husband if his earnings are no more than the increase payable.

  Not required-beneficial change.

  November 1984

  Occupational pensions treated as earnings.

  Protection continues whilst increase remains in payment. Number still benefitting unknown.

  Provision made for a male adult dependant caring for a child.

  Not required—beneficial change.

  September 1985

  Tapered earnings rule abolished (see note to Table (i)).

  Right to protection continues whilst entitlement remains. 3,000' recipients estimated as benefitting at 4 April 1992.

  October 1989

  Personal pensions treated as earnings.

  Protection continues whilst increase remains in payment. Number still benefitting unknown.

  1Rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people on invalidity benefit who were found(a) capable of alternative work and (b) capable of normal occupation in each of the quarters between the quarter ended June 1993 and quarter ended June 1994 subsequently received (i) unemployment benefit, (ii) income support, by virtue of signing on as unemployed and (iii) regained entitlement to invaldity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about subsequent activities of people found capable of work following a medical examination by the Benefits' Agency medical service is being collected as part of the arrangements for monitoring the revised medical control procedures introduced from April 1993. The sample size from this exercise is not yet sufficient to provide statistically reliable information.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total sum currently withheld from recipients of invalidity benefit in respect of the Government's appeal against the decision of the social security commissioner regarding equal treatment for women and men in entitlement to the benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Around 37,000 women are having their increase of benefit suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. Information about the amount of money involved is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  572

  Date

  Weekly rate £

  Earnings limit £

  April 1990

  28·20

  37·35

  April 1991

  31·25

  41·40

  April 1992

  32·55

  43·10

  April 1993

  33·70

  44·65

  April 1994

  34·50

  45·45

  Note: Until 16 September 1985, the increase was withdrawn on a tapered basis when earnings exceeded the limit shown above by 0·10p or more. From that date except in transitionally protected cases the increase is wholly extinguished when earnings exceed the limit shown above by any amount.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals concerning invalidity benefit where received by his Department during each of the quarters between the quarter ended June 1993 to the quarter ended June 1994; and what percentage of these were found in the claimant's favour.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table:

  Appeals registered with Social Security Appeal Tribunals: Invalidity Benefit

  Quarter ending

  Appeals lodged with the tribunal

  1Appeals heard and decided by the tribunal

  1Percentage decided in the claimants favour

  30 June 1993

  5,689

  1,800

  51·7

  30 September 1993

  7,021

  2,961

  54·9

  31 December 1993

  7,150

  3,225

  57·8

  Source: Analytical Services Division.

  1Includes appeals lodged in an earlier quarter.

  2Percentage of appeals heard and decided.

  Benefits Claims
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is being taken to establish and investigate inconsistencies in information given in relation to claims for different benefits made by the same person.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have authorised a series of exercises to compare information held on different departmental
  573
  computer files to ensure that inconsistencies are identified. Work has already started to match data for income support, family credit and child benefit. Any inconsistencies identified from such work will be investigated.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Residence Qualification
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons foreigners entering the United Kingdom immediately qualify for social security benefits; which other EC countries have a similar policy; and if he will now take steps to amend the recent United Kingdom situation so as to require a minimum of six months' residence to qualify for benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  In general, income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit are not available to people who come from outside the European Economic Area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday new regulations which will reduce eligibility further. From 1 August claimants to these benefits will have to satisfy a habitual residence test, unless they are workers, refugees or given exceptional leave to remain in this country. The qualifying conditions for other social security benefits vary but are usually dependant on a contribution condition. Eligibility conditions for income-related safety net benefits in other EEA countries vary widely, but most have a residence condition, the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, yesterday bring us into line with them.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British pensioners residing overseas in countries where their pensions are frozen are over(a) 80, (b) 75 and (c) 70 years of age; and what would be the cost of unfreezing their pensions above these respective age thresholds.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Number of pensioners

  Pensioners aged 80 and over

  79,273

  Pensioners aged 75 and over

  123,366

  Pensioners aged 70 and over

  228,377

  Estimated cost of unfreezing pensions

  £ million

  Pensioners aged 80 and over

  107

  Pensioners aged 75 and over

  138

  Pensioners aged 70 and over

  192

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are in receipt of frozen 574
  British state retirement pensions; and what is the average level of weekly payment in (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) New Zealand, (d) South Africa and (e) the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Country

  Number of retirement pension and widow beneficiaries at 29 January 1994

  Estimated average level of weekly payment £

  Australia

  159,235

  21·54

  Canada

  118,362

  17·86

  New Zealand

  32,042

  20·57

  South Africa

  33,208

  21·17

  Falkland Islands

  17

  29·26

  Benefits Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each Benefits Agency district office in Birmingham(a) how many people were in receipt of (i) invalidity benefit and (ii) disability premium at the beginning of each of the last three financial years, (b) how many people (1) in receipt of invalidity benefit and (2) in receipt of disability premium were referred to a regional medical officer for a medical examination in each of the last three financial years and how many were found to be (x) incapable of work, (y) fit for work within limits and (z) fit for work.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 11 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about benefit recipients in Birmingham.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because Benefit Agency (BA) District boundaries do not correspond exactly with county or borough boundaries.
  Birmingham postal districts B1 to B45 are dealt with by the BA Districts of Birmingham, Chamberlain, Birmingham Heartlands, Birmingham North West, Birmingham South East and Birmingham South West collectively. Other Birmingham postal districts are dealt with by BA Districts which also cover areas outside the Birmingham grographical region. Statistics relating to recipients of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) and Disability Premium payable with Income Support dealt with by these Districts and who were resident in a Birmingham postal district could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  At Appendix 1, I have provided the numbers of people claiming IVB in each of the Birmingham Districts covering postal districts B1 to B45. The figures show the position on the last working day of March in each year from and including 1992. This information was obtained from a monthly 100% clerical count of cases in each District's offices, and represents the most accurate statistics available to show the position at the beginning of each financial year.
  No corresponding information can be provided for March 1991. IVB recipients were not identified separately until May 1991. Prior to this date, numbers of IVB cases were aggregated with Sickness Benefit cases. In addition, there is no requirement for Districts to retain statistics relating to numbers of claims for more than two years.
  The statistics provided for IVB recipients to include a small number of customers who have claimed but are not receiving benefit; eg. where there is underlying title to IVB but a higher, overlapping benefit is in payment.
  At Appendix 2 I have provided numbers of people receiving Disability Premium with their entitlement to Income Support

  575
  from the BA Birmingham Districts on the last working day of March each year since 1992. Statistics relating to Income Support recipients are not routinely collected in relation to financial years. The figures provided represent the most accurate available to reflect the position on the dates in question.
  Information regarding numbers of recipients of Invalidity Benefit and Disability Premium referred to the Medical Reference Service of the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS), (formerly the Regional Medical Service), in the last three financial years; and the outcomes of any medical examinations; is only available at disproportionate cost.
  BA Districts in Birmingham refer cases to the BAMS, Birmingham, reference office. However, this office also receives references from a much larger geographical area. Such information as is available relating to the Birmingham reference office has been provided at Appendix 3. These statistics have only been maintained since 1 January 1993 and therefore no earlier information is available.
  BAMS provide an opinion on a customer's capacity for work. However, the decision on this question lies with the Adjudication Officer (AO), the independent adjudication authority. The AO considers the BAMS report along with all other available evidence.
  Where the customer has a regular employment, BAMS provide an opinion on capacity for work in that regular employment and any suitable alternative work. Statistics relating to numbers of cases found incapable of work; fit for suitable alternative work; and fit for work; by an AO following reference to BAMS, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix 3

  References cleared at BAMS Birmingham reference office

  1 Period

  2 Total cleared

  3 Incapable of work

  4 Capable of suitable alternative work

  5 Capable of work

  6 Others

  Quarter ending 31 March 1993

  21,602

  17,311

  1,667

  410

  2,214

  Quarter ending 30 June 1993

  24,383

  19,681

  1,785

  315

  2,602

  Quarter ending 30 September 1993

  23,087

  17,785

  2,025

  340

  2,937

  Quarter ending 31 December 1993

  23,660

  18,124

  2,258

  355

  2,923

  Quarter ending 31 March 1994

  26,350

  18,697

  2,918

  315

  4,420

  Social Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for(a) social fund grants and (b) social fund loans, that met the criteria, were refused because of budgetary constraints in each social security office in the United Kingdom in each year since 1989–90.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 11 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Social Fund (SF) applications refused on grounds of budgetary constraints in the United Kingdom since 1989–90.
  I have confined my answer to the former Department of Social Security Local Offices and Benefits Agency Districts, as questions concerning Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  I should explain that District budgets, which must not be exceeded, have to be managed so that, as far as possible, similar levels of need can be met throughout the year. Therefore, Social Fund Officers (SFOs) ensure that the highest priority needs are met whilst adopting as consistent an approach as possible.
  576

  Appendix 1 IVB recipients in Birmingham

  Date

  March 1992

  March 1993

  March 1994

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  4,502

  4,991

  5,917

  Birmingham Heartlands

  1—

  1—

  7,377

  Birmingham North West

  4,849

  5,433

  5,803

  Birmingham South East

  5,941

  7,030

  8,205

  Birmingham South West

  4,836

  5,303

  6,335

  Total

  26,297

  30,742

  33,637

  1The figures relating to IVB cases recordced for this District for these two years were incorrectly collated due to administrative error in the District concerned, and have therefore been omitted. The figure provided for March 1994 gives the true figure at that date.

  Appendix 2 Disability premium recipients in Birmingham

  Date

  March 1992

  March 1993

  March 1994

  Birmingham Chamberlian

  2,193

  2,730

  3,323

  Birmingham Heartlands

  2,057

  2,599

  2,913

  Birmingham North West

  2,068

  2,519

  2,993

  Birmingham South East

  2,104

  2,434

  2,716

  Birmingham South West

  2,087

  2,596

  3,064

  Total

  10,509

  12,878

  15,009

  Information for the year 1989–90 is not available by Local Office but you may wish to know that the number of loans and grants refused nationally on the grounds of insufficient priority in that year was 138,997 and 50,342 respectively.Details of loans and grants refused on grounds of insufficient priority for the year 1990–91 by former Departmental Local Office and for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 by Benefits Agency District are enclosed and copies have been placed in the Library under the heading Department of Social Security, Social Fund, Applications Refused on the Grounds of Budgetary Constraints 1990–91—1993–94.The new Social Fund Computer System (SFCS) introduced in 1993–94, collects additional statistics which were not held on the old system. Many statistical items are collected differently and are not directly comparable with previous years. The previous system recorded reasons for refusal per application whereas SFCS records reasons for refusal per item requested. In cases where a partial award is made a reason for refusal will also be appropriate. As SFCS was introduced into Districts on a rollout basis throughout the year, the figures for 1993–94 will be a combination of the information held on the two systems.I hope you find this reply helpful.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Excise Duty Discs
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the number of vehicle excise duty discs that are stolen from vehicles each year.
  577
  Mr. Key
  Precise figures are not available for the number of VED discs stolen from vehicles each year. However, approximately 200,000 discs are either lost or stolen annually.

  Railway Industry Posts (Pay Policy)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport to what levels of post the public sector pay policy applies in the railway industry.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's approach to public sector pay applies to the total pay bills of the various components of the railway industry.

  Total of grants/subsidies and receipts

  Year

  Rail

  Bus

  Taxi

  Total

  £ million

  Percentage GDP

  £ million

  Percentage GDP

  Percentage GDP

  Percentage GDP rounded

  1979

  1,751·2

  1·01

  1,738

  1·00

  —

  n/a

  1980

  2,005·4

  1·00

  2,179

  1·08

  0·13

  2·2

  1981

  2,293·8

  1·05

  2,335

  1·07

  0·13

  2·3

  1982

  2,315·7

  0·97

  2,603

  1·09

  0·10

  2·2

  1983

  2,605·6

  1·00

  2,713

  1·04

  0·12

  2·2

  1984

  2,699·0

  0·96

  2,822

  1·01

  0·13

  2·1

  1985

  2,878·4

  0·94

  2,844

  0·93

  0·13

  2·0

  1986

  2,902·5

  0·89

  2,835

  0·87

  0·17

  1·9

  1987

  3,112·5

  0·87

  2,878

  0·80

  0·17

  1·8

  1988

  2,994·4

  0·75

  3,022

  0·76

  0·16

  1·7

  1989

  3,292·4

  0·75

  3,175

  0·72

  0·19

  1·7

  1990

  3,833·6

  0·80

  3,358

  0·70

  0·18

  1·7

  1991

  4,311·5

  0·87

  3,556

  0·72

  0·19

  1·8

  1992

  4,748·7

  0·92

  3,633

  0·71

  —

  (1·8)

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Norris
  The following organisations have been privatised since 1990: five trust ports—Clyde, Forth, Medway, Tees and Hartlepool, and Tilbury; two operating subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd.—London Coaches Ltd. and Stanwell Buses Ltd.; DVOIT, the former IT arm of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; and three subsidiaries of British Rail—Transmark, Meldon quarry, and special trains unit.

  The position on further privatisation is as follows:
  The Government believe that the future of a number of the remaining larger trust ports should be within the private sector; London Transport are planning to sell the remaining 10 operating subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd. and London Transport Advertising Ltd. by the end of this year; my right hon. Friend announced on 30 March his decision to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory, which we hope can be achieved during 1995–96. In addition, plans to privatise the railways include:
  Three rolling stock leasing companies (Eversholt, Angel, and Porterbrook) to be offered for sale in 1995.
  Twenty-five passenger franchises to be offered for sale as follows:
  during 1995:
  East Coast Main Line; Great Western Main Line; ScotRail; Gatwick Express; London, Tilbury and Southend; South West.
  during 1996:
  Anglia; Merseyrail; South Wales and West; South London and
  Sussex Coast Lines; Cardiff Valleys; Midland Main Line;

  Public Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he keeps regarding the proportion of gross domestic product spent on(a) buses, (b) trains and (c) all public transport, annually, for the years 1979 to 1993, inclusive.

  Mr. Freeman
  Expenditure on public transport, by passengers and through grants and subsidies, as a percentage of GDP was as follows:West Coast Main Line.
  for later sale:
  Central Region; Cross Country; North East Region; Thames; West Anglia and Great Northern; Kent Link and Kent Coast Lines; Northampton and North London Lines; Chiltern Line; Great Eastern; North West Region; Thameslink.
  Railtrack to be privatised in due course. There is no timetable for sale.
  Freight businesses: Freightliner (BR's container business) and Red Star (express parcels) were advertised for sale in May 1994. BR's trainload freight services, and the Rail Express systems (mail train business) will be offered for sale in 1995. The Channel Tunnel freight services will be privatised once they have been established fully.
  Fourteen Infrastructure Service Units. Sales due to be completed by April 1996.
  European Passengers Services (a Government owned company). The intention is for EPS to be transferred in 1995, along with Union Railways (a subsidiary of the British Railways Board), to the consortium chosen to build and own the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
  Some 30 other businesses which provide support services to the railway industry will be offered for sale as soon as possible. they include:

  British Rail Telecommunications plc;

  British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and Level 5 depots;

  The Works Division;

  Marketing Services;

  Technical Services;

  Business Systems;

  Quality and Safety Systems;

  Training activities and establishments

  Note: Two of these businesses will be offered to the private sector

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role his Department has had in negotiations between Manchester airport and the Highways Agency; when he expects the negotiations will be concluded; and if he will make a statement.
  579
  Mr. Key
  I have kept in close touch with with the negotiations between Manchester Airport plc, the Highways Agency and officials of the Government Office for the North-West over the provision of road access to Manchester airport if consent is given for the construction of a second runway. These discussions continue.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  The Attorney-General
  None. As to the future, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 8 July 1994,Official Report, column 337.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Orders In Council
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the titles of the Orders in Council enacted under the(a) affirmative, (b) negative and (c) emergency procedures for each year since 1979.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  A list of the Orders in Council that have been made under Northern Ireland Act 1974 since 1979 will be placed in the Library.

  Table 1: Expenditure by grant type

  £ million

  Renovation1

  Replacement2

  Other3

  Total

  1989–90

  22·50

  nil

  11·1

  33·6

  1990–91

  21·00

  nil

  10·0

  31·0

  1991–92

  22·00

  nil

  8·0

  30·0

  1992–93

  21·00

  nil

  9·1

  30·1

  1993–94

  23·94

  0·66

  7·8

  32·4

  The Housing (NI) Order 1992 introduced a new grants regime and the figures supplied reflect comparable grants under the new and old schemes.

  1The figures for Renovation Grants include Improvement Grants and grants associated with disabled facilities.

  2Replacement grants were first introduced in the financial year 1991–92 and expenditure did not accrue until the 1993–94 financial year.

  3"Other" includes Repair, Intermediate, Houses in Multiple Occupation, and Minor Works Grants.

  Table 2: Grant expenditure by council area 1993–941

  £000s

  Council

  Renovation

  Replacement

  Others

  Total

  Antrim

  —

  —

  6·4

  6·4

  Ards

  —

  —

  38·5

  38·5

  Armagh

  16·6

  15·0

  160·0

  191·6

  Ballymena

  4·4

  —

  8·1

  12·5

  Ballymoney

  38·6

  18·9

  4·1

  61·6

  Banbridge

  1·2

  —

  19·5

  20·7

  Belfast

  780·9

  —

  229·8

  1,010·7

  Carrickfergus

  12·3

  —

  4·3

  16·6

  Castlereagh

  8·8

  —

  17·8

  26·6

  Coleraine

  57·7

  16·4

  16·6

  90·7

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  19·0

  19·0

  Craigavon

  28·9

  —

  193·0

  221·9

  Derry

  17·9

  —

  16·7

  34·6

  Down

  95·4

  90·1

  14·1

  199·6

  Dungannon

  16·7

  —

  19·1

  35·8

  Fermanagh

  68·5

  396·9

  65·4

  530·8

  Larne

  8·1

  —

  4·8

  12·9

  Schools (Capital Grants)
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all applications for capital grants from(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) integrated schools from 1990 to 1993; and if he will list those grants approved, the date approved and the capital fund requested and granted.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Benefit
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claimants living in private rented accommodation had their housing benefit reduced in the last year; and what was the average level of reduction.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Renovation and Replacement Grants
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of renovation and replacement grants paid out in each year since 1989–90; and what is the latest available information for each district council area in the Province.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However I am advised by its Chief Executive that the information requested is as follows:
  581

  Council

  Renovation

  Replacement

  Others

  Total

  Limavady

  —

  —

  4·1

  4·1

  Lisburn

  129·0

  57·1

  20·3

  206·4

  Magherafelt

  1·1

  —

  6·8

  7·9

  Moyle

  1·l

  —

  0·8

  1·9

  Newry and Mourne

  43·5

  35·8

  105·9

  185·2

  Newtownabbey

  45·5

  —

  11·5

  57·0

  North Down

  8·0

  —

  29·8

  37·8

  Omagh

  —

  —

  22·5

  22·5

  Strabane

  7·7

  23·7

  14·3

  45·7

  Total

  1,391·9

  653·9

  1,053·2

  3,099

  1These figures only represent expenditure on grants approved under the Housing (NI) Order 1992.

  Further expenditure of £29·3m was incurred under the previous scheme but is not available by Council area.

  Omagh-Ballygavley Road
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to commence the upgrading of the Omagh to Ballygavley road.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Two schemes at Brackagh and Augher Point have been completed and a scheme to provide a climbing lane at Garvaghy will start in the 1997–98 financial year, subject to the continuing availability of finance.

  Cookstown Bypass
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Department of the Environment has to commence the completion of the Cookstown bypass.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The completion of the Cookstown bypass is not included in the Department's current five-year major road works programme.

  Workspace, Draperstown Ltd.
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants have been received from central Government, the International Fund for Ireland and European sources by Workspace, Draperstown Ltd.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Grants received by Workspace, Draperstown Ltd. and its subsidiaries from central Government and European sources are as follows:

  £

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  986,990

  European Regional Development Fund

  197,400

  Department of Agriculture

  2,138

  EU LEADER Programme

  21,470

  Training and Employment Agency

  13,608,873

  EU HORIZON Programme

  130,380

  1Last two yeats only.

  The question of the amount of grant aid received from the International Fund for Ireland is a matter for the board of the fund, which is independent of Her Majesty's Government.

  Child Care
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Department of Health spends on child care; on what provision this sum is spent; and how many children receive the child care.
  582
  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Health and Social Services encourages the development of child care by grant aiding regional voluntary child care organisations in Northern Ireland. In the current financial year, over £241,000 is being provided. That is in addition to the support that health and social services boards provide to local day care projects, which in 1991–92, the latest year for which the information is available, amounted to £1,598,000. In that year, boards also spent £148,000 on family day centres, although those do not cater exclusively for parents with young children. In January 1994, the Department also allocated £310,000 to the health and social services boards on a once-only basis in support of local initiatives in the child care sector.

  Details of the forms of provision and number of places available, as at 31 March 1993, are as follows:

  Type

  Places available

  Pre-school playgroups

  14,742

  Day nurseries

  2,080

  Childminders

  13,492

  Total

  30,314

  Prison Statistics
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners are at present being held(a) Magilligan, (b) Maze, (c) Crumlin and (d) Maghaberry prisons.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The prison population in these establishments on 7 July 1994 was as follows:

  Establishment

  Number of prisoners

  HM Prison Magilligan

  297

  HM Prison Maze

  575

  MR Prison Belfast

  547

  HM Prison Maghaberry

  327

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the location of each(a) primary and (b) secondary integrated school in Northern Ireland, together with the catchment area from which its pupils are drawn, the number of children at each school and its capacity; and if he will give the number of (i) voluntary grammar, (ii) maintained primary and secondary schools

  583
  and (iii) controlled primary and secondary schools within each such catchment area, showing the number of pupils at those schools and their capacity, or as much of such information as is readily available to him.

  Mr. Ancram
  The "open enrolment" regulations currently in operation allow parents to state a preference for the school which they wish their child to attend. If the school has places, it must accept the child. Catchment areas as such are not prescribed and the Department does not hold information on the catchment area of each school.

  The information readily available on integrated schools is as follows:

  Integrated schools in Northern Ireland

  School name

  Location

  Capacity

  Enrolments (1993–94)

  Grant-maintained Integrated Primary Schools

  Acorn1

  Carrickfergus

  82

  52

  Braidside1

  Ballymena

  145

  118

  Bridge

  Banbridge

  270

  227

  Corran1

  Larne

  120

  91

  Cranmore1

  Belfast

  120

  38

  Enniskillen1

  Enniskillen

  174

  161

  Hazelwood

  Belfast

  305

  302

  Lough View1

  Belfast

  50

  24

  Millstrand

  Portrush

  198

  170

  Oakgrove1

  Londonderry

  240

  219

  Omagh1

  Omagh

  131

  110

  Portadown1

  Portadown

  140

  115

  Saints and Scholars1

  Armagh

  100

  26

  Windmill

  Dungannon

  121

  110

  Controlled Integrated Primary Schools

  All Children's

  Newcastle

  176

  148

  Carhill

  Garvagh

  97

  50

  Forge

  Belfast

  210

  159

  Grant-maintained Integrated Secondary Schools

  Hazelwood College

  Belfast

  643

  585

  Lagan College

  Belfast

  850–860

  849

  Oakgrove College1

  Londonderry

  400

  180

  Controlled Integrated Secondary Schools

  Brownlow College

  Craigavon

  400

  205

  1As these schools have not been open for the full seven years of primary level education and five years of secondary level education. The figures represent planned long-term capacity.

  Benefits
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland were in receipt of(a) disability allowance, (b) attendance allowance, (c) family credit, (d) income support and (e) invalidity benefit, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information available is given as follows:

  Number of claimants in receipt of certain benefits in Northern Ireland May 1994

  Type of benefit

  Number

  Attendance Allowance

  49,237

  Disability Living Allowance

  67,980

  Family Credit

  19,952

  Income Support

  222,621

  Invalidity Benefit

  67,813

  Child Support Agency
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many cases the Child Support Agency has used earnings deduction orders to obtain maintenance payments.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Child Support Agency under its chief executive, Patrick Devlin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Pat Devlin to Rev. William McCrea, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about the number of cases where a Deduction from Earnings Order is used to obtain maintenance.
  Between April 1993 and 30 June 1994 Deductions from Earnings Orders were imposed in 297 cases.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been dealt with by the Child Support Agency in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Child Support Agency under its chief executive, Patrick Devlin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Pat Devlin to Rev. William McCrea, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about the number of cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency in Northern Ireland.
  Between April 1993 and 1 July 1994 the Agency contacted 25,423 persons with care of children and in 16,990 cases application was returned. The Agency has cleared 14,121 cases in the same period.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases the Child Support Agency has pursued to date where there is a court agreement regarding maintenance in existence.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Child Support Agency under its chief executive, Patrick Devlin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Pat Devlin to Rev. William McCrea, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about the number of cases the Child Support Agency has pursued to date where there is a court order agreement regarding maintenance in existence.
  Information on the number of cases assessed where there was a previous court agreement is not collected routinely and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Job Creation
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been created through(a) the Industrial Development Board and (b) Local Enterprise Development Unit initiatives in each Northern Ireland constituency in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Information on job creations is not available in the form requested. Statistics for job creations
  585
  are not available before 1991–92. The table below gives details of IDB and LEDU job creations for Northern Ireland since 1991–92.

  New jobs created

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Industrial Development Board

  2,490

  2,815

  3,289

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  1,750

  2,630

  2,870

  Roads
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the allocation of Department of the Environment finances for(a) road maintenance, (b) major and (c) minor roadworks in each of the 26 district council areas in the last financial year.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Expenditure for the 1993–94 financial year is as follows:

  District council

  Road maintenance

  Major works1

  Minor Works

  Antrim

  2,213

  1,415

  419

  Ards

  1,988

  75

  383

  Armagh

  3,028

  0

  881

  Ballymena

  1,813

  113

  552

  Ballymoney

  1,068

  0

  171

  Banbridge

  1,738

  93

  371

  Belfast

  6,495

  212,713

  1,037

  Carrickfergus

  784

  144

  309

  Castlereagh

  2,018

  82

  582

  Coleraine

  1,988

  589

  979

  Cookstown

  2,042

  4

  383

  Craigavon

  2,617

  40

  535

  Derry

  2,219

  381

  904

  Down

  2,628

  128

  644

  Dungannon

  2,745

  43

  379

  Fermanagh

  3,128

  16

  596

  Larne

  1,203

  0

  202

  Limavady

  1,430

  653

  457

  Lisburn

  4,530

  597

  909

  Magherafelt

  1,593

  188

  775

  Moyle

  905

  0

  152

  Newry and Mourne

  3,115

  1,270

  890

  Newtownabbey

  2,877

  156

  963

  North Down

  1,257

  226

  407

  Omagh

  3,106

  107

  698

  Strabane

  2,517

  150

  541

  Total

  61,045

  19,183

  15,119

  1Major works are not allocated on a District Council basis. These figures represent expenditure on specific schemes some of which may have been completed prior to 1993–94.

  2Includes expenditure on Belfast Cross Harbour Bridges.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigations have been carried out in Northern Ireland in relation to the link between the road network and employment and prosperity.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  While no specific investigations have been carried out by the Department, the link between the road network and the economy is one of the factors considered in the formulation of road policy.

  Education Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average cost of educating a child at(a) a controlled primary school, (b) a controlled
  586
  secondary school, (c) a voluntary grammar school, (d) an integrated primary school, (e) an integrated secondary school and (f) an integrated primary school in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The average expenditure per pupil in Northern Ireland in 1992–93 was as follows:

  £

  Controlled primary school

  1,393

  Controlled secondary school

  2,294

  Voluntary grammar school

  2,157

  Integrated primary school

  1,697

  Integrated secondary school

  2,268

  Public Bodies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his appointments to public bodies and non-departmental public bodies are subject to investigation by the Fair Employment Commission.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The vast majority of appointments made by my right hon. and learned Friend to public bodies in Northern Ireland do not constitute employment within the meaning of the provisions of the Fair Employment Acts, and would therefore lie outside the scope of the investigative powers of the Fair Employment Commission. However, a small number of public appointments, where the chairman of the public body concerned is also the chief executive, would come within the investigative powers of the Fair Employment Commission. Appointments which do not fall within the scope of the Fair Employment Acts are subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.

  Capital Works
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been extended in each education board area in Northern Ireland on capital works in each of the last five years for which figures are available on(a) the integrated sector, (b) the voluntary grammar schools, (c) the controlled primary and secondary schools and (d) the maintained primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure by education and library boards for each of the years from 1988–89 to 1991–92 is analysed by area and by school sector in the statements and summary of the education and library boards' accounts, Cmnd 1105, 1531, 1977, and 2249, copies of which are available in the Library. The figures for 1992–93 will be published on 27 July 1994, Cmnd No. 2603. Capital grants paid by the Department of Education to grant-maintained integrated schools and voluntary schools over the five year period 1988–89 to 1992–93 are set out in the table:

  Board area and year

  Integrated schools £000s

  Voluntary grammar schools £000s

  Maintained primary and secondary schools £000s

  Belfast

  1988–89

  Nil

  1,368

  1,604

  1989–90

  Nil

  1,425

  1,816

  1990–91

  49

  1,602

  3,301

  587

  Board area and year

  Integrated schools £000s

  Voluntary grammar schools £000s

  Maintained primary and secondary schools £000s

  1991–92

  71

  2,516

  3,045

  1992–93

  329

  1,195

  2,556

  Western

  1988–89

  Nil

  864

  1,601

  1989–90

  Nil

  1,208

  1,749

  1990–91

  Nil

  2,034

  2,216

  1991–92

  406

  4,163

  4,000

  1992–93

  19

  5,040

  3,475

  North Eastern

  1988–89

  Nil

  2,073

  1,766

  1989–90

  Nil

  1,848

  930

  1990–91

  650

  2,575

  732

  1991–92

  32

  3,976

  896

  1992–93

  530

  4,193

  1,167

  South Eastern

  1988–89

  Nil

  509

  922

  1989–90

  Nil

  1,783

  1,503

  1990–91

  101

  1,375

  2,896

  1985

  1990

  1992

  Perinatal

  Neonatal

  Perinatal

  Neonatal

  Perinatal

  Neonatal

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  10·4

  4·8

  7·3

  3·5

  8·7

  3·8

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  10·4

  5·2

  7·1

  4·2

  7·6

  3·5

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  12·8

  7·7

  6·4

  4·0

  8·5

  3·8

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  11·4

  5·5

  10·2

  4·9

  7·8

  5·6

  Note: 1993 figures are not yet available. Perinatal are per 1,000 live and still births. Neonatal are per 1,000 live births.

  Chill Factor Definition
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will define the chill factor which he requires to be taken into account for health provision in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The chill factor refers to the requirement for health and social services boards, in planning the provision of services, to ensure that no section of the community would perceive itself to be unduly disadvantaged in terms of its continued access to services as a result of changes in their location.

  Countryside Protection Schemes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost in 1993 in Northern Ireland of payments made under(a) the countryside stewardship scheme, (b) the hedgerow incentive scheme, (c) the countryside premium scheme and (d) the wildlife enhancement scheme; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  None of the listed schemes apply in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost in 1993 in Northern Ireland of payments under(a) the environmentally sensitive area scheme, (b) the nitrate sensitive area scheme, (c) the farm and conservation grant scheme, (d) the pilot beef and sheep extensification schemes, (e) the woodland grant scheme, (f) the farm woodland premium scheme, (g) the orchard grubbing scheme, (h) the optional five year set-aside
  588

  Board area and year

  Integrated schools £000s

  Voluntary grammar schools £000s

  Maintained primary and secondary schools £000s

  1991–92

  1,761

  1,381

  2,225

  1992–93

  113

  1,323

  2,189

  Southern

  1988–89

  Nil

  1,972

  1,921

  1989–90

  Nil

  3,309

  3,063

  1990–91

  35

  2,923

  5,318

  1991–92

  2

  2,519

  4,499

  1992–93

  389

  1,922

  5,399

  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the perinatal mortality rate and (b) the neonatal mortality rate in each health and social services board for 1985, 1990 and 1993.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  scheme, (i) the habitat scheme, (j) the moorland scheme, (k) the countryside access scheme and (l) the organic aid scheme; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information in respect of the schemes is as follows:

  Scheme

  Expenditure by £'000 1993–94

  Estimate by £'000 1994–95

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  586

  700

  Farm and conservation grant

  6,250

  4,580

  Pilot beef and sheep extensification

  15

  15

  Woodland grant

  729

  842

  Farm woodland premium

  68

  95

  Orchard grubbing

  Nil

  1

  Optional 5-year set aside

  63

  34

  Nitrate sensitive areas and countryside access schemes do not apply in Northern Ireland, while the habitat improvement scheme, moorland scheme and organic aid scheme will be launched later in 1994 and expenditure will not arise before 1995–96.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland Electricity's four generating stations were sold to private interests in 1992, and the remainder of the business—transmission, distribution and supply—was successfully floated in June 1993, thus completing privatisation of the electricity
  589
  supply industry in Northern Ireland. The process of privatising Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. has begun, with a target date of mid-1994 for completion by means of a trade sale.

  The Government remain committed to the privatisation of water and sewerage services at the earliest possible date but recognise that, for a number of technical reasons, this will not be possible in the lifetime of the present Parliament. Legislation is being promoted to enable ports in Northern Ireland to be privatised, while the Department of the Environment is considering the extent to which the non-core activities of Northern Ireland Railways and Ulsterbus/Citybus may be sold.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many health visitors were employed in each health and personal social services board area in September 1988 and in September 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The information as requested is not readily available. However, figures for all nursing staff, in the specialty of health visiting is given as follows. Staffing figures prior to 1990 were not collected on a comparable basis.

  1990

  1992

  Health visiting staff in Northern Ireland

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Eastern Board

  124

  117

  234

  209

  Northern Board

  92

  86

  95

  90

  Southern Board

  54

  50

  90

  84

  Western Board

  77

  71

  79

  72

  NORTHERN IRELAND TOTAL

  347

  324

  498

  455

  WTE—Whole time equivalent.

  The following nursing grades are included in the specialty of health visiting and are included in the figures provided:
  Assistant Director Nursing Services (Grade 1), Assistant Director Nursing Services (Grade 7), District Nursing Sister G, Enrolled Nurse E, Enrolled Nurse F, Fieldwork Teacher H, Health Visitor, Health Visitor (Grade G), Health Visitor (Grade H), Home Care Worker, Nursing Auxiliary B, Nursing Sister/Charge Nurse H, Post Basic Student D, Post Basic Student E, School Nurse E, School Nurse F, Senior Nurse/Nursing Officer I, Staff Nurse E, Staff Nurse F, Student Health Visitor, Team Leader/Health Visitor, Team Leader (Health Visiting/District Nursing), Unit Senior Manager 2.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer, 8 July 1994]: The information requested could not be obtained by the Northern Ireland Office in the time available, except at disproportionate cost. However, within the Northern Ireland Departments, the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, on one occasion, directed that a contract be awarded to a firm other than that recommended by his officials. This contract, for providing catering facilities, was awarded on 22 November 1990 and was valued at £265,548.

EDUCATION

  Full-time Further Education
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people applied to study full time for a degree or equivalent qualification at an institution of higher education for the academic years 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what are the latest available figures for the coming academic year.

  Mr. Boswell
  Applicants through central schemes to full-time higher education courses totalled some 395,000 in 1992 and 419,000 in 1993. As at May, applicants for admission in 1994 stood at some 378,000—virtually the same level as at May last year.

  Voluntary Activity
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to encourage volunteering on the part of students in schools and further and higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government are seeking to promote voluntary activity among all age groups through their make a difference initiative. The make a difference team will be considering the role of young people as part of the development of a United Kingdom volunteering strategy. Many students are already volunteers, and it is primarily for educational establishments to consider what further steps to take to encourage students to volunteer.

  Primary Schools (Funding)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to reform the funding of large primary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Decisions about funding levels for such schools are for local education authorities to make in the context of their own schemes for the local management of schools.

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to improve understanding among school pupils of road safety.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department encourages schools to make full use of opportunities within the national curriculum and the wider school curriculum to teach pupils about road safety.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many times a year he meets chief education officers to discuss grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend and other Ministers meet chief education officers throughout the year as the need arises and discuss a wide variety of topics, including grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Liddington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the opinions of parents whose children attend grant-maintained schools about the quality of education which those schools provide.
  591
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Growing numbers of parents are choosing self-governing schools for their children. Some 70 per cent. of grant-maintained schools responding to a recent survey reported increases in pupil numbers. Pupil numbers at secondary schools which have been grant-maintained for the last four years have grown three times faster than the secondary pupil population as a whole. This is clear evidence of parents' confidence in the quality of education provided by self-governing schools.

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many requests his Department received for copies of last year's school performance tables.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Copies of the 1993 tables were sent to schools which appeared in the secondary school tables, and to all maintained primary schools, for distribution to parents and students considering their options for transfer to secondary school or to education post-16. A further 125,000 copies have since been distributed in response to supplementary requests to the Department.

  Sixth Forms
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of grant-maintained secondary schools have their own sixth form.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Of the 594 grant-maintained secondary schools currently operating, 68 per cent. have sixth forms.

  Returning Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish figures giving his current estimates on potential returners to the teaching profession, broken down by employment status, age and gender.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: The latest available estimates are for 1990–91:

  Thousands, rounded

  Employment status

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Part-time and supply teachers in maintained sector

  3

  88

  90

  In independent schools or teacher-related employment

  8

  32

  40

  Employment other than teaching

  70

  92

  162

  Not in paid employment

  7

  66

  73

  TOTAL

  88

  276

  365

  Information by age is not readily available. However, these figures exclude out-of-service teachers aged over 55 years as well as those who qualified before 1965 and have not taught after that date and those not resident in England.

  Independent And Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to prevent local education authorities from discriminating against independent and grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Section 129 of the 1993 Education Act provides that local education authorities, in performing 592
  their duties and exercising their powers, must treat pupils at grant-maintained schools no less favourably than pupils at schools maintained by a local education authority. The Department will continue to investigate allegations of discrimination against GM schools. Pupils at independent schools are not covered by equivalent statutory protection.

  Specialisms
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what support he proposes to give to those schools which wish to develop a specialism in(a) music, (b) art, (c) languages and (d) other areas of the curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government are committed to extending choice and diversity in secondary school provision and want to see more schools develop their own specialisms. We are currently examining in detail how new types of specialist schools can best be supported, within available resources. We expect to make an announcement in due course.

  Lecturers (Contracts of Employment)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding further education lecturers' contracts of employment.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters on this matter, both directly and through hon. Members.

  University Places
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he is taking to ensure that all suitably qualified students are offered university places over the next three years.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for universities and colleges to decide how many places to offer in the light of maximum aggregate student numbers notified to them by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. They are best placed to judge whether a candidate is suitably qualified for a place. The Government's spending plans allow for the current record proportion of almost one in three young people entering high education to be maintained for the next three years.

  Further Education (Funding)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the current funding arrangements for further education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The way in which funds are allocated to colleges in the further education sector is a matter for the Further Education Funding Council to determine, having regard to the funding aims set by Government. The council has, after extensive and detailed consultation with colleges, put in place a new funding methodology for 1994–95, which has been widely welcomed. It is pledged to review the methodology year by year and has already started work for 1995–96.

  Pupil Expenditure
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the expenditure on books and equipment in 1992–93 in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools per pupil.
  593
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Separate information is not collected for nursery and primary schools. Local education authorities' spending on books and equipment in 1992–93 was £59 per pupil in LEA-maintained nursery and primary schools and £98 per pupil in LEA-maintained secondary schools. Equivalent information is not available for grant-maintained schools.

  Work Experience
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the subject of ensuring the effective provision of work experience in schools, with particular reference to the issues of health and safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced on 24 May,Official Report, column 198, the Government are asking training and enterprise councils and their partners to ensure that all pupils in their last year of compulsory education can have at least one week's work experience and will make available an additional £23 million over three years to 1997–98 to support this. Guidance on work experience placements, including health and safety aspects, is contained in the Department for Education booklets "Education at Work".

  Higher Education (Access Funds)
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what resources will be available for access funds for students in higher education institutions in 1994–95; and when he proposes to issue new guidance on the use of the funds.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is making available £20·9 million for access funds for students in higher education in England for 1994–95. The sum is being allocated between the three funds as shown below:

  £ million

  Undergraduate Fund

  15·30

  Postgraduate Fund

  5·30

  Further Education Fund

  0·34

  The Department has now written to the Higher Education Funding Council for England with guidance to be given to HE institutions about allocation and use of the funds for 1994–95.

  Portuguese and Spanish
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many schools(a) Portuguese and (b) Spanish are taught; and how many teachers and pupils are involved.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not have full details on the numbers of schools where Portuguese and Spanish are taught. However, the database of GCSE and GCE A-level and AS-level examination results used for the publication of school and college performance tables for England in November 1993 shows that 162 schools entered 213 pupils for GCSE Portuguese and 1,621 schools entered 25,500 pupils for GCSE Spanish in 1992–93.

  The estimates from the 1992 secondary school staffing survey, which covered approximately a 10 per cent. sample of schools in England, showed that at national level there were around 3,400 full-time and part-time teachers teaching Spanish in England in 1992. Figures for teachers of Portuguese cannot be reliably estimated.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Forth
  No organisations within my right hon. Friend's area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990 and there are no plans for privatisation, although the forthcoming periodic review of the Teachers' Pensions Agency will include consideration of the scope for privatising the agency as part of the "prior options" study.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools are due to receive Ofsted inspections in the autumn term 1994; for those inspections, how many contracts have not yet been awarded; how many schools have not yet been informed of the date of their inspection; and how many schools he expects will not receive inspections in the autumn term due to lack of contracts being awarded.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
Lord Freyberg —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Parmoor —Took the Oath.

Youth Training: Records
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which government record is capable of recording any failure to deliver the guarantee of a youth training place for every 16 and 17 year-old who wants one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is the responsibility of training and enterprise councils to deliver the youth training guarantee. According to information supplied by local careers services, on 31st May there were only 213 young people in England waiting for the offer of a YT place for eight or more weeks.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Question asks for any government record from which it is possible to discover whether the guarantee is being delivered. Am I to understand that the Minister is not able to quote such a source? If so, is he saying, like Belloc's Lord Hippo, that he knows because someone who was in the know had confidently told him so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I could have simply answered, no. I thought that I would give a more helpful answer to the noble Earl. I was making clear that there is no central government record and that we do not believe it necessary to have such a record. However, from information supplied by the local careers services in every LEA or wherever, we are informed that there were only 213 such people.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, how can the Government ensure the delivery of a government guarantee through a non-governmental body? Do the Government have any record of their own which would enable them to establish whether any 16 or 17 year-olds have been excluded from the guarantee group, and if so, for what reason?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I have to make clear that we base our evidence on that provided by the careers service. That indicates that there are 213 people who have not been covered by the guarantee. Perhaps I should make it clear that delivery of the guarantee is a matter for the TECs. I can given an assurance to the noble Lord that no TEC will be prevented, through lack of resources, from meeting that YT guarantee.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, in reply to a Question earlier this year about the careers service, intimated that the Government do not use its statistics in their calculations? Can the Minister now confirm that the reply given by the noble Viscount that the Government do not use the careers service statistics in checking whether the guarantee is being delivered is because they are not government records? Can the Minister confirm that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend was referring to the position which applied some time earlier. As from the end of last year the careers service has provided us with the appropriate information. I make clear to the noble Lord that the number of people not covered by the guarantee fell from 4,000 to 3,000 a year ago and is now a mere 213 in England.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister say what percentage of these young people, on completion of a course, obtain real jobs? If it is not a substantial percentage, does the Minister agree that it is an appalling disappointment for those who complete a training scheme only to find that there is no job at the end of it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question, but I assure him that unemployment among young people, whether measured for 16 or 17 year-olds or under-25 year-olds, is far lower than that experienced by most of our European colleagues, It is certainly lower than the European average. The employment rate among young people, at 55.9 per cent., is the second highest in the EC while staying on rates in education have increased from about 42 per cent. of 16 year-olds in 1979-80 to about 70 per cent. in 1992–93.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the answers he has given to this Question appear wholly sensible, straightforward and satisfactory? Does he agree that the concept of keeping records of records involves tremendous expense? When they are produced they are all challenged as being fudged anyway.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's question. Of course I believe that my answers have been wholly satisfactory. As I made clear, I do not believe that it is necessary to keep central records in this matter. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic, burdensome and costly. We have perfectly adequate records provided by the local careers services.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we understand that the Government are using the careers service records. If those records are accurate and the Minister is satisfied that they are, that is satisfactory. However, my recollection is that very frequently the careers service admitted that it was unable to trace quite a number of people who had left school. Have the Government a record of how many people have been "lost" because those are likely to be the people in whom we are particularly interested? Is the careers service certain that it is tracing everybody, because it never used to?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is always possible that one or two people have been missed. If so, and the noble Baroness brings them to my attention, I would be prepared to take up their case.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how does the noble Lord think I am going to find them if they have been lost?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness would be very good at it. I am trying to make clear that I believe the careers service, which is there on the ground and locally based, is the best organisation to provide such records. Those records indicate a very dramatic fall-off in the number of those for whom the guarantee is failing. The noble Baroness should be pleased that I am able to tell the House that there are now only about 213 people in England who are not covered. That figure used to be of the order of 4,000.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the original Question ask for the records of someone who wants a place? How can there possibly be a record of what they want as distinct from what they have applied for?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for bringing to the attention of the House the precise wording of the Question put down by the noble Earl. I answered it as best I could. I think that my noble and learned friend will be glad that the figure has fallen to 213.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister let the House know how many 16 and 17 year-olds awarded hardship payments in 1993–94 were registered for youth training? What is the average length of time they had been waiting for a placement? Will he tell the House also how it is possible to monitor the success of government policies in that area unless proper records are kept?
Lord Henley: My Lords, proper records are kept, and proper research is undertaken to ensure that we have the appropriate details. I can answer part of the noble Baroness's question. There were, I believe, 137,870 applications for severe hardship payments in 1993 of which 118,528 were successful.
Baroness David: My Lords, have the Government yet discovered a means of eliminating double counting from their figures to show how many 16 and 17 year-olds are in education, employment or youth training?
Lord Henley: My Lords, these matters are difficult. As the noble Baroness will be aware, according to the labour force survey conducted under ILO methodology there are some 122,000 unemployed 16 and 17 year-olds, but that figure includes 52,000 people who are in full-time education. That is because the method by which the ILO decrees that unemployment should be calculated includes those who say they are looking for jobs or will be available for jobs in two weeks' time. That job can be a part-time or Saturday job.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people on the ground such as Centrepoint constantly
1636
find 16 and 17 year-olds with no visible legal means of support, and that many of us believe that if government records are creating "unpersons" with no visible legal means of support that is a very serious matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in cases of no visible legal means of support, it is open to that individual or those who advise that individual to apply for severe hardship payments. Severe hardship claims are dealt with on the basis that the guarantee is not being met but that the claimant is also prepared to look for a job or various forms of training. We do not believe that it is right to provide income support, as the noble Earl desires, for all those who claim it merely because they feel that it is unnecessary to take up a YT place.

New Cars: "On The Road" Charges
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will conduct an inquiry into the "on the road" charges included in the purchase cost of a new car.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government see no need for any inquiry on this matter.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, to say the least, I am disappointed. Is the Minister aware that over the past two years the on-the-road charges to which I refer in my Question have in some cases doubled and in most cases more than trebled? We are now seeing a situation where someone purchasing a new vehicle, as millions of people will do in two weeks' time, are being asked for sums ranging from £600 to £1,000 for on-the-road charges. How can the Minister say that there is no need for an inquiry when vehicle excise duty is only £130 and a pair of plates will come to no more than £30? The Government removed the car tax to help the car industry but all that has happened since is that the dealers have added it in to inflate their profits. In a fortnight's time, millions of motorists in this country will be ripped off by the on-the-road charges.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the view of the Retail Motor Industry Federation is that typical "on-the-road" charges have stabilised at about £300 to £450. The important point is that the consumer is already protected under existing legislation. The Price Marking Order 1991 requires that where a purchase is subject to payment for ancillary goods or services such as a delivery charge, the extra charge should be included in the price quoted, or, if quoted separately, shown with equal prominence to that of the stated price.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain why it is usually cheaper to buy a British made car abroad?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the important consideration is that direct comparisons are often difficult to make. Cross-border list price comparisons

1637
are frequently misleading and the situation is complicated by differences in model specifications, marketing support and credit terms.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but is he not puzzled by the prevalence of this phenomenon? It is extraordinarily irritating that compared with almost every other product one buys the price of a car is not quoted in terms of what it costs to buy. Does not the Minister believe that there is a degree of restrictive practice? Are not too many dealers doing this kind of thing, which suggests that, covertly at least, it is something they are doing in order to exploit the consumer?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, these are long-established practices in the motor retail trade. The important point is that cars are subject to the same legislation on price indication as any other goods.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is exactly my point. I was hoping that the Minister would say that the Government will réflect upon it. Car dealers are subject to the same legislation as everyone else but no one else quotes delivery charges. Perhaps I may take as an obvious example Sainsbury's. One is not told, "In addition to the prices you see, each item has three or four pence added to it for delivery charges". In respect of almost everything else we buy, the price is quoted clearly and markets depend on that in order that the consumer can behave rationally. Would not the Minister at least reflect upon what is a peculiar phenomenon and agree with my noble friend that there should be an inquiry into the matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the important point is that where a retailer chooses to show a basic price plus on-the-road charges, as long as the consumer is made properly aware of the extra charges and hence the final selling price of the car it is a commercial decision for the retailer as to how he arrives at that final price.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, are not motor dealers subject to the same rules of competition that apply elsewhere? Should not that, together with government controls, provide sufficient protection?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, precisely. Where the consumer is already protected, as in this case, the retailer should be allowed to choose the way in which he carries out his business.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is it not the case that during the course of these questions it has been made abundantly clear that the consumer is not sufficiently protected? Will the noble Viscount please address himself to that point?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no, I take issue with the noble Lord. The Government take the issue of consumer protection very seriously indeed. But neither the Government nor the Director General of Fair Trading are aware of any particular public concern about the inclusion of on-the-road charges in new car pricing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while acknowledging and being grateful for the points the Minister makes, ask him whether he will be kind enough to read in Hansard tomorrow the detailed submission made by my noble friend Lord Ewing. Will he ensure that British motorists get the square deal they deserve and respond to my noble friend's call for an examination of the matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we shall consider most carefully what has been said on this issue. However, the view of the Government is that the consumer is already adequately protected and that the retailer must be given the opportunity to operate his business in the way he chooses within the constraints of the consumer protection legislation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not share my noble friend's view of the quality of the answers that the Minister has given. I have found them profoundly disappointing and consider that they do not give a great deal of information—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: Will the Minister help the House to this extent: what are on-the-road charges, what are they meant to be charges for, and who assesses what the charges are?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord's question is the market. But the position exactly is that the law—
Noble Lords: What?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. The law requires buyers to be given in writing the selling price, which indicates the basic cost of the car, and all charges for other goods and services that must be paid for in order to obtain the car. The price must include VAT but not road tax, which is not part of the purchase price.
Lord Richard: My Lords, what are on-the-road charges, please?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that I have already fully explained what on-the-road charges are. It is, within the constraints of the consumer protection legislation, for the dealer to charge as he sees fit—
Noble Lords: For what?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, for the car and for the additional services. Delivery charges and number plates are two of the most commonly quoted. I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is having a problem differentiating between the charges that must be paid to obtain the car, which, if shown separately, must be shown with equal prominence to the basic price, and optional extras such as an extended warranty.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before the war friends of mine travelled to Dagenham and collected a baby Ford for nothing? It could be bought for £97 if one went to Dagenham to collect it; it cost £100 if delivered to your home. Is there not something wrong with the huge escalation in delivery charges that has taken place since that time?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, essentially, two questions are at issue. The first is whether the consumer has been misled and the second is the total price to be paid in the end. If the trader has acted properly, the outstanding question is what the final bill will be and not, in those circumstances, how it is arrived at.

Sudan
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards recent developments in Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, our prime concerns remain the civil war, the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies and human rights abuses. We shall continue to do whatever we can to help. In particular, we are supporting the peace initiative launched by the IGADD countries which has led to talks between the Government of Sudan and the SPLA factions in Nairobi.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that sympathetic Answer. Is she aware that in the south, despite massive humanitarian aid pouring in to Sudan, many tens of thousands of people are still dying of hunger and disease and that many areas, such as parts of the Nuba mountains, are entirely cut off from any aid as a result of the policies of the government in Khartoum? Does my noble friend agree, therefore, that the most urgent priority is to prevail upon that government in Khartoum to stop their military offensives against the people of the south and, if necessary, to raise these matters with the UN Security Council with a view to imposing arms and oil embargoes and air protection zones to protect civilians from continuing air attacks?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I share my noble friend's dismay at the number of people dying from hunger and disease. I agree that all nations must prevail upon the government in Khartoum to cease their military action. But it is also critical that the UN plan of action, for which the United Kingdom was the initiator, is allowed to provide humanitarian assistance in all parts of Sudan. There must be active measures to counter looting and a special role for the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs as relief co-ordinator. We are working to achieve that. I hope that one good sign on 1st July, with a government of Sudan unified commercially-linked exchange rate, may help towards these ends.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do the Government agree that in the draft Declaration of Principles, which was agreed at the IGADD meeting on 20th May 1994, the parties committed themselves to the proposition that a military solution to the conflict would not lead to a stable or lasting peace? In view of the fact that the government have continued to mount their military offences in the south, in some cases cutting off the humanitarian corridors which until recently allowed aid
1640
to be delivered to the starving people in those regions, does the Minister believe that additional pressure is required to be put on the government of Sudan? In particular, will she consider with our partners in the European Union the possibility of an arms embargo and in the meantime methods of persuading China and Iran, which are the principal arms suppliers and are fuelling this conflict, to stop the delivery of weapons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a very complicated problem. It is not possible just to impose an arms or oil embargo. We have not ruled out the option of action at the Security Council. We must have unanimity in the Security Council because a failed resolution would only be to Khartoum's benefit. I assure the noble Lord that we are doing all that we can to bring about the kind of outcome that he wishes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Sudan used to be an Anglo-Egyptian responsibility, will my noble friend say what co-operation we are now receiving from the Egyptian Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, through-out we have received excellent co-operation from the Egyptian Government, but it would be fair to say that the Egyptians are listened to less in Khartoum than are Members of the European Union.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister say anything specifically about the persecution of Christians in the Sudan and in particular about the horrific reports of the crucifying of Christians?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the persistent reports of grave human rights abuses, including those mentioned by the noble Lord. While we make it clear all the time to the Sudanese Government that those systematic abuses must cease, I believe that it is only through the United Nations Special Rapporteur that shall we gain any real progress.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that many Sudanese still regard Britain as their protector and look up to her and that they love us? Could we not therefore give them a higher moral support internationally?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very well aware that we give the Sudanese high moral support. We have also given them more than £20 million worth of aid help since January. But love will not cure this problem.
Baroness Blacks tone: My Lords, will the Minister put a little more flesh on her Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, with reference to the IGADD talks which I understand will begin next week, on 18th July? What practical support are the UK Government, and, indeed, our partners in the European Union, giving to those talks? What is the current level of UK emergency aid to the people of southern Sudan, and does she consider the level of aid to be adequate in the circumstances?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have just said that bilateral aid commitments exceeded £20 million in the first six months of the year. We shall give aid provided that we can get it to the people who desperately need it. With our European Union partners, we have provided practical support for the IGADD secretariat in Nairobi, and we shall give it all the political assistance that we can to help it to complete its task.

Land Acquisition: Department of Transport
3.2 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what basis the Department of Transport has spent more than £1.1 billion since 1986 on acquiring land and property purportedly for road building purposes, most of which is unlikely to be required.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the department seeks to acquire the minimum amount of land and property consistent with the known requirements of the road programme. It is obliged under the statutory compensation code to buy property if certain criteria are met. That results in some land and property being acquired which is not ultimately needed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But does he accept that the National Audit Office found a history of unnecessary acquisitions, waste and mismanagement by the department? Does he recognise that, as well as the losses incurred by the taxpayer, there has been much heartache, stress and, indeed, financial loss on the part of house owners whose properties have been acquired unnecessarily? Finally, why did it cost the Minister's department £4.3 million in 1992–93 to collect only £7.5 million in rental income? The most inefficient local housing authority would be a paragon of financial and managerial rectitude by those standards.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should preface my answer by saying that, as the noble Lord will know, the report by the National Audit Office was published a fortnight ago and we are currently considering its recommendations. By convention, substantive comments on the findings of the National Audit Office are not made before the Public Accounts Committee has had an opportunity to take evidence from the department on that report. That evidence will be taken later in the year.
The National Audit Office's report conceded that the statutory compensation code places an obligation on the department to compensate owners by buying blighted properties regardless of the need for them. Indeed, many people wished their properties to be purchased because they did not wish to remain under the blight. It is a
1642
difficult problem but, as I say, we shall give our response to the Public Accounts Committee when it takes evidence on the issue later in the year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister not recognise the power of the indictment delivered by the National Audit Office in terms of wasteful management? Property records are incomplete. Rent arrears have burgeoned. Vacancy levels are far too high. Sales of surplus property are taking too long. And 60 per cent. of properties acquired compulsorily were found ultimately not to be needed. Why are the Minister and his colleagues so swift to condemn local authorities for offences that are far less grave and yet so slow and mealy-mouthed when it comes to recognising the ineptitude of the department?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the problem has been that when road schemes are being considered often a number of options are put in the frame. The NAO accepted that the department is under an obligation to deal with statutory blight and eligibility for blight claims. And yet at the end of the day of course the department will choose only one route for the road. Therefore, property will have been purchased on other routes which is not then needed.
In fact, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport said earlier this year, we have taken steps to attempt to speed up the road programme and reach decisions more quickly as to which route should be chosen. That is what we intend to do in the future and that should mean a reduction in the number of properties covered by blight.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, but does the Minister not accept that 60 per cent. of the properties acquired were not needed? Is that not almost a record of which his department should be thoroughly ashamed? Is not an apology due?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord will know, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the convention is that substantive comments on the findings of the NAO are not made until the Public Accounts Committee has had an opportunity to hear evidence. I do not wish to breach that convention but nor do I wish to appear unwilling to answer the noble Lord's question. Therefore, I am in something of a dilemma. However, as I said a few moments ago, we hope that our new approach to the road building programme and concentration on category 1 and category 2 projects will reduce the number of plans which at initial stages cause blight and lead to large property holdings. But it must be said also that there is an obligation on my department to minimise the distress, hardship and uncertainty of property owners affected by trunk roads. Noble Lords opposite would be critical of the department if that were not done.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.7 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.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 145:
After Clause 140, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to provide resettlement assistance to released prisoners

.—(1) Where a released prisoner is subject to a licence, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the supervision received as a condition of that licence includes advice and assistance to further the resettlement of that released prisoner.

(2) Where a short-term prisoner (within the meaning of section 33(1) (a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1993) is released unconditionally, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that that released prisoner receives advice and assistance to further his resettlement.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above, "advice and assistance" to further the resettlement of released prisoners shall include, in particular, advice and assistance in connection with finding—

(a) accommodation; and

(b) employment.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my amendment would have the effect of placing a statutory responsibility on the Government for the welfare of all ex-prisoners, especially in regard to employment and housing. I have spoken twice on the subject recently. I expressed my views at each stage and they were supported in principle by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the acting leader of the Liberal Party. Indeed, the latter made some important points which may or may not be repeated today.
I have admitted that if my proposal were put into effect some considerable increase in the number of probation officers would be required. My noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out that it would come to that in the long run because there would be a big reduction in crime if there was not only an imaginative policy for ex-prisoners but also one for resettlement as advocated by myself in the past and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the last occasion.
However, one has to face the fact that some considerable increase in probation staff would be necessary in the immediate future. I am not expecting the noble Earl to say that the necessary money will be forthcoming and that all will be well. All I can ask of the noble Earl today—and this is not my last word on the matter because, if I am spared, I shall return to it again and again—is to give us an idea about the guidelines being issued to the probation service.
Noble Lords may or may not have it in their minds, but under the 1991 Act the probation service has a responsibility for supervising—and I repeat the word "supervising"—those ex-prisoners who have served more than a year in prison since the end of 1992. Of course, that is not a large proportion of prisoners, but it is obviously a large number of them. The question is whether the Government are ready to give some guidance to those people. Whatever the Government do
1644
in the way of guidance, I am bound to say that not an awful lot can be achieved if that very overworked service is not given more resources.
When I raised the matter on previous occasions, the Government were very forthcoming in describing the wonderful things that they believe are being done. However, I am afraid that they are living in a fool's paradise if they believe that is so. I know that the noble Earl is a very busy man, but if I had a few moments with him I could introduce him to a few ex-prisoners who would tell him a very different story. But, leaving that aside, I am only asking today whether the Government can throw any light on the guidelines which they are now issuing to the probation service as regards not only supervision but also the help that is being given to ex-prisoners who are seeking employment or accommodation. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to support in a few words the amendment of my old noble friend Lord Longford. With high levels of unemployment, the re-employment of people who have paid a penalty, so to speak, becomes increasingly difficult whether or not they have reformed. Much work is being done in that connection. For example, I am president of an organisation called NACRO which undertakes a good deal of that work, and there are two or three other organisations carrying out similar tasks.
I should like to feel absolutely certain that the new economies which the Government are finding in almost every direction—and about which we are complaining day after day—will not extend to reducing the limited amount of help which exists at present for ex-prisoners. Some of those people will never be better; but many of them are much like us and badly need help.
The Marquess of Hertford: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Earl's amendment with the simple thought that it can sometimes be very much cheaper to keep someone out of prison than to keep them incarcerated. That is putting the matter at its lowest level, which is purely financial.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl's interest in the resettlement of prisoners is well known. He recently tabled an Unstarred Question on the subject and moved the same amendment last month in Committee. At that stage, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser explained why we could not accept the amendment. I am bound to give the noble Earl the same answer today. However, I know that he did not expect me to say that it would be acceptable.
The prison and probation services already give high priority to resettlement. Preparation for release starts from the beginning of imprisonment through initiatives such as sentence planning, personal officer schemes and a range of specific programmes, including inmate development courses, pre-release courses and job clubs.
The noble Earl has often spoken highly of the resettlement establishments. I can assure him that the prison service is committed to extending the resettlement concept and is proposing to establish small units in establishments which are best placed to allow maximum advantage of work placement and closeness

1645
to home. After release, advice and assistance are provided by the probation service to offenders whom it supervises in the community.
Bach probation service is required to establish a local offender accommodation forum. That forum is expected to produce an area strategy for offender accommodation, to assess demand for such accommodation and the extent to which it is being met, and to arrange for homeless offenders to be referred to voluntary sector accommodation schemes in the area.
The noble Earl asked about guidance for the probation service. I can tell him that the Home Office and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation recently issued joint guidance aimed at improving the employment prospects of offenders under probation supervision. Each probation service is expected to develop an area employment policy, to identify the extent of local unemployment, how it can be addressed and the ways in which co-operation with other probation areas and other organisations should take place in order to improve the employment prospects of offenders. I shall ensure that a copy of that guidance is placed in the Library of the House.
The noble Earl may also be aware that the national standards for the probation service are currently being revised and will be circulated to a wide range of organisations for comment in the near future. A copy of that revised draft will also be placed in the Library.
As the noble Earl knows, the probation service works closely with the voluntary sector on both accommodation and employment issues through two schemes. The Home Office's probation accommodation grant scheme helps to provide supported accommodation for homeless offenders and the supervision grants scheme provides grants to support non-residential projects for those on bail and convicted offenders: many of those projects provide training and employment skills.
I hope I have made it clear that the Government share the noble Earl's anxiety about resettlement. However, I do not believe that the statutory requirement proposed is necessary or indeed appropriate.
Supervision in the community following release from custody has three main objectives. It is intended to protect the public, to prevent re-offending and to help offenders to resettle successfully in the community. Supervision needs to be adapted carefully to the individual circumstances of the offender and probation officers must be allowed to exercise their professional judgment in planning what that supervision should contain.
The amendment also seeks to impose advice and assistance on offenders who are not subject to statutory supervision. The probation rules in England and Wales already provide for advice and assistance to be given to such offenders if they so wish. In practice, voluntary supervision often means advice and assistance, again with practical difficulties, including accommodation and employment.
I hope that the noble Earl will accept that we are not poles apart on the issue. We agree about the importance of accommodation and employment. That is why both the prison and probation services are already devoting so much attention to them. But flexibility must exist to
1646
enable a programme of supervision in the community to be adapted to fit the individual circumstances; of the particular offender. By giving undue emphasis to one element of supervision, the amendment may well inhibit that flexibility.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is only fair to say that the noble Earl made many encouraging remarks in the course of his reply. As time goes on, I can only hope, whether it be with this Government—or indeed, as is more likely, under another one—that advances will be made. At present, such fine words are not in fact mirrored by deeds, as any prisoner will tell you if you happen to have time to meet him.
However, the Minister made one comment of great importance which I am bound to say I have not fully appreciated. He said that under the idea of supervision is the idea of trying to help the offender. I do not believe that that is generally understood, but it is a most important point. I believe that I may be able to make use of that in the future. But, at the present time, I am bound to say that the probation service only receives £40 million by way of resources to assist it in helping prisoners, while the total prison service budget is. £1,400 million. All the fine words in the world, I am afraid, will not cure this problem or deal with it effectively until more resources are available. But at the moment I am grateful to the noble Earl for his concern. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 146:
After Clause 140, insert the following new clause:
("Creation of an offence of racially motivated violence
.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence of—

(a) racially motivated manslaughter,

(b) racially motivated grievous bodily harm,

(c) racially motivated wounding with intent,

(d) racially motivated common assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or

(e) racially motivated common assault

if, with racial motivation he commits manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault respectively.
(2) In this section "racial motivation" shall mean motivation on the grounds of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years in addition to, and consecutive to, the sentence applicable for conviction of the offences of common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or assault occasioning grievous bodily harm respectively.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I made the case for this amendment in Committee. There is a rising tide of racism in Europe. In Britain racially motivated violence is prevalent. I can do no better on Report than quote paragraph 75 of the recent report of the Home Affairs Committee on racial attacks and harassment, which states:
"In recent months there have been a number of widely-reported incidents of racially-motivated violence. In September 1993, a 17 year-old Asian youth, Quaddus Ali, was 'nearly beaten to death' in east London, and remained in a coma for a number of weeks. In June 1993 a black man was assaulted by ten white men who broke into his flat in Birmingham The Observer has reported an upsurge of racial violence in east London during the past six months, culminating in an attack in February 1994 on a 19 year-old Asian youth by 20 to 30 white men which is being treated by the police as attempted murder. There have also been racially-motivated murders, such as those of

1647
Stephen Lawrence and Fiaz Mirza. These violent assaults are tragic and sickening; they also fuel an atmosphere of fear and anger amongst the ethnic minority community as a whole".
The noble Earl will not dispute—I recognise that he did not do so in Committee—that racial violence is prevalent. Nor did he, or would he, dispute that it is a great evil. I paid respect yesterday, in the context of the amendments put forward concerning gypsies, to the liberal intellect and instincts of the noble Earl. The issue, however, as it emerged in our discussions in Committee, was whether society, through the law, should signal its abhorrence of racial violence by creating distinct offences of violence committed on racial grounds. The Government, through the noble Earl, argued—if I may summarise—that all violence is to be abhorred, so racially motivated violence should not constitute a distinct offence as that would be offensive to the victims of non-racially motivated violence.
I respectfully suggest that that does not begin to measure up to the gravity of the social evil we face. We are a multiracial society. We aspire to be an open and tolerant society. The justification for distinct offences is that the victim of violence is selected on grounds of race or colour. The attack is on a member, or members, of a group precisely because they belong to that group. The attack is, and must be, intended to have effects far beyond the immediate victim. It is intended to terrorise the group of which the victim of the attack is a member.
Attacks within the general community are made on the weak, on the vulnerable, on old ladies and on the disabled. There is no issue about that. Such attacks are evil and deplorable. We all agree on that. Let us therefore put that to one side. All crime is likely to be aimed at those who, to a greater or lesser extent, are perceived to be unlikely successfully to defend themselves. However, the burden of the argument in support of the amendment is that racially motivated violence is characteristically distinct. It involves a deliberate selection of victims on the basis of the accident of their birth or their colour. These offences must be gravely socially divisive. The rationale of their commission is that the victims are not entitled to equal rights or to equal citizenship; that they deserve lesser, violent treatment; that they should be pushed to the margins of society.
The point of principle with which I am happy to engage is that racially motivated violence is distinctly identifiable and socially corrosive. It is in a class of its own. The noble Earl, in Committee, said:
"If, for example, a black person and a white person were to be victims of similar assaults I would question whether it would be right or even equitable for the assailant of the white person to get a lesser sentence simply because his victim was a white person and not a black person".
The noble Earl will forgive me if, having paid tribute to his liberal instincts, I say that I was disappointed when I heard him say that and disappointed when I read it set out for all to read hereafter in Hansard. With respect I would suggest to him that he misses the key point. A white man may attack a black man, or a black man may attack a white man, without any racial motivation whatever in either case. The courts will then
1648
impose whatever penalty fits the crime in the circumstances of either case. But if both attacks were racially motivated, then the offences are characteristic-ally different because the victim in each case became a target for the reason of his race or colour. Nothing could be more destructive of the principles of a multiracial, plural society and the values of a liberal democracy.
The whole of our law on discrimination is based on a recognition that particular groups require special protection because of their race, their colour or their gender. The purpose of our anti-discrimination laws, which no one calls in question, is not to confer special privileges on particular groups but to ensure that those groups most in need of protection by the law receive that protection. The purpose is to ensure that they enjoy equality of legal protection. In setting themselves against these amendments—I invite the noble Earl to think again —the Government reject the advice of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Council of Churches, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Law Society, the Bar Council and other bodies. Their voices have been powerfully reinforced by the recent observations, reported in The Voice, of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Condon. It is really difficult to think of a more eminent and authoritative voice which the Government should heed.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that the introduction of new laws to make racial violence and harassment specific criminal offences would "help rather than hinder". He added:
"It is a very important symbolic thing to do. It is society saying we will not tolerate racial harassment. We condemn it to the point that we have created a new piece of legislation".
I have to say, would that the Government were equally aware. Will the noble Earl not listen to the most senior police officer in our country?
Finally, I move from the issue of principle to the one other practical objection to the constitution of such new offences: the alleged difficulties of proving racial motivation. The law is perfectly familiar with the task of ascertaining intention or motivation. All offences in our law, other than offences of strict responsibility, require the court or the jury to determine whether the necessary mental element is present. That is what many, and probably most, criminal trials are ultimately concerned with.
These new offences would be charged only when the prosecuting authorities thought that there was a better than evens prospect of conviction, namely, where the evidence of racial motivation is cogent. I have no doubt that a jury is well capable of convicting of ordinary manslaughter and acquitting of racially motivated manslaughter if the racial motivation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury. To argue the contrary betrays a lack of confidence in the jury system and a lack of confidence in the sound common sense of the British jury which serves our country so well.
I said yesterday, as I have already said, that in many areas I respect the noble Earl's liberalism. But I desire

1649
now to call the attention of the House to the recent report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and in particular to paragraphs 82 and 83. Paragraph 82 reads:
"Believing as we do that racially motivated violence is growing, that more positive action must be taken to stop it and that such motivation, provided that it is properly proved, should lead to an increased sentence, we recommend the creation of a new offence of racially motivated violence. We further recommend:

(i) that whenever there is a count or charge of violent assault and there is sufficient evidence that the violence was occasioned on the grounds of colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins, a separate count should be added to the indictment and the jury or magistrates should be invited to decide on the alternative: which offence, common assault, actual bodily harm, wounding with intent, grievous bodily harm or manslaughter, or racially motivated common assault, actual bodily harm, wounding with intent, grievous bodily harm or manslaughter, if any, has been made out;

(ii) that if the offence of racial violence is proved an additional and consecutive sentence should be imposed on the offender of up to five years' imprisonment for the racial element in that offence".

Paragraph 83 reads:
"In order to effect this recommendation a majority of us tabled a new clause to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill during its Report stage. In debate the Minister, Mr. Lloyd, deployed the same arguments against a new offence of racial violence as he had during his earlier oral evidence. On a Division the new clause was defeated by 283 votes to 254".
In the other place that was obviously a tight vote. The paragraph continues:
"Nevertheless we recommend that the Government should reconsider its opposition to an offence of racially motivated violence. We further recommend that such an offence be introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill".
I, for my part, would endorse that recommendation. I respectfully submit that this is an issue on which, having regard to the tight vote in the other place, this House could properly resolve to give a lead. Many other people and many organisations are of that view. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Noble Lords: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Boyd-Carpenter!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. It may be easier if we hear one noble Lord at a time. I am sure that there will be time for all three noble Lords to speak, but if all three stand their ground vociferously saying "My Lords" we shall never get anywhere. I propose, at your Lordships' suggestion, that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter should speak and then my noble friend Lord Campbell. Perhaps we could then move on.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments.
I believe that all Members of the House understand the feelings which lie behind the amendment and sympathise with the sentiments of the noble Lord who has just spoken. However, it does not follow that it is conclusive that this House should, as he recommends, reverse the decision of another place. Nor does the amendment necessarily deal with the full merits of the matter.
1650
This is a rather peculiar proposal. It is proposed that where racial motivation is demonstrated in a particular case in which there are other, perhaps several other, serious charges, an additional sentence over and above that earned for the basic offence shall be imposed. That would introduce a complicated provision into our sentencing system.
Suppose that the court dealing with the matter feels that a sentence of x years is appropriate. Then, if it finds separately that there is racial motivation, as I understand the amendment, a maximum of five years is automatically added to what was otherwise thought to be the appropriate sentence. That seems to undermine to a considerable extent the discretionary position of the court which is dealing with the matter. Those of us who have had some experience of these matters know how difficult it is to decide on an appropriate sentence. There are a great many different factors which the judge has to take into account and it is far from easy to decide on an appropriate sentence. If one then introduces an automatic addition for a separate aspect of the matter one will make the job of sentencing one of great difficulty.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way so that I may clarify the position. The noble Lord assumes that the maximum sentence available to the court under the amendment would reflect the sentence imposed by the court. I invite him to look at the proposed new clause, and in particular subsection (3), which reads:
"A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable"— I emphasise the word "liable"—
"on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years"—
what he receives up to that maximum is entirely a matter for the judge—
"in addition to, and consecutive to, the sentence applicable for conviction of the offences of common assault",
and so on.
Therefore, there is a liability to a maximum sentence. The judge has discretion and the additional sentence could be as little as a day. Does the noble Lord not appreciate that?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord and I differ greatly on this issue. I believe that he accepts, as I indicated to the House, that a judge trying a case where there is an allegation of racism will first have to decide on the appropriate penalty for that particular offence, and would then find that there was imposed the possibility of automatically adding up to five years to that sentence. That appears to introduce awkwardness and difficulty into the whole sentencing procedure. Obviously, when a judge tries such a case, if there is a racial element the judge will undoubtedly bear that in mind as he will all the circumstances of the case including the degree of violence, the degree of provocation and all the other factors. But to impose this additional factor, having decided on a sentence which is appropriate for the offence, surely is to make a nonsense of our sentencing system. It was no doubt for that reason that another place, in my view very properly, rejected the proposal.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept, of course, without qualification the interpretation of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it is wrong for an additional sentence to be imposed. However, the amendment, although well intended and in a sense well supported by bodies outside your Lordships' House, is not well conceived. I oppose it.
I do not believe that any emotive speech on such a serious situation, with deplorable examples, serves any purpose in helping your Lordships to find the appropriate resolution. I wish to be brief and to speak in terms of principle. First, as I see it—it is only a personal opinion—I believe that it is wrong in principle to create a racially motivated offence. As I see it, that is a matter to be taken into account in sentencing, an aggravation giving rise to an additional sentence, and, according to extant practice, specified as such certainly by the recorders and, I think, by the judges. If the extant practice stemmed from the sentencing of Mr. Justice Salmon (as he then was) in the Notting Hill case at the Old Bailey, in which he imposed deterrent sentences, so be it. That is the right way in which to approach the problem. I accept that there are two ways. But that, I suggest, is the right way. Those sentences and the precedent which arose from them had a most salutary effect.
Considering the amendment—I do not deal with details—one does not surely have to reach for a dictionary or fumble through a statute to define racial motivation. Every magistrate, every judge, every one of your Lordships, everybody in the country knows what it is. We all know what it is. It is utterly abhorrent. And surely there is no need to define a limit to the duration of the additional sentence in aggravation of the offence. It is a matter for the judiciary.
Surely, in a multiracial society, where we are all subjects of the Queen, it is wholly inappropriate to create two classes of offences: one, the offence on the statute book; the other, where it is racially motivated. Let us be practical for a moment and not idealistic. That could well have a most undesirable backlash consequence, envisaged by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, albeit in another context some time ago. If the racially motivated offence were charged, and if the accused, as he may, is prepared formally to admit that he committed the offence but not with racial motivation, what happens? He pleads not guilty. The trial then proceeds on the issue of racial motivation in our country. May the good Lord preserve us from such an unacceptable and potentially volatile situation. Surely, that is no way in which to signal our abhorrence of racially motivated violence.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in cases where there is doubt as to whether racial motivation is involved, both charges would be preferred against the defendant. If the proof is not forthcoming that racial motivation was involved, the prosecution would fall back on the ordinary charge of murder or manslaughter as the case may be.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord I am afraid that my experience leads
1652
me to differ from him. I do not wish to take up the time of the House. The noble Lord may be right, but I do not believe that he is.
Finally, perhaps I may say this. The analogy with racial discrimination is far too far fetched to be credible. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, although a non-lawyer, I venture to enter on this dangerous field to explain why, with some reluctance, I have come round to the view that the creation of this new offence, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is desirable.
In the course of the past few days I have been attending an international academic conference on the rise of racial violence, and its accompanying propaganda, not merely in this country but in the United States and in much of Europe. It is, I think, clear that we cannot dissociate the local circumstances, referred to in the report of the committee of another place, and, alas, well known to us from the press, from what is going on in other countries. A great deal of propaganda is being fed to our young, partly from American sources where the expression of such sentiments is protected by the first amendment to the American constitution, but also from Europe. Our young people are being asked to repudiate views which most of us held at the end of the last war: that the defeat of Nazism had put an end to one form of human depravity, and for good. We can no longer take that for granted. Therefore, whatever the technical problems that lawyers may find in respect of sentencing, the mere absence of such a provision from the statute book could be regarded as acquiescence in the normality (I put it no higher) of the expression of views which lead to, and indeed encourage, racial violence.
I regret that it does not include violence against minorities singled out for religious reasons, although I understand that an amendment which will be before your Lordships later deals with that point. But we members of the Jewish community realise that in this our faith is bound up with that of other minorities, even if they are referred to as "ethnic" rather than religious.
One of the moving stories which came from a member of the conference, who represents an important ethnic minority in the borough of Hackney, related to an attack by three youths upon a Jewish schoolboy in Stoke Newington. He was, no doubt, easily recognisable by his dress. He was rescued from serious bodily harm by the fortunate presence of a rather large young black man from whom the three white thugs rapidly retreated.
It should not be necessary for that to happen on our streets and I and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, would not pretend that merely putting something on the statute book will be enough to prevent it. Nevertheless, a committee of another place looked into the matter in great detail. If it believes—as some of us also believe —that there would at any rate now be a marker, a declaration, that in this country the repudiation of racial prejudice leading to physical violence is a part of our statute law as well as of our national ethos, it will have been well worth the House accepting the noble Lord's amendment, as I dearly hope it will.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I had doubts about the racially motivated attack some months ago. In fact, on a television programme I said that I had my doubts because I thought that it might lead to cases being lost on the grounds that one could not prove the racial motivation and therefore the whole case would fall.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I have changed my mind. It was made clear to me—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, questions this—that if a racially motivated attack were being tried and there were doubts about the racial motivation, nevertheless the case could be won for the bodily harm or whatever it was which was associated with the racial discrimination. So one avoids the obviously undesirable situation in which what was a racially motivated attack led to harm but the offender got off because the racial motivation had not been proved. I understand that that is how the law stands at present but one can get a conviction. That is why I am doubtful about the amendment.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, we have to put down a marker. The increase in racial attacks over the past year is well documented and extremely alarming, in view of what is going on in continental Europe. We are a part of continental Europe, whether or not some Members of the House like it. The evil doctrines which are spreading fast in other countries are also evident here.
I make a special plea that the amendment should be passed today. Since it has reached the Marshalled List and is before the House, it would be sad if it went out that the House of Lords had voted against making a special offence of racially motivated violence. It would be a marker that I am sure none of us would want to put up. And it would be put up if the amendment were defeated. Even if the amendment would be difficult to implement, as many of us recognise, it is important symbolically at this time, when the dangers are becoming more and more apparent, that we show where we stand on this vital matter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I respectfully submit that it would be wrong for your Lordships to think that the amendment proposed will make the life of the sentencer any more difficult than it is at the moment. The judge has to decide what is the right sentence for the crime or crimes which have been committed. It is proposed that the judge reaches his decision on the basis of the particular act of violence or crime of violence without taking into account, if it can be established, the racial motivation. For example, let that sentence be 18 months. The judge is then satisfied that the serious aggravating factor of racial motivation has been established. He adds to that sentence of 18 months such further sentence as he thinks appropriate, up to a maximum of five years. Having had considerable experience in sentencing from recordership upwards and having presided over sentencing conferences for many years, I should have thought that this was one of the least of the problems.
Without the amendment, and given racial harassment, the judge has to go through that process anyhow.
1654
The only difference is that the accused has a better right of appeal, if he is minded to exercise it, because he can point out to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, "My seven years was made up of two years for the ordinary assault and five years for the racial motivation. The five years is excessive and therefore it should be reduced". The division, in my respectful submission, causes no complication at all.
Taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, if the accused says that he is prepared to plead guilty to an assault but not to a racially motivated assault, then there is a trial. Again, then; is no complication about that. The issue will be the motive with which he committed the crime of violence. At present, if he pleads guilty to the crime of violence and the prosecution says, "A major aggravating factor in this crime was the racial motivation", and the defence says, "Nonsense. We don't accept that for one moment", that issue has to be determined not by a judge and jury, which is the most satisfactory process but, since he has pleaded guilty, by the judge alone. It proceeds just like any other trial on the basis of the prosecution calling the witnesses to support the allegation of racial motivation. The defence has to produce its evidence, no doubt in particular the evidence of the accused person. Then the judge has to determine the point.
So there is no sentencing problem at: all. That seems to me to enable your Lordships to proceed on the basis of the extent to which noble Lords are persuaded by what appears to be a strong body of outside opinion wishing to emphasise that this type of behaviour must be highlighted and treated as being particularly evil.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, so far I do not think that we have fully addressed ourselves to the present burden of proof upon the prosecution. In our criminal law the prosecution has to prove that the offence was committed with a criminal intent. It does not have to prove motive, although those of us who have been involved in the administration of the criminal law know that there nearly always is a motive of one kind or another. In Northern Ireland, alas, there is very often a political motive—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Or a religious one.
Lord Renton: Or a religious one, as my noble and learned friend says. Alas, sometimes there is; a commercial motive.
To introduce a requirement that the prosecution, in addition to proving the fact of the offence and the intent of it, also has to prove motive adds to the burden upon the prosecution. And paradoxically, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, may notice, that would lead to a number of acquittals which you would not expect.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, confined his remarks to the question of sentence. We do not need the creation of the new offence in order to enable the court to consider the motive when sentencing the accused. Indeed, there is another amendment on the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 146B. I do not wish to prejudice any noble Lord's mind in advance of

1655
consideration of that amendment, much less my own, but if we are to have that written into the law it would be done much better in my opinion by Amendment No. 146B. With deep respect to the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, with which I believe all noble Lords agree, by the agreement of all parties we have our anti-discrimination legislation. With the help of the law we have tried to protect the various races who are now part of our country. But I really do fear that if the noble Lord's amendment were to be passed it would be self-defeating.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was quite right to resist this amendment the last time round. I hope that he will stick to his guns on this occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, cited some terrible examples of attacks upon individuals who happen to be members of racial minorities. But if and when the perpetrators are caught, very severe sentences are already available to the courts, and quite rightly so. So far as I am aware, no member of the judiciary has complained that the present maximum penalties are inadequate. Surely the important thing is to catch the perpetrators. Unless they are caught, no sentence of any sort can be imposed. If the tightly knit communities, from which the perpetrators tend to come, feel, rightly or wrongly, that the law has been slanted in favour of the incomers, as it were, they will be much less likely to shop the perpetrators to the police than would otherwise be the case.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has brought me to my feet, and not for the first time. I suddenly imagine myself rather drunk in a public house, aged 20.I come out of that public house; I see the noble Baroness, Lady Seear; and I suddenly have a passionate hatred of Liberal Peeresses. So I go and thump the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I believe that everyone would regard that as a crime of the utmost heinousness for which I should be dealt the most serious possible sentence. Alternatively, I come out and I thump (this is 20 years ago) an 18 year-old black man and I say: "I hate black men". That would be rightly regarded as heinous. But I suggest to noble Lords that it is no less and no more heinous, and is if anything less heinous, than thumping the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Surely it is whom you thump and under what circumstances, irrespective of the colour of their skin, that matters. That is what should motivate the issue.
I do not in any way stand in protection of anyone who wants to thump someone else. It is an unattractive habit. It is especially unattractive to thump people because of their colour or religion, or if it is the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. But it is better to leave out that extra motivation, because I want the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to be treated with greater respect than 18 year-olds, whatever the colour of their skin.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I know that this is Report stage and I am therefore not supposed to reply. I think, however, that I would have been able to deal with that matter myself. Perhaps I may make a more serious point. In attacking me or any woman Peer, you
1656
would not be attacking—at least, I think not—a whole community. When you attack a black person you are seen as attacking the whole black community. That is a very important difference.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, in this matter. In earlier discussions my noble friend the Minister made the point —he made it very effectively in introducing Clause 141 on harassment, alarm or distress—that in an ideal world we would not be highlighting racial distinctions. Violence is violence; it is to be abhorred in any circumstances. To some extent that was the point my noble friend Lord Onslow was making. Indeed, it was a point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on Thursday, 16th June when he said:
"What we want is a society in which race does not matter, a racially blind society".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1923.]
The society we have is a very long way from the one to which the most reverend Primate would aspire. In my own view—and I take the point the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a moment ago—it is the circumstance that matters. There is a whole series of racial offences that are committed, and many of them are committed in what can only be described as an organised way.
It would be unusual indeed if there were a conspiracy of Peers to assault Liberal Baronesses, just as in the same way —and I do not want to be frivolous about these matters—it would be unusual if there were a conspiracy to assault persons in wheelchairs because they are in wheelchairs; or even a conspiracy to assault old ladies and rob them of their handbags because they are old ladies. Such offences of violence occur because they are easy to pull off, easy to perpetrate. The unpleasant offences of racial motivation that we are now discussing are of a different nature. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, but it is one that I do not believe was fully taken by my noble friend or by the most reverend Primate. We are talking about offences which arise from a coherent philosophy—an obnoxious philosophy—directed towards a group of people in our society, not just towards vulnerable individuals who happen to pass by.
My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned—I should like to draw attention to this procedural point—that following this amendment there will be Amendment No. 146B✶, which is on the offence of selling confidential financial information. Then we shall return to Amendment No. 146B with its rubric,
"Racial motivation to be an aggravating factor in sentencing".
That is the point the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was making. I do not wish to speak to that amendment now. We shall have the opportunity of doing so later. I simply want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that our debate on this series of matters will be interrupted, for procedural reasons of some complication, by a very different matter. I would not want noble Lords to feel that, in the unfortunate circumstance that the present amendment should be lost on Division, the entire issue has gone by the board for the day. However, I am happy to support this amendment. It relates to a matter of

1657
paramount importance and shows that we in this House and in this Parliament recognise the serious state to which we have come. I support the amendment warmly.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I wonder if I may say a fairly brief word. I believe that the amendment is fatally flawed intellectually. I do not think that there is any difference among Members of the House about the vile nature of inter-communal hatred and motivation. But the definition of crimes is normally, should usually be, and might universally be, confined to two different elements. There is what you do and there is the intention with which you do it. Intention is not the same as motive. It is very important to realise how different the two are. The intention is part of the definition of the crime. The motive is usually something outside the definition which is uniquely relevant to sentence when it has been discovered.
I deplore racial or communal motivation of any kind as much as any Member of this House. But I do not think that it is uniquely horrible. I believe that there are other crimes which are every bit as bad as racially motivated ones. For instance, there are religiously motivated crimes. I can remember very clearly when I was a Member of another place and one of the discrimination Bills was under discussion that I tried to add discrimination on grounds of religion to the racial discrimination which was then under discussion. I was ruled out of order by the chairman, who said that it was outside the scope of the Bill. I pointed out that, if I wanted to discriminate against members of the Jewish religion, one could very easily do something about bacon without attacking the race at all.
The fact is that all forms of cultural discrimination are equally bad. This morning's paper carried the news of a Protestant who had been murdered by a Catholic in Northern Ireland. The crime was not racially motivated because they were members of the same ethnic community and the same national community. Equally, it was committed in revenge for an earlier murder of a Roman Catholic by a Protestant. I have known cases of people convicted of wounding with intent—for instance, in the course of a rape of a very small child by a sexually motivated man, or in the course of violence against a young woman for refusing her sexual favours. I regard that as every bit as bad as doing violence because the perpetrators hate people of a particular colour. It may be less or more rational, whichever way one looks at it. On the other hand, the crimes are serious.
I agree with an observation that came from my noble friend Lord Renton, who said that if this amendment were to be passed, it would erect an extra barrier against conviction because the motivation has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be one of the motives described in subsection (2) of the proposed amendment; and that would lead to a number of unjustified acquittals. You may say, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that you do not trust the jury system. I do not trust juries always to convict when they ought to do so. I have known too many perverse acquittals in my life. If the House passes this amendment, it will in fact erect another barrier against conviction for racially motivated crime.
1658
The truth is that motivation is a relevant factor in sentence. That was recognised by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, although I thought that thereafter he addressed the wrong point. During the course of a prosecution, words would be used to describe the motivation of the crime, which might be a more or less serious physical assault—a wounding with intent or manslaughter at the top of the scale and common assault at the bottom of the scale. There would be the evidence which the prosecution would be bound to lead and it would be in the mind of any right-minded judge whom I have ever known an aggravating offence which would add to the sentence employed after the jury had given the inevitable verdict. No chance would be given to cop out. There would be a number of disagreements and perverse acquittals, no doubt. There always are in such cases. But the judge would have in front of him the evidence on which to assess the gravity of a particular offence and, if he were a right-minded judge, it would be an aggravating factor that the offence had in it an element of motivation on racial or communal grounds.
I cannot forget the words, of the Pope when he went to Drogheda in the Republic of Ireland. He administered the Eucharist to over 1 million persons and in the course of that service he said: "Murder is murder is murder". That was meant to condemn murders of Protestants by Catholics or of Catholics by Protestants or of Jews by Christians or of Moslems by Jews or vice versa. It was meant to condemn murder as such. In my book, wounding with intent is wounding with intent and the motivation is a matter for sentence and degree in which the function of the judiciary is involved, as distinct from the function of the jury.
That is a fault which is absolutely fundamental to the amendment. It confuses definition with culpability.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, after the last contribution to our debate I rise with particular reluctance because I hate to cross swords with so esteemed a friend, and in many ways a mentor, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. But I am afraid that I am far from agreeing that the arguments are flawed, as he claimed. One of the arguments which have not so far been emphasised sufficiently is that not only is the heinousness of the offence in a special category and not only has the offence perhaps wreaked more havoc in human history, especially modem human history, than any other single offence, but over and above the difference in degree, it is different in kind from other offences of violence.
First, it is based on a denial of human equality. Murder is not normally based on that. To say that there are human beings who are not created in the image of God and who are no longer entitled equally with ourselves because they have been born with a different label, is a kind of offence that drives a wedge into humanity that cannot be tolerated.
Moreover, we know from recent experience that racially motivated violence has effects different from those of any other form of violence. I lived in Germany when Hitler came to power and was among those who suffered racial discrimination and the constant threat of

1659
violence. Hitler used racial discrimination to climb to power. It was the basest instincts to which he appealed. He could not have done it through any other crime. As a result, millions of Germans—a decent people, an intelligent and highly civilised people—were turned into mass murderers, either perpetrating or conniving in mass murder. No other crime could have achieved that. No other offence could have caught on and infected an entire nation with such indescribable consequences; only the offence of degrading human beings by arguing that some are worth more than others could do that. Some, such as the Teutonic race, have to be protected at all costs; others, such as Jews and gypsies, can be shoved into the oven.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may say, if the noble Lord will allow me, that for political reasons Stalin did the same thing against classes of people.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, that is quite true and I can use the same argument to condemn him. However, he did not do it because people were born under a certain star or under a certain label; he did it because they had ideas that he opposed and he was frightened that if those ideas caught on it would mean his downfall. Therefore he had some rational argument, whereas racial discrimination and violence has no reason whatever. It is a prejudice that is implanted by propaganda and can lead to the most dangerous consequences.
I am therefore delighted that the amendment was moved with such force and supported with such irrepressible logic as we witnessed here this afternoon. If we strike a blow at one of the major evils of modern society, which is the evil of degrading whole groups of human beings because they are born differently from others, then we shall forever be looked up to as having contributed to a better society and a safer world.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, no one could challenge the purity of the motive behind the amendment. Nearly everybody must feel a temptation to be associated with a mark of strong disapprobation of racialism. Cogent points have been made on either side. My real difficulty with the amendment is this. The amendment contains a list of offences and the proposal is that a certain motivation should make those offences more serious in a formal way by proposing an addition to the sentence. I ask myself what other motivations there may be. There are many in number that one could add to racialism.
Let us say that racism or several other motivations are the trigger of a crime. There must be several other offences besides those listed in the amendment that we should like to include under the same principle. Because I foresee the most enormous difficulty in drawing up the list of offences and the motivations which should be matched to some of them, I revert to what has been the tradition. An offence is committed; guilt is either admitted or proved; the judge must then take into account the circumstances of the offence —including, in many cases, the motivation—and impose an appropriate sentence. If there are offences—they have been discovered from time to time—where the statutory
1660
punishment is considered too light, then a proposal is made and sometimes adopted to increase the maximum penalty. I am not talking about that now; that is an extension of the subject. But that explains my difficulty in accepting an otherwise laudable proposal.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all listened with considerable interest to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, when he drew attention to the terrible problems that racial discrimination and motivation can bring. We all know what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, intends by the amendment, and we all respect it. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that there is no difference between any of us in the House in relation to the vileness of racially motivated offences. It is that matter which the amendment tries to address.
This is the third time on which this amendment has been debated. It was debated in another place and then in Committee in your Lordships' House and now again. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is persistent if nothing else—and he is a lot else. The Government's position on the amendment has been made clear and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I shall not change my view on that. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, repeated his amendment and I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat some of the arguments I put forward at Committee.
Racial motivation can be and often is taken into account by the judge as a seriously aggravating factor. That is the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, was making and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. At Committee I cited the case of Fiaz Mirza, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, today referred. He was an Asian taxi driver who was murdered by two white passengers. The two murderers received life with a recommendation to serve 22 years, which your Lordships will recognise as a very heavy punishment. The judge rightly recognised the appalling circumstances of that specific case in delivering his sentence.
All violent offences are deplorable and all should be severely punished. But I suggest that it would be inequitable to single out crimes where racial motivation is proved for a specific and greater penalty. I am sure that many victims of assaults which were not racial in nature would find it a difficult concept to accept. At Committee I gave an example which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said he found disappointing when I gave it and even more disappointing when he read it. As he reminded us, I gave the example of a black person and a white person who were both knifed. I questioned whether it would be right or even equitable for the assailant of the white person to receive a lesser sentence simply because his motivation was not racial even though the effect of the knifing on the victim was physically identical and just as traumatic. I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow when he said that he felt that it was the offence which was perpetrated rather than the person against whom the offence was committed which was the important point.
The amendment refers to racially motivated manslaughter, racially motivated grievous bodily harm,

1661
racially motivated wounding with intent, and so forth. The amendment ascribes a mental element in all those cases, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that if motivation in a case must be proved, the burden on the prosecution is increased. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, it is putting up an extra barrier against conviction and might result in some acquittals where there should be convictions.
There is a world of difference between intent which relates to the desired outcome of the act and motivation which concerns why a person intended to produce that effect. Intent is a matter of daily concern in criminal trials. Motivation would be a new and entirely different element for a court to prove and of which courts have no experience. At Committee I remember saying that a woman may be found dead and her husband found with a knife. It may be proved that the husband murdered the wife. It may be obvious that he intended to kill the woman. Much more difficult to discover is what the motivation was for the killing—whether it was because they had had a row; because she had run off with his money; or because he wanted her insurance policies. The motivation is far more difficult to prove, and that is what the amendment asks the court to include.
The noble Lord also said that a separate offence would be needed because racial attacks are made on members of a group and are intended to affect all members of the group. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the same point, as did my noble friend Lord Renfrew. He said that such attacks were the result of a coherent philosophy against a group of people. That may be so. But we do not need to restrict that to racial attacks. Attacks are made on other people who are being targeted, and groups of people are subject to those attacks putting all members of the group in fear. For example, attacks on women, attacks on homosexuals, attacks on people who are part of a protection racket and attacks on people who are part of a drug baron's empire.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, then said that the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mr. Condon, supported this new offence and he asked why the Government do not listen to eminent policemen. The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is a very eminent policeman and I respect his views; but those views are not shared by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which does not believe that a separate offence is either workable or desirable.
My noble friend Lord Beloff said that support for the amendment was misguided and that we already have an offence of incitement to racial hatred which deals with the expression of Nazi ideas. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, does not deal with propaganda. The Home Affairs Select Committee's report was not unanimous on the need for a racial violence offence. At least four members of the committee opposed it. I would merely stress what I said in Committee. The law provides for a range of penalties and it sets the maximum which can be allowed for any one type of crime. In this kind of case the maximum allowed could well be reached by the fact that the assailant had been racially motivated in his crime. But we do not need more than that.
1662
Not only do I suggest that the new clause would be wrong in principle but it would have curious results. In the case of common assault the offender would face a prison sentence which, if his offence were shown to be racially motivated, could be 10 times greater than is the current maximum penalty for any other form of motivation. For actual bodily harm the sentence could be doubled. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that those who commit these vicious and abhorrent crimes should be properly punished. The way to achieve that is to make sure that at every stage of the process racial motivation is flagged up, evidence is collected and evidence is put before the courts so that it can then be taken into account as an aggravating factor for sentencing. I suggest to your Lordships that: it would be wrong in principle to legislate in such a way as to create a separate class of violent crime of racial motivation which is worse than all other types, as the clause attempts to do. All classes of violent crime, whatever the motivation, are wrong and are to be condemned. But I think it would be wrong to make it a worse offence to commit a crime just because of the person's race than it would be if the person was a homosexual, an elderly person or a disabled person.
I agree with the forceful argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who said that he found the amendment unacceptable. He said that in his experience there was no sentencing difficulty over this matter. I agree with him and I hope that your Lordships will not agree to the inclusion of the amendment in the; Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am encouraged in the strength of the case for the amendment by the support I have received for it from many quarters of the House and, if I may say so, by the weakness of the arguments which have been addressed against it. First, I welcome the support of those who have spoken specifically in its favour. I mention the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has indicated his enthusiasm on occasions over many years for thumping the noble Baroness. I would simply observe that if the noble Earl were to engage in such a contest it would be very unequal and one in which the thumping in the opposite direction would be likely to exceed that which the law of reasonable self-defence permits. I welcome in particular the informed and eloquent support of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
An early contribution to the debate came from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We will not, if we give a signal to the other place by voting in favour of the amendment, be reversing the decision of the other place, as the noble Lord suggested. We will be making a proposal or a suggestion to the other place and we will be giving the moral support of the considered opinion of this House to that very large number of Members of the other place who, before the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee coming down in favour of this offence, were in favour of it. It is not the case, as I sought to demonstrate when intervening in his speech —the noble Lord permitted me to do so—that another

1663
automatic block of sentence will be added if the racially motivated offence is proved. That is to confuse the maximum available with the discretion of the judge. The racially motivated offence will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene as the noble Lord referred to me. I made the point—and I stick to it—that we should be reversing the considered decision of another place. We are perfectly entitled to do that but the noble Lord cannot get away from it by saying, "Oh well, there is just a slight difference of opinion". We should be reversing the considered decision of another place.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I do not desire to engage in semantics. It would be right, however, to say that we would be reversing it if our decision automatically bound the other place. We are not reversing it. We are expressing our own judgment. And as we well know, the other place will ultimately have its way. My proposition is that it was such a tight matter in the other place. We now have the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. We now have the opportunity to influence the other place to think again in a matter in which its previous judgment was tight. I respectfully suggest that that is par excellence where we should feel no inhibition in expressing our own view and we certainly should not think—and it would be vain to think—that if we decided in a particular way that would reverse, in the sense of automatically changing for ever, the decision of the other place.
I was grateful for part of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which were to the effect that there would be no difficulty, as he saw it, in identifying racial motivation when one saw it. I agree. There will be a high standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt. But it is the jury that will have to resolve that.
I would make a separate point to noble Lords who have emphasised that under the current dispensation it is a discretionary factor in sentencing for the judge who sentences to take into account racial motivation. He may gain an appreciation of whether there was racial motivation from the conduct of the trial itself. He may form an impression from being the judge at trial. He may, in addition, form an impression or a judgment from material after the conclusion of the trial which the prosecution draws to the court's attention when the verdict of guilty has been brought in and the matter of sentence is under discussion before the judge. But the advantage of making racially motivated offences is that the defendant in a sense has a better protection because racial motivation will have to be determined beyond reasonable doubt by a jury. It is inconceivable that, if there is an acquittal on a charge of racially motivated manslaughter, the factor of racial motivation could be taken into account when the judge comes to sentence for manslaughter simpliciter, not racially motivated manslaughter.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that one ought to be a realist and not an idealist. I would like to think that to some degree I am an idealist and also
1664
without illusions. Quite realistically, a jury is well capable of acquitting of racially motivated manslaughter and convicting of manslaughter simpliciter. I have far too much confidence in the jury to believe that an acquittal on the first would endanger a justifiable conviction on the second.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that there was some difficulty in a jury distinguishing between the criminal intent which is necessary to be proved in all cases of which that is an ingredient and the commission of the offence on racial grounds. He said that that adds to the burden on the prosecution. I do not accept that. I have greater confidence in the jury. There is no difficulty whatever in a jury doing what it does daily in deciding whether the criminal intent is established beyond reasonable doubt and also of addressing the question of whether the offence as a matter of fact was committed for racial reasons. I have a high opinion of the jury. The noble Lord is raising difficulties which would not exist in practice.
Perhaps I may correct one other observation made by the noble Lord. He said that I acknowledged that the creation of these new offences would give rise to acquittals. I said no such thing and suggest to the noble Lord that when he looks at Hansard tomorrow he will look in vain for anything which I said to that effect.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not suggest that the noble Lord suggested that. It was my suggestion that that would be the result.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, in that case the issue between us is plain. In my judgment there is no such risk. However, I noted that the noble Lord said that the correct vehicle for dealing with these matters was in the context of Amendment No. 146B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. It is interesting. I do not know whether the noble Lord was saying that it was in that area that we shall find the natural context for debate on this subject or whether he was intending to intimate that he is minded to support that amendment when it is moved by the noble Baroness. We shall await that with interest.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will forgive me if I say that he said, slightly grandiosely, that this amendment was fatally flawed intellectually: if the offence is committed on racial grounds then a jury is well able to resolve that issue as well as the issue of criminal intent. I believe that what the noble and learned Lord was saying was not that that intellectual exercise was beyond his own capacities but beyond those of the common jury.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say in terms —and I confess that I was surprised to hear it—that he for his part did not trust juries because of the perverse acquittals which come from them. I remind him of the many judges of the greatest eminence who across this century have said of acquittals to which their immediate reaction was to disagree but who on mature reflection have concluded and gone out of their way to say that the jury was right not to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. I hope that perhaps on reflection the noble and learned Lord will repent of his aspersion on juries when he said, "I for one do not trust juries".
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I said that in a particular context. I said that there would be a certain number of perverse acquittals, and that I stand by. It is not true to say that I was making a general proposition that I do not trust juries. I have just as much faith in the jury system as anybody else.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, if that be right— and I readily accept the noble and learned Lord's explanation—he is doing no more than expressing the opinion that in the law in general in his judgment the jury sometimes returns perverse acquittals. There is no reason to suppose that in relation to this particular offence proposed by this amendment the jury would behave any differently. As a matter of logic it would not always get it right, but we can still trust it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the noble Lord is misrepresenting me. I do not want to continue this altercation, but he is misapprehending me. I was saying that if the amendment were passed it would be counterproductive because there would be fewer convictions for this offence.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, there is an issue on that. I understood the noble and learned Lord—as Hansard will show tomorrow—to say that he did not for his part trust juries. I believe that that is an accurate quotation.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, accepted that racial motivation was uniquely pernicious. What he really said was that, because other offences might have been comprehended within this amendment and because there might be other motivations in addition to racial ones which could be included within an appropriate amendment, this amendment was to be placed in the box marked "too difficult" and therefore we should do nothing about it. That is not a form of reasoning which appeals. The balance of the argument is all one way. I propose to test the opinion of the House.
4.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 146) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 198.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Airedale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Dainton, L.

Alport, L.

David, B.

Annan, L

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Desai, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Barnett, L.

Eatwell. L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Beloff, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fitt, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Flather, B.

Bottomley, L.

Gainford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Geraint, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Carter, L.

Glasgow, E.

Chappie, L.

Glenamara, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

1666

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

[Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Gregson, L.

Parmoor, L.

Hamwee, B.

Peston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howell, L.

Rea, L.

Hughes, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Richard, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Jeger, B.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Kintore, E.

Sefton of Garslon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Serota, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Longford, E.

Strafford, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Warnock, B.

Mayhew, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wharton, B.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mulley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Cranborne, V.

Aldington, L.

Crickhowell, L

Annaly, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Ashbourne, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Astor, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Attlee, E.

Denham, L.

Balfour, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Barber, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bauer, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dormer, L.

Blatch, B.

Downshire, M.

Blyth, L.

Dundonald, E.

Borthwick, L.

Effingham, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elibank, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bridges, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Erne, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ferrers, E.

Burnham, L.

Foot, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Cadman, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack L.

Caithness, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Goschen, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Grafton, D.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Grantchester, L.

Chelmer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Greenway, L.

Chesham, L.

Gridley, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Grimston of Weslbury, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Halsbury, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Courtown, E.

Harmsworth, L.

1667

Hams of High Cross, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harvington, L.

Palmer, L.

Hemphill, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Henley, L.

Peel, E.

Hertford, M.

Pender, L.

Hesketh, L.

Perth, E.

Hives, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Holderness, L.

Pike, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hood, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hooper, B.

Pym, L.

Hothfield, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Howe, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hylton, L.

Reay, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rees, L.

Inchyra, L.

Renton, L.

Ironside, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Salisbury, M.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Keyes, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Sandford, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Selborne, E.

Leigh, L.

Sharpies, B.

Lindsay, E.

Simon, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Long, V.

St. Davids, V.

Lucas, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lyell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stockton, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Strange, B.

Chancellor]

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Manchester, D.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mancroft, L.

[Teller.]

Manton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Marsh, L.

Swaythling, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Terrington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mersey, V.

Thurlow, L.

Monson, L.

Tollemache, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Torrington, V.

Mottistone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tryon, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Nickson, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Norrie, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Northesk, E.

Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Wise, L.

Orkney, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
[Amendment No. 146A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 146B✶:
After Clause 140, Insert the following new clause:
( "Offence of selling confidential financial information

.—(1) It is an offence for a person ("the seller") to sell or offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of another person if—

(a) the seller knows that the information has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception; and

(b) the information is intended to be disclosed without the consent of such other person.

(2) An advertisement or circular indicating that information of that description is or may be for sale is an offer to sell within the meaning of subsection (1).

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both;

1668

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can, because I know that there are many amendments still to come. There are agencies in this country which offer to sell, at a price, confidential information about other people's affairs. The prices range between £100 and £1,000—sometimes more. I have in my hand a circular distributed by one of those agencies. It is headed, "Price list 1993–94". It states:
"The agency will provide a person's bank balance for £245; a copy of his last bank statement for £1,000; his average bank balance over the past six months for £250; his overdraft facilities for £300; his salary £200; pension details £200; the balance on his last credit statement £750".
What is called a sweep search for other accounts and balances is £450, then:
"Overseas tax havens—price on application. Numbered banking accounts—price on application",
and so forth.
At the foot of the circular is stated:
"Absolute confidence and discretion assured. More sensitive areas of intelligence are available on request".
Last year a reporter on the staff of the Daily Telegraph interviewed a gentleman who called himself the operations controller of one of those agencies. The operations controller said to the reporter:
"There is no security system which cannot be circumvented. Details can be obtained for banks or building societies by using pretext or subterfuge. The other way is to pay insiders for contacts and services".
There are other similar circulars because the agency described itself as:
'The widely acknowledged market leaders in the specialist procurement of highly sensitive commercial and personal information".
That circular is a blatant offer to sell confidential information which will be obtained by pretext or subterfuge —that is, dishonesty.
The Director of Public Prosecutions stated unequi-vocally that such offers are not a criminal offence. My amendment will make them a criminal offence. It reads:
"It is an offence for a person ('the seller') to sell or offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of another person if… the seller knows that the information has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception".
In Committee two—and only two—objections were raised by the Minister. The first was:
'The biggest trouble … is that it would outlaw activities which are perfectly legitimate … credit reference agencies would be covered by the amendment".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1826.]
That objection is met by my amendment as now tabled because it applies only to information that has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception. A reputable credit agency does not acquire its information dishonestly or by deception, pretext or subterfuge.
The Minister's second objection was:
"The amendment might even make it an offence for a bank to charge a customer for sending him his own bank statement".— [Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1827.]
If I may say so without giving offence, I cannot help feeling that that observation was rather scraping the barrel in the search for objections to my amendment. Be that as it may, the amendment that is tabled could not possibly be attacked on that score because my bank is not engaged in deception or dishonesty, pretext or

1669
subterfuge when it sends me my bank statement. Those were the only two objections that the Minister could find to my amendment tabled in Committee.
I turn to the Government's Amendment No. 169ZA, which is grouped with my amendment and has been tabled in response to my amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendment. It is an amendment to the Data Protection Act and makes the wrongful procurement of computer-held personal information an offence. The amendment is undoubtedly useful. It marries perfectly with my amendment and could well count as subsection (2) to a clause which contains my amendment.
However, it does not on its own go far enough in two respects. First, it is confined to computer-held information. It does not touch the wrongful procurement of information that is held, or happens at the stage of procurement to be held, outside the computer. Secondly, it does not stop these iniquitous offers to sell financial information which can be obtained only corruptly— rather like an advertisement, "Country houses robbed to order. Price £10,000".
I shall not detain your Lordships further on this busy day. I respectfully invite all noble Lords who wish to stop at source this incitement to corruption to support my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, speaking personally, I recognise the vice that the noble and learned Lord is seeking to attack. However, I respectfully question whether he has procured the means to attain his objective. Perhaps I may give an illustration which is far from being presently current. Let us assume that it were to be suggested that one or two Members of your Lordships' House were in the habit of accepting money for tabling Questions. Of course, we should immediately reject such a proposition as being quite monstrous. Let us further suppose that an investigative journalist, pretending to be a businessman, approached a Member of your Lordships' House with this monstrous suggestion and obtained certain knowledge about financial affairs; namely, that a cheque for £ 1,000 or even a postal order in the same sum might be quite acceptable. If the freelance journalist then offered that story for sale, perhaps even to the Sunday Times, he would be committing a criminal offence because he would have obtained knowledge about the financial affairs of one of your Lordships by deception; namely, that he was a businessman genuinely interested in procuring information.
Of course, that is a relatively light-hearted illustration but there is a much more serious proposition which I put to see whether my thoughts are correct or whether I have mistaken entirely the effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. In our society there is a proper value for investigative journalism, whether undertaken by the newspapers or television. The late Captain Maxwell might usefully have been the recipient of more vigorous investigative journalism while he was alive rather than after he is dead. Many people would have benefited. Generally, the press carries out a useful service in examining the financial affairs not only of politicians or those who hold themselves out in public life but also of
1670
companies. Often, as the press ethics set out, it may be necessary to resort to a subterfuge or a deception. If the present amendment is accepted, there is a danger that all such investigative journalism carried out by freelancers, or freelancers working for television companies, will become a criminal offence. I very much doubt that that is the intention of the amendment. Speaking for myself, I should very much deprecate that such a consequence could be brought about.
There is a vice that we. need to deal with and the Government's amendment comes closer to doing that, though not perfectly. I should be most grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord's answers to my fears about an unnecessary cramping of proper investigative journalism. It is a useful component in our society, beset as it is with obsessive secrecy for no sensible purpose.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, in replying to the: amendment, I speak to my Amendment No. 169ZA because they are grouped together. Your Lordships might find it convenient to have both sides of the same argument at the beginning of the debate rather than at the end.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, moved his amendment on this subject in Committee, I indicated that I should like to reflect further on the arguments that had been put by your Lordships. The result of that deliberation is Amendment No. 169ZA. I should like to suggest that this is a more suitable way of approaching what we all agree to be an offensive and noxious practice—that is, the deliberate obtaining of private information by those who are not entitled to have it.
We have approached the problem through the medium of the Data Protection Act, as the information which is being sought is increasingly likely, these days, to be held on a computer, and because the Data Protection Act contains clear arrangements for determining who is entitled to receive data.
Under the Act, data may be disclosed only to categories of people who are described in the relevant entry in the register, which is held by the Data Protection Registrar. It is already an offence knowingly or recklessly to disclose data to someone who is not described in the register entry. Therefore, the employee of, for example, a bank, who disclosed data to someone whom he knows is not entitled to receive that data, would be liable to prosecution. If an outsider bribed him to do it, that person might also be guilty.
But there is no offence at the moment if the outsider deceives a bank employee into thinking that the person who is making the inquiry is a person who is covered by the relevant register entry; that is, by pretending to be the person to whom the data relate, or by pretending to be someone who is acting on that person's behalf.
That is what our amendment seeks to catch. It makes it an offence to procure the disclosure of data where that disclosure is in contravention of the relevant data protection register entry, and where the person, who is doing the procuring, knows or has reason to believe —in other words he ought to know—that the disclosure constitutes a contravention.

1671
I believe that that approach addresses the mischief where it is necessary—at the point of disclosure. If you can stop information from being improperly disclosed in the first place, it will not be available for subsequent misuse; for example, for selling. If I may say so, I see several advantages to our approach compared with the approach which is proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in his amendment. In the first place, the Government's amendment is not related to the subsequent use which is made of the information which has been improperly obtained. Our amendment applies wherever information is obtained in the way described, and even to any attempt to do so.
Under the noble and learned Lord's approach, the would-be procurer of the information has to be successful in his attempt to obtain this information, and has then to proceed to offer the information for sale before he can be caught by the amendment. In other words, he has to sell before the noble and learned Lord's amendment works. If the inquirer does not offer to sell the information—perhaps because his deception has been discovered before he has had an opportunity to sell the information or if he uses it for some other purpose —then no offence will have been committed.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord's amendment is confined to financial information. The Government's amendment, though, applies to any information which is protected by the Data Protection Act, such as medical information; tax information; social security information; ex-directory telephone numbers and so on. I know that improper access to these other types of information was a cause of anxiety to some of your Lordships.
Thirdly, I do not think the noble and learned Lord's amendment will be very easy to prove. Establishing the fact of offering something for sale is obvious enough. But to prove that the seller has used, or had intended to use, deception to obtain the information in question, could be very difficult indeed. In the Government's amendment, it is only necessary to prove that a person has procured the disclosure of information when that disclosure contravenes the Data Protection Act. It is not necessary to prove deception.
I understand the outrage which many noble Lords felt on receiving advertising material which had blatantly offered for sale confidential information about other people. As a result of that anxiety, I have considered long and hard with my advisers how best to overcome the problem. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that there is no easy way of dealing with it and that I have, if I may say so, serious misgivings about the approach which the noble and learned Lord has proposed.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment is not confined to the Data Protection Act, but it applies to information of any kind which is obtained dishonestly or by deception, and where the person concerned does not consent to its disclosure.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, my amendment does not refer to any information; it refers to "financial information".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept that, but the information to which the noble and learned Lord refers does not have to be restricted by the Data Protection Act. The Data Protection Act is a very specialised provision: it is concerned with personal data which is held on a computer, not with information more generally. It was deliberately drafted in that way because of the particular threat which computers entail, by reason of their ability to collate and disseminate lots of pieces of information very rapidly. Given the special direction of the Act, there was no need to include in it any separate provisions; for example, in respect of the activities of the press.
Had the Data Protection Act been concerned with the use of personal information in general, the position would have had to be very different. I have no doubt that Parliament would have felt it necessary to make provision to safeguard the legitimate activities of investigative journalists, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred. That is why I am particularly concerned about the noble and learned Lord's amendment, which is not confined (as is the Government's) to information which is obtained in contravention of the Data Protection Act but affects the sale of financial information in any form if it is obtained by deception.
I am not suggesting that we should approve of any and every sort of underhand means employed by journalists. But it is not difficult to envisage some circumstances where information ought to be in the public domain. Leaving aside the Data Protection Act, if it was discovered, for example, that a Minister had pocketed £1 million out of public funds —and I hope that your Lordships will agree that I am inviting your Lordships to extend your imagination to its extremities —it could be said that it would be in the public interest for that fact to be in the public domain, even if the information had been obtained by a questionable route. That is when personal privacy and public interest may come into conflict. And this is the area which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman's amendment enters, and in a significant way.
These are difficult questions, and I am not suggesting to the House that the answers are straightforward. Where the line should be drawn between the individual's right to privacy on the one hand, and society's interest in a free press on the other, is a fairly fundamental, contentious and delicate subject. That is why Sir David Calcutt was asked to look into and advise upon the problem and it is one of the issues which the Government will be addressing in their forthcoming White Paper on the press and privacy.
I do not think that we can anticipate the White Paper in what we attempt to do in the course of this Bill, and I do not think that we would be sensible to enter those murky waters. I must advise the House that I think it would be unwise to make changes as the noble and learned Lord's amendment proposes which could have wide-ranging and perhaps unexpected implications for the operation of a free press in this country.
By contrast, I suggest, that the Government's amendment is a valuable step forward. I cannot claim to your Lordships that it will guarantee the end of all the

1673
practices in this area which many of your Lordships have found so distasteful. For one thing, the mere fact that we make an activity unlawful does not, regrettably, mean that it never happens. Plenty of people, unfortunately, continue to commit murder despite the law. Many people—although I am sure few of your Lordships are among them—go faster than 30 miles per hour when the law provides that they should not. But I do think that our amendment fills a significant loophole in the protection provided by the Data Protection Act. We have moved quickly in order to bring it before your Lordships, and I hope that it will send a clear signal that the Government view very seriously the misuse of personal information in the way in question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question simply for information, because I am still listening very carefully to the debate and trying to make up my mind what to do about it. The government amendment refers to "computer-held personal information". Would that include, for example, a bank statement which is produced electronically and printed out on to paper?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I may not have the wording quite right but I believe that the amendment refers to information which is held in a computer and which—I believe that I am correct in saying—is subsequently printed out.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, how strongly I subscribe to his views and feelings on this matter. When the subject was raised in Committee, I noted that my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that he would take away the matter to consider it. To a great extent, I believe that the noble and learned Lord is to be congratulated on having raised the matter in such a way as to persuade my noble friend the Minister to go a long way towards agreeing the substance of the amendment.
The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to circulate a briefing to many noble Lords. I was interested to read that his amendment had been retabled for the Report stage in case —and I emphasise the words "in case"—a government amendment was not forthcoming. However, a government amendment has been put forward; indeed, it is now before the House. Having asked my noble friend the Minister to think again, and in view of the fact that he has produced an amendment, I feel that the matter should rest there. I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel that his concerns have been met to some extent. He deserves the congratulations of your Lordships' House, but my noble friend the Minister should also be congratulated on having been able to persuade his colleagues to go a long way towards meeting the requirements of the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Elarl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask my noble and learned friend a point of clarification. In subsection (2) of the amendment should it not be "an offer to sell" rather than "an offer to well"?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, there is a mistake on the Marshalled List. Subsection (2) should indeed refer to "an offer to sell".
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the amendment he has produced. On the other hand, it seems to me that we shall be left in a very odd position; namely, if the information is "computer held" there will be no great magic about it. It will be protected. But if it is not computer held and is obtained by trickery and dishonest means there will be no sanctions against it. I believe that my noble friend is asking us to live with a rather anomalous situation. The real basis for the amendment is the boast that there is no security system that cannot be circumvented. Surely that must make all noble Lords feel uncomfortable and insecure. I am not suggesting for one moment that your Lordships have anything to hide. It is simply that there is a need for all of us to be protected against quite unwarranted intrusions.
A further matter worries me. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of easily corruptible people who will make use of their positions as regards access to private information to make a profit for themselves by selling such information to some kind of grubby organisation like the agencies to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I would be most disturbed if the Government were really asking your Lordships to be content with their amendment, valuable though it is; indeed, I certainly would not deny that fact.
However, I have a certain sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench in that he has to answer so powerful and lucid an advocate as the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment. If I may say so without giving offence to anyone, the brevity with which the noble and learned Lord moved his amendment was matched by his clarity. I can only suggest that the noble and learned Lord offers a marvellous example. The noble and learned Lord put a proposition to my noble friend the Minister which I, for one, hope he will not think of rejecting.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I may be wrong, but the list read out by the noble and learned Lord of items which could be obtained included, I believe, the circumstances of a person's private life. Presumably, such information would not be held on a computer; nevertheless, it might damage a person and his or her reputation irreparably if it was forwarded at the request of the person seeking the information from the agency.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, when my noble friend speaks further to the amendment, I should like him to clarify a point which confuses me. The noble and learned Lord spoke categorically and unequivocally of the "seller" as the man who is to be held guilty of such a crime. However, my noble friend's amendment refers to "a person who procures". I may have misunderstood, but I find the procurer to be the man who obtains the information and he may well not be the seller of such information. Will my noble friend's amendment deal equally with both the seller and the procurer of such information?
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved so well and clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. To me, it fulfils a very long felt need in our society and one that could not be more clearly and fully dealt with. As I said, I strongly support the amendment and I hope that my noble friends will also support it.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I should very much like to support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. In doing so, I want to make it clear that I equally support the Minister's amendment. I find nothing inconsistent between the two. One deals with the problem of leaking information which is held on computer but, of course, does nothing about information which is not held on computers. In many cases, there will be considerable difficulties in proving who it was who procured the leak, and so on. But the incentive to leak and to cover up the leakers, if I may put it that way, will exist so long as it is open to people to offer such information for sale. Therefore, in my view, the right way to tackle the problem is to accept both amendments and adopt a two-barrelled approach, bearing in mind the fact that it will be easier to get the man who is offering such information for sale than the man who procured the disclosure of the information.
It would be quite inappropriate for me—and, indeed, quite inappropriate for any Member of this House—to discuss the issue of payment for Questions. I certainly do not intend to do so. However, the Minister raised the question of what we should do upon discovering that a member of Her Majesty's Government had abstracted £1 million from the public till. I believe that the answer is quite clear. You tell the Leader of the Opposition, or, conceivably, and perhaps first, the police.
However, the one thing you do not do—or, at any rate, I see no reason why a special exception should be left to enable you to do so at the price of the very desirable reform of my noble and learned friend—is to offer it to the Sunday Times for a very large reward. I appreciate the force of the very proper tenderness of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the press in its investigative journalism role. But it may have escaped your Lordships' attention that the noble Lord started to say that the amendment would inhibit investigative journalism. As I know so well, an advocate listening to himself is sometimes surprised at what he is saying and corrects himself. Indeed, the noble Lord did correct himself. He said that he meant to refer to a freelance. An employee of the Sunday Times doing so would not be offering the information for sale and, therefore, would commit no offence under the Brightman amendment. It is only the freelancer who would be in difficulty and for my part I can live with that.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope I may deal with that point. The Sunday Times itself would be offering to sell information, or would be selling information, as to the financial affairs of a particular person exposed in the City. Therefore it would not simply be a case of the freelancer. Would not the noble
1676
and learned Lord agree that someone who published a book exposing a City fraudster would similarly be offering to sell information?
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I would like, if I may, to support the approach which has just been put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The first thing I wish to do, if I may, is to thank the Minister for his genuine attempts to meet the mischief which your Lordships have been seized of not only in Committee but in Parliamentary Questions recently. I believe that we owe him a debt for doing so and I know it has demonstrated his personal interest in the issue. But I, too, see nothing inconsistent with the acceptance of that approach and the acceptance of the approach put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. May I say why I am attracted to the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman? I believe that the amendment put forward on behalf of the Government is valuable, but the root of this mischief is that there are organisations which seek to obtain information in order to sell it. I believe that we ought to go to what is the vice of what we are seeking to deal with.
I know that your Lordships feel that confidentiality is immensely important to customers, and banks agree with that. It is also immensely important to the reputation of banks. These issues are by no means easy to deal with. There may be occasions, which may be difficult to trace, when organisations that seek to sell information procure that information by offering money to those who work within financial institutions. I have no direct evidence of that, but there may well be such cases. However, there are other occasions when such organisations deceive those who work within financial institutions by obtaining sufficient details of the customer's account to enable them to ring the institutions. I have listened in to those telephone calls at the receiving end. The person who is receiving literally hundreds of calls a day has at a moment in time to decide whether the information he is being given is genuine, because if it is genuine that person must, to a degree, be "user friendly"—as it would be put in the jargon—and give information to genuine customers.
This is a difficult tightrope to tread. I am not absolutely clear myself whether the Government's amendment would make it an offence if someone procured information from an employee of a financial services institution who unwittingly disclosed it with no mens rea and therefore might not himself have committed an offence under the Data Protection Act. I rather doubt that that would be the case but I would be grateful if in response my noble friend the Minister—if he does respond—could help on that. Whether that is the case or not, I believe that the essence of this matter is that we all know that the real mischief we want to strike at is those who seek to gain a profit from this information by selling it. I should have thought, having heard the constructive tones of this debate, it would not be impossible to put together the best of the Brightman amendment and the best of the government amendment and bring that back to us, on an agreed basis, at Third Reading.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was about to say almost what has fallen from the lips of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. I wish to endorse what he has said as a possible way out in the hope of proving helpful to both parties. I wish to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman for having paid attention to the rather pedantic little point I made in Committee, to which I think he gave a somewhat inadequate reply. However, he has now dealt with it completely. But there is a hole in his amendment; namely, that it is confined to financial information. I thought that my noble friend Lord Ferrers made a good point when he said that medical information, for instance, could be equally sensitive.
My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson and my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon made the point that the government amendment is defective in one respect; namely, that it is confined to computer held information. There must be information of a kind which one would like to protect which is not computer held. I do not even know whether my bank, which is a small one, holds my financial information on a computer, and there are certainly a lot of other details about me which are not held on computers which I certainly would like to protect. I am therefore in the position of the man in the "Beggar's Opera" who sang a song —perhaps your Lordships remember this—
"I could be happy with either
Were t'other dear charmer away,
But when they both tease me together.
To neither a word will I say,
But fa-lah di-lah lah di-loh-lah".
I think my noble friend Lord Alexander has suggested a way out and that is that the benefits and the limitations of the two amendments, which are now apparently in contention with one another, could be reconciled. They are not incompatible basically, and the point of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, could be fanned in because, if he really tried, I do not think it would be beyond him—it certainly would not be beyond other legal brains interested in this matter—to put in a public interest defence to the version of the clause of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. I wonder whether it is not right therefore to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that we should take these matters away at this stage and come back at Third Reading with an amalgam between the two cases. If they are incompatible, I do not know which of the two charmers I would like to vote for.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I rise briefly to support both amendments. The noble Earl's amendment refers to personal information; that is, for example, information about the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, or about myself. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, refers to information about a person. Legally, as I understand it, "a person" could be a small limited company. Therefore leaks about the financial information of a small limited company could be very valuable.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I ask the Minister when he is responding to this debate to say whether he is prepared to accept the useful compromise that has been put forward. I think it is a way out, and more than that,
1678
it is not just a way out but a way of improving the provisions of both these amendments. If there is a fault in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, to which I have put my name, it is that it is limited to financial information.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, asked earlier about that point. I would say to the noble Baroness that; the circular to which we referred has a great many other items on it which for the sake of brevity we did not read out. It includes a great deal of information which will not be on computer, which is not financial and which is; "price on application" information. I would very much like to see that information included in these restrictions if it can be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the idea of amalgamating both these provisions. If not, I hope that my noble and learned friend—if I may call him so—will press this to a Division because it must go through.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I would hope that we would be able to achieve some progress on this; matter between this debate and Third Reading. I agree: with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and Lord Donaldson, and with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that one of these; amendments is not the enemy of the other. They can in my view be reconciled. The only point I wish to make in addition is that I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in that I too think there should be a public interest defence. I think that that is an important: matter given the speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I think it would improve the whole handling of this issue.
I welcome what the Government have said, but I very much hope that the noble Earl will indicate that he is prepared to look at this matter again between the debate today and Third Reading next week to see whether it is possible to discuss the issues behind the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that that is the emerging consensus and probably wise advice. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there are difficulties and attractions in relation to both amendments. I agree particularly with his suggestion about the public interest.
The issue which would sway me most if the matter went to a Division today is the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. That is the issue of whether this amendment—or indeed either amendment —would inhibit investigative journalism. Unless I were fully convinced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in his reply to the debate, or by the Minister in replying in respect of his amendment, that that was; not the case I do not at present feel that I could vote for either amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may have the: leave of the House to respond at this stage before the: noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, responds to the debate as a whole.
It is difficult to follow up the attractive suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington; namely, to ride both horses at once and

1679
accept both amendments. I say that with a considerable amount of humility, because when the matter was discussed in Committee I was deeply attracted by the amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, put down at that stage. I have tried to see whether it would be possible to accede to the points which he tried to make and which he is trying to make with his amendment today.
The Government have approached the problem by recognising that the important issue is to try to attack the mischief where it occurs. It occurs where the information is divulged. The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, states:
"It is an offence for a person … to sell or offer to sell information … if the seller knows that the information has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception".
Therefore, the noble and learned Lord's amendment would require that before one could catch the person one would have to establish that the information had been obtained by deception or improperly.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the amendment says that the information "has been or will be obtained".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is no dispute about that. The point is that it has to be found that the information was obtained improperly or by deception. If that is established, the person is caught under the Government's amendment. The Government's amendment tries to catch the person who has divulged the information. Therefore, before the noble and learned Lord's amendment could operate, the person would have had to have fallen foul of the Government's amendment. In that respect, I believe that we have the edge.
My noble friend Lord Alexander asked about the position of the employee who had passed on to somebody else information which he had obtained genuinely and to which he was entitled. My noble friend asked whether that person would have committed an offence. The employee would not have committed an offence if he had passed on the information to a person whom he genuinely thought to be the right person. It would be the procurer who had committed the offence by masquerading as somebody else.
I turn to the second part of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. This is the part with which I have the most difficulty. It is also the part with which I have the greatest sympathy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, wants to catch the person who sells the information. That is what we would all like to achieve. However, once one enters that territory one faces the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, described in relation to what is privacy and where the public interest takes precedence.
I ask your Lordships not to go down the route proposed in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The report of Sir David Calcutt on privacy and the public interest has been produced. The Government have to make up their mind on that issue. It is a very difficult and sensitive subject. We shall then have to issue a White Paper and there will have to
1680
be consultation. I believe that if we were to accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment we would pre-empt that process.
That is why I suggest that it would be wiser to accept the Government's amendment rather than that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Your Lordships have suggested that we might take the matter away and look at it again to see whether we could combine the two. I have thought hard about the matter with my advisers to see whether we could combine the two because that was my natural inclination. I am advised that it would be very difficult to combine them.
For those reasons I hope that the noble and learned Lord will acknowledge that we have gone as far as we possibly can on this matter before running into the deeper trouble which we might run into with his amendment. Therefore, I hope that he will accept the Government's amendment and graciously withdraw his own.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I acknowledge with gratitude the amendment which the noble Earl has put down. There is no doubt that it goes a long way to meet our problems. I am the last person in any way to denigrate what he has achieved. I must apologise if I gave the impression that I opposed his amendment. I had no intention of conveying that impression.
It is my belief that one amendment supplements the other. I should have liked to have seen my amendment followed by the Minister's amendment as two subsections of the same clause. Then I believe we would really have achieved something.
I must deal with a point which has been mentioned a great many times; namely, the point rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He was anxious about the work of investigative journalists and wanted to know what I had to say about that. I am not in favour of the acquisition of information dishonestly by subterfuge or deception. I stand by that. The press do very good work and investigative journalists are very useful, but I do not like the acquisition of information dishonestly.
I am not certain whether I quite understood the query raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, concerning the difference between my amendment and the government amendment. My amendment is confined to financial information. It covers such information whether or not it is held on a computer. The government amendment is wider than my amendment in the sense that it applies to all personal information, but only when held on computer.
I should have thought that it would be perfectly possible for the Government to produce a combined amendment. I should not like to do anything which impeded that. However, we have not been given any undertaking by the noble Earl that the Government will come back with a composite amendment. In those circumstances, I am bound to take the opinion of the House, particularly in view of the large number of letters I have received in support of my amendment.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 146B✶) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 163; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Aldington, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hylton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Annan, L.

Inchyra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Attlee, E.

Jacques, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Jakobovits, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blyth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kintore, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Longford, E.

Brentford, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bridges, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brightman, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of llton, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cadman, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carnarvon, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Chappie, L.

McNair, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Minto, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monson, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Colwyn, L.

Morris, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Onslow, E.

David, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Desai, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perth, E.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Foot, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Richard, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Roskill, L.

Glasgow. E.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

Salisbury, M.

Glenarthur, L.

Seear, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Greenway, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sherfield, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of High Cross. L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harvington, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hood, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Strafford, E.

1682

Swinfen, L.

Warnock, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Waverley, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Wharton, B.

Tordoff, L.

White, B.

Torrington, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Tryon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Vinson, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ironside, L.

Annaly, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Balfour, E.

Leigh, L.

Barber, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Lucas, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Chancellor.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Manton, L.

Carter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmer, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chesham, L.

Mersey, V.

Clinton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Courtown, E.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Peston, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pike, B.

Dormer, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Downshire, M.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elibank, L.

Romney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandys, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Sharpies, B.

Flather, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Geddes, L.

Stockton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Gowrie, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

[Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

HoImPatrick, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hooper, B.

Wolfson, L.

Hothfield, L.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 146B:
Before Clause 141, insert the following new clause:
("Racial motivation to be an aggravating factor in sentencing
In section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) In considering the seriousness of any offence which in the opinion of the court was committed with a racial motivation, the court shall treat the fact that it was committed with that motivation as an aggravating factor.
(2B) In this section 'racial motivation' means a motivation on grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I much regret that we have had a break in the debates on the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and Amendments Nos. 146B and 146C because they relate to the same subject. It would have been far better if the mood of the House had been sustained. I am sorry that there has been a break during which your Lordships have been considering very different matters. I should have liked my amendments to follow that of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, on racially motivated violence, because the issues noble Lords were thinking of at that stage were the very ones of which I wish to remind noble Lords again. Had I followed him, I might not have needed to say much to that effect because the matter would have been fresh in noble Lords' minds. However, I shall still not speak for a great length of time.
I just want to remind the House that there is a sickness in our society, whether or not we wish to recognise it. I was much encouraged by the sentiments that I heard from all sides of the Chamber making it clear that noble Lords abhor and despise the sickness which is present in our midst. It is good to have that feeling expressed, but there must come a moment when the feeling has to be translated into something concrete and presented to the public, the victims, those whose lives are every day being blighted in all parts of this great city. I do not know how many of your Lordships have personal experience or knowledge of families who are frightened to leave their homes. It is not something about which we can be totally intellectual or abstract, it is people's lives. It is necessary to express the sentiment that your Lordships expressed so well a short time ago in saying that noble Lords despise that kind of behaviour. It is time to do something about it, to enshrine our determination in an Act of Parliament in some way, to send out a strong message, not an empty one. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will tell us that it is merely an empty message. I do not believe it to be so.
We spoke in passing about Lord Salmon, who dealt with the rioters in the Notting Hill riots. The impact of his sentences on those rioters and that situation is remembered to this day. He said that he would not tolerate that kind of behaviour in a society which calls itself civilised, fair and just. We do call ourselves civilised, fair and just. It is, in my opinion, a most un-British thing to do, to penalise and victimise people simply because you do not like the way they look or the way they live or the way they eat. They are doing nothing to you, they are not committing any kind of offence, they are going about their normal lives. But you do not like the way they look, therefore you can create a situation where their life becomes a total and utter misery.
I think it might be a good thing if we all went back
1684
and read Lord Salmon's judgment. I had intended to bring it with me but I forgot. After all these years, it is as fresh as it ever was and it reminds us that it is important from time to time to send out a strong message to say that society will tolerate so much and no more.
I was grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Renton: it was much welcomed by me. I look forward to what he may have to say on my modest amendment. I was told on the previous occasion that there was already guidance for judges in this area. It might interest your Lordships to know that no such guidance exists for magistrates. I have spoken to the chairman of the Magistrates' Association and she informs me that no such guidance exists. When we consider the number of offences which would be dealt with in the magistrates' courts, where these issues would be important, it is something to be concerned about.
I was at a conference this morning organised by the Association of District Councils. I spoke on the subject of racial harassment on council estates. During questions, one of the questioners mentioned that when the police finally bring someone to court, that person is not dealt with severely enough if racial harassment is proved or the racial element is proved. There is no such offence as racial harassment.
There should be no room for ambiguity, there should be a clear and precise statement of what we wish to happen. That is exactly what the Government did in another situation only last year. Section 66(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 amended Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to stipulate that courts should regard the fact that an offence was committed on bail as an aggravating factor. The 1993 Act inserted into the 1991 Act a new Section 29(2), which states:
"In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court shall treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor".
If it was a matter of common sense, one would say that this would be a most obvious point; one should not need to put it in an Act of Parliament. Yet it was considered serious enough to be put in an Act of Parliament. Is not a racial motive serious enough to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament?
I believe that it is extremely important to put something along similar lines into this Bill. We need to ensure that courts always regard racial motivation as an aggravating factor. That is the feeling behind the amendment.
The second of the two new clauses lays a duty on the prosecution to disclose any racial element in an offence. I took part in a "Panorama" programme about six months ago. One of the factors that came out through the research that was done for the programme was how frequently the racial element in a particular offence was not disclosed to the court by the Crown Prosecution Service. Very often, when the offender pleaded guilty to a lesser charge or an agreed charge, that area of concern was kept from the court. That has also come through from much anecdotal evidence. It is not always disclosed to the court that there is a racial element involved in a particular offence.
When I put the clause down at the Committee stage, the Minister said:
"At present, the prosecutor has a duty to inform the court of any factors which make the offence unusually serious—which includes information that an offence was racially motivated—and also to inform the court of any mitigating circumstances if those are known.
'The Government are concerned to ensure that evidence which goes to show racial motivation should be clearly indicated at every stage of the process … The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are already taking steps to identify cases where there is evidence of racial motivation. That is an issue which can be dealt with more effectively through additional guidance and training for all agencies involved in the criminal justice system rather than by legislation". —[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1937.]
Surely, guidance and training should be happening in any case. They are not alternatives to a duty to disclose. They should be there and they should be continuous. Each should work in such a way as to reinforce the other: guidance and training and a duty of disclosure. We need to create confidence in the victims, in the minority community, and indeed we need to send a message to the majority community or the perpetrators that this kind of behaviour will be taken into account by the courts. But it can only be taken into account by the courts if they are informed of it. If it is kept from the courts, then the decision is being made by the CPS in the first instance. We are not happy about that. It is extremely important that this clause is accepted by noble Lords. It is important that everyone who is a victim of a racially motivated crime knows that, whatever happens, that racial element will be placed before the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to support my noble friend Lady Flather in this amendment. I feel that this matter is one of the most difficult issues in our society at the present time. We had an extended debate earlier in the evening on the general theme of racially motivated crimes and how appropriate it is to respond to them. Like my noble friend I think that it is a matter for regret that for procedural reasons the debate on these subjects has been interrupted for an hour by other matters, albeit matters of importance.
It is fair to say that this amendment is in some ways less radical than the one that was proposed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. This amendment does not set out to create new categories of offence; it deals primarily with the issue of sentencing, although there is also the succeeding amendment, on the matter of the placing of relevant information before the court.
A number of noble Lords who discussed the issue in the earlier debate addressed themselves to the matter of sentencing. The remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would have been as appropriate to this amendment as to the earlier one. The same may be true of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton.
This amendment is somewhat minimal, but it sends a signal that is of great importance at the present time. It is minimal because Clause 29(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 reads:
"Where any aggravating factors of an offence are disclosed by the circumstances of other offences committed by the offender,
1686
nothing in this Part shall prevent the court from taking those factors into account for the purpose of forming an opinion as; to the seriousness of the offence".
So the general concept of aggravating factors is clearly set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The present amendment simply emphasises that racial motivation should be treated by the court as an aggravating factor in that context.
The accompanying amendment—which is a very important one, as my noble friend emphasised—that,
"it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any information or material tending to show that the offence was committed with a racial motivation",
will, one hopes, ensure that these matters are brought effectively to the attention of the courts. As my noble friend argued, that is not always the case at the present time.
It is the case that Parliament urgently needs to send a signal because of the tide of racism and racially motivated offences which is afflicting our society. That is the reason why it is appropriate to single out racial motivation at the present time. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, who is, alas, no longer in his place, very effectively made the point that there are many other kinds of distasteful event of which one can take an equally dim view. That may very well be the case. But the point is that racially motivated offences are a problem in our society, and one to which Parliament should turn its attention.
A census in 1991 indicated that over the previous two years there had been 130,000 racially motivated incidents. Over two years there had been 14 racially motivated murders of Afro-Caribbean and Asian individuals. Those are very shocking figures.
The point has also been made that if each of those 130,000 incidents affects all the members of a family —perhaps five members, since many of the families involved are large —that will mean that something like one-third of the families of ethnic minority groups in the United Kingdom each year are affected by the knowledge that within their family or near their family there have been such offences.
I do not have direct personal experience of this kind of harassment. There are very few persons in this House who do. But it is an extraordinary circumstance that there is a significant proportion of the population which must sometimes walk in fear. As my noble friend said, there are people who are frightened to go out of their houses.
It is of course the case that in a society where there is a not negligible crime rate it may be that old and infirm people think twice about leaving their houses at night. But when we talk of people in minority groups, their fear is of a different kind. It is an apprehension that affects them day and night through the totality of their lives in this country, and it is deeply obnoxious. Nobody in this House denies that it is obnoxious, but in emphasising these points I am trying to underline why it seems relevant that this modest amendment providing that racial motivation should be explicitly referred to as an aggravating factor should be accepted.
In earlier discussions there was general agreement that we would wish to live in a society that was racially blind—that is to say, a society that would not take

1687
account of racial distinctions in a negative way. But I fear very much that at the present time we come very close to turning a blind eye to some of the obnoxious discriminating distinctions which are made. For that reason I think it would be very timely if noble Lords would support this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, again, I shall just draw a little picture. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does not come into it this time. If you are a Bengali mother living in a council house at the back of Brick Lane and you have had yobs throwing bricks through your window and shouting racist and offensive slogans, I think it is hard to feel anything other than the greatest possible contempt for that sort of behaviour. Where I have a difficulty, even though I have immense sympathy with the amendment, is in this respect. My noble friend has in a way highlighted the difficulty. We already have a piece of law which says that aggravating factors must be taken into account when sentencing. What we surely should not do in a piece of law is make an aggravating factor more aggravating by statute than it is by common sense.
That is where I have a slight difficulty with the amendment, even though the House is universally sympathetic to the idea behind it. It is hard to imagine the Bengali woman I mentioned suffering such treatment. I find it difficult to imagine anything nastier than that or than the treatment of Jews in the East End of London before the war. It is intolerable and quite out of kilter with a civilised society. But I have my doubts whether one should have more special aggravation laid down by statute.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise on the point which the noble Earl addressed and which was mentioned also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; namely, whether there is a distinction and a real difference between a crime committed just as a crime and a crime which is racially motivated.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, told the story of the Pontiff at Drogheda who said, "Murder is murder is murder." In a more sprightly vein, the noble Earl referred to his feelings as a drunken undergraduate, 20 years old, toward the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Incidentally, he has just given exactly that kind of impression. However much he despises and hates the conduct of those who taunt and throw bricks through the windows of a Bengali mother living in Brick Lane, one must accept that there is no real distinction, but there is a distinction.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Earl my little story. I shall imagine myself motivated by highly patriotic sentiments. I go to Highgate cemetery and daub the monument to Karl Marx with the Union Jack to show my contempt for Marxism. It is an act of vandalism and totally unacceptable in a civilised society to treat graves in that way. Let me contrast that with another kind of daubing—the daubing of a Jewish grave with the swastika. There is a distinction. What the man who does that is saying to the man under the ground is, "Good riddance and good riddance to the six million who were gassed during the war". That is the distinction.
1688
The noble Baroness is right to draw our attention to that and to the fact that the ethnic communities in the East End of London—and not merely there but in Leeds and elsewhere, all over the country—who are subjected to that kind of violence and harassment suffer violence of a different order from the kind of mindless violence and yob behaviour that we see every day in our midst. That is why I shall support the noble Baroness if she divides the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friends Lady Flather and Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn were kind enough to say that during our earlier discussion on the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and pursuing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said about the importance of the effect of racial motivation on sentence, I mentioned that it was more relevant and helpful to discuss the matter on this amendment than the earlier one.
I agree with my noble friend that in deciding the sentence in any case the court should be obliged to consider the motive with which the crime was committed. When the motive is a wrongful motive, or a motive against the public interest or hurtful to individuals, or a racial, political, religious, commercial or sexual motive, any of those factors should be borne in mind by the court. Therefore I do not feel that my noble friend's amendment goes far enough.
I humbly suggest that the best plan is for my noble friends not to press the amendment but to consider a simple amendment to Section 29 of the 1991 Act, obliging the court to take into consideration the motive of the crime when fixing sentence. Something on those lines and quite brief would be much more satisfactory and would cover all the bad motives that we all dislike.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should like briefly to explain my support for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I do so with diffidence because I have only sat as a criminal judge for about eight years. As I look around the Chamber I see many noble and learned Lords and many noble Lords who have far more experience than I of the administration of criminal justice. But during the eight years in which I have sat as an assistant recorder and recorder, I have had the difficult task of trying cases in London that in many instances had a racial element.
Having attended the training sessions of the Judicial Studies Board at which senior judges tried to teach me how to become a good sentencer, I became aware of the difficulties which arise through a lack of adequate guidance from the board, the Lord Chief Justice and the Home Office. My attitude towards the first amendment, and for that matter the second one, will be very much affected by whether the noble Earl the Minister is able to give an assurance that the amendments would be effected by administrative means; in other words, that there would be binding guidelines upon judges and the prosecuting authorities to that effect. My understanding is that there are no such intentions to introduce binding guidelines.
The aims of the amendments will be shared by everyone in this House: that of ensuring that racial

1689
motivation is an aggravating factor and that a duty of the kind described is placed on the prosecuting authorities. All that one is concerned with is the means.
It seems to me that in the absence of binding administrative guidelines to judges and sentencers at every level and to prosecuting authorities, it is right for Parliament to give such guidance in legislative form. Unless we hear that there are to be legally binding administrative guidelines without the need for legislation, it seems to me that the case for legislation is, frankly, overwhelming.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the amendments to which my name is attached propose a public demonstration, indeed a public affirmation, of the Government's determination to do something about racism and racial attacks. As such, the provisions would be of great value in a situation in which public morale is at stake. My noble friend Lord Beloff and many other noble Lords made that point in the debate on Amendment No. 146.
These amendments have the added virtue that they are very easy to accommodate within the structure of the criminal law. They are effective and follow established lines. They are relatively uncontroversial and catch all crimes. Whatever crime may be committed with a racial motivation, the amendments catch it.
My noble friend the Minister said, I believe, when discussing Amendment No. 146, that it was important to make sure that at every stage of the process racial aspects were pursued. Yes, that is what the amendments seek to write in letters of fire on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers knows that I support the Government's preference for universal and not specifically racial crimes. If the Government wished to do so, they could take the spirit of the amendments of my noble friend Lady Flather as my noble friend Lord Renton suggested or perhaps follow the definition put forward by the Commission for Racial Equality that racially motivated crime is serious because it is,
"directed against its victims not because of what they happen to own, but because of what they naturally and inescapably are. Such attacks therefore threaten all members of the same minority community, creating a deep sense of fear".
The Government therefore could substitute for the concept of racial motivation the concept of an intent to spread fear among the community or a part of it for racial or other motives. To my mind such a route could achieve the universality that the Government prefer; it could preserve the benefits that would flow from my noble friend's amendment and draw into its net similar crimes—as the Minister pointed out—committed against women, homosexuals, the elderly, and indeed on religious grounds, which will be the subject of later amendments.
The Citizen's Charter shows the value of public standards and aspirations in improving the way that the Government and their machinery work. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to my noble friend and hope that he will adopt them in spirit, if not in their actual words.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, this is the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton,—as he said a moment ago—cal led attention in the course of his speech on Amendment No. 146 which I moved. We had a detailed debate on the racial issues at: stake on that amendment and I can therefore express myself briefly. I accept what came from the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew —that is, that this amendment is much less radical than Amendment No. 146, which would have created racial motivation as an ingredient of offences had it found favour with your Lordships' House. Amendment No. 146B was rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, as minimal; but, I would add, of real consequence as well if it is accepted.
I part company from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his suggestion that he may be satisfied by a strengthening of guidelines to the judiciary on sentencing, though I agree with him that no such suggestion as a substitute for the amendment is likely to come forward. I find wholly persuasive what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It would be a tragedy if we parted from our deliberations on these issues today without Parliament as Parliament sending some clear signal of its condemnation of racially motivated criminality.
I said that I would express myself briefly and I shall make that good. I have two basic points to make in commending the amendment to the House and in supporting it. In my experience also the sentencing decision of a judge is a difficult one and one which causes the most experienced judges great anxiety. It involves weighing a broad range of factors, both aggravating and mitigating. But where the judge is satisfied that racial motivation has been a factor in the commission of an offence of which the defendant was found guilty, then that factor must always—not "may" —be treated as an aggravating factor.
The great merit of the amendment is that the judges shall be left in no doubt that Parliament regards the commission of a criminal offence on racial grounds as something that can never be ignored in sentencing; it should not be capable of being left out in any case at all as a matter of judicial discretion. Parliament rules and I submit that we should send a clear and unequivocal message to Her Majesty's judges that they must take into account racial motivation when they find it to have existed in the commission of an offence.
My second point is this: there is an added advantage if your Lordships accept the amendment. Those minded to racial violence, and there are many such people, will be deterred because they will know that racial violence, of necessity, will—not "may"—be reflected in the punishment they rightly receive.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, sits down, perhaps I can make quite clear that there is nothing between us. I was simply seeking to say to your Lordships that the amendment puts into binding form the obligations on judges and prosecutors to take account of racial motivation; whether administratively or by legislation does not matter provided that it is a legally binding obligation. It

1691
can be done either by the Lord Chief Justice issuing binding guidelines, which would make it an error of law if they were disregarded, or it can be done by legislation.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He appreciates that my point is that the time has come for Parliament to speak.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, when I first read Amendment No. 146B, I felt that it was an indication of the obvious and a piece of legislative surplusage. I am quite satisfied that the professional judges are adequately indoctrinated in regard to what should or should not be taken into account particularly by the Judicial Studies Board. What made me change my mind in relation to the amendments is simply this.
As we were reminded, Parliament thought it was appropriate to legislate so that an offence committed while on bail had to be taken into consideration as an aggravating factor. I believe that was directed essentially to the magistrates and that that guidance was thought to be essential in that jurisdiction. If it is essential to put on the statute book another blinding glimpse of the obvious, that an offence committed on bail is an aggravating factor, then, a fortiori, that must apply to the type of offence with which we are concerned.
The second part of the amendment is fit and proper for legislation because, apparently, there are occasions when this material is not provided to the court. It clearly should be and I therefore support both amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support the amendment on the basis that the criminal law in this country is not a blunt instrument; it is a collection of subtle devices and mechanisms. One of the devices and mechanisms is the infliction as appropriate —for instance, as advocated by the late Lord Justice Salmon —of heavy deterrent sentences. Another is the provision of maximum penalties which are frequently increased and updated. Another is the structure of legislation.
I fundamentally dissent from the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that administrative directions would be suitable. I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a moment or two ago. These matters are too important to be left to administrative directions—far too important. It is not as though we are taking a fresh step. The question of the aggravation of commission of an offence on bail was mentioned; but there are a number of other offences. Speaking at random, one thinks of aggravated trespass committed while in possession of a firearm; one thinks also of the possession of firearms where a particularly aggravating feature is if that possession takes place within a certain number of years of the accused person being released from prison.
The truth is, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, rightly said, that this is a uniquely vile and poisonous offence. It is not uniquely vile in that its vileness is restricted to the offender; its poison spreads throughout our society. I could see, although I voted for the earlier amendment, that there were legitimate rational arguments against
1692
introducing a different type of offence. I think there are no rational or practical arguments against this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that the amendment is minimal. I think it is almost minimalist. It is a very modest step in terms of what we look for but its consequences as a symbol are extremely important.
If I may allow myself a moment of nostalgia, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and I were virtually exact contemporaries at Cambridge with the present Home Secretary. I have never found myself able to support the present Home Secretary on any single occasion since I have been in your Lordships' House. But I will say this. He is a man who has set his face throughout the years that I have known him against racial attacks, racial violence and racial discrimination. I would on that basis at least ask the Minister seriously to consider whether the Government would be better advised on this occasion to accept the amendment which has been put forward, which has been supported and which really is not capable of having a sensible argument put against it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I shall do my best in reply to the noble Lord. The noble Baroness introduced this pair of amendments with great skill and great feeling which impressed us all. However, although the amendments go less far than the amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I suggest that they are still open to a number of objections.
Contrary to what has been suggested both earlier today and at the Committee stage, unprovoked attacks upon innocent people, all of which are utterly deplorable, happen not only for reasons of race or nationality. Bullies—and we are talking mainly about bullies—attack people for a variety of reasons: for reasons of race and nationality of course, but also because the victims may be unusually fat or unusually small, or possibly because they wear thick horn-rimmed glasses; because they appear to be homosexual; because they are disabled—there was an appalling case in Oxford three or four years ago when people in wheelchairs were beaten up because thugs said that they did not like those they described as cripples—because the victims stammer or have a lisp; or because they speak with an accent which offends the thugs either on the grounds of class or of region. All such attacks are equally wrong and all the motives for such attacks are equally deplorable.
There is a more practical reason for opposing the amendment. Let us take the case of a pub late on a Saturday night when everyone has had rather a lot to drink. Two separate fist fights break out over two football matches which have taken place earlier in the day. The first fight takes place between two Englishmen from different parts of the country over a match between two first division clubs. In the course of the fight many insults are hurled regarding Liverpool, Manchester, West Ham or whatever. The second fight takes place over an international match played between an English club and one from, say, Germany, Nigeria or Italy. The fight is between an Englishman and someone from one of those countries. In the course of that fight a number of racial or national insults are hurled. Is it seriously to

1693
be suggested that the sentence passed upon conviction for those participating in the second fight should be higher than that passed upon those participating in the first? The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, seemed to suggest that it should be. I think most people would think otherwise.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall speak with my customary brevity. I was never a criminal lawyer but had I been I would have regarded it as my duty if I were prosecuting to place information showing racial motivation before the court—that is the side note to the second amendment—and had I been a criminal judge I would have regarded it as correct for me to take racial motivation into account as an aggravating factor. For those reasons I would support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has, as usual, made her case extremely well and I can well understand why she feels so strongly on this matter and why she has decided, together with other noble Lords, to put down the amendment. No one could disagree with the importance of ensuring that evidence of racial motivation for any offence is presented to the court. No one could dispute that the sentence which is passed by the court should reflect the seriousness of those crimes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who said that we all have the same views on this and that it is not a question of the same aims: the question is the means. I agree with the noble Lord. I was more concerned when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, say that the amendment was not capable of having a serious argument made against it. I always get nervous when people make those enormously persuasive arguments because it makes one think that there is a fish underneath somewhere.
I should like to reassure my noble friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that there are systems in place, at all stages of the process, which will flag up the racial element. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that the amendment is a public affirmation of what we intend to do. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that we should send out a clear signal by accepting the amendments. I would remind both noble Lords—I hesitate to remind someone as eminent as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—that what we are doing in statute is not making affirmations or signals or statements. We are actually making statute and law which have to be interpreted by the courts. The effect of the amendments would be to specify in statute duties which are already on the courts and on the prosecution. They would not, therefore, seem to add anything to the existing position.
Courts have to take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors when they decide the seriousness of the offence; and there is already a duty on the prosecution to inform the court of any factors which make an offence unusually serious. Racial motivation is clearly one of them. Where the prosecution establishes that an offence was racially motivated, and where the court is satisfied that it aggravates the seriousness of the offence, the court is already required to take that into
1694
account. It must, however, also have regard to all the other factors of the offence before it comes to a decision about the overall seriousness of the offence. Was the offence, for example, committed against a vulnerable victim? Was it carried out by a gang? Was it racially motivated? All those factors must be weighed up and balanced against any mitigating factors It would not seem right to single out just one of them, bad though that one may be, as so different from all the others that it ought to be specified in statute.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the fact that the Criminal Justice Act 1993 requires the courts to treat the fact that an offence was committed on bail as an aggravating factor when they consider the seriousness of the offence. That is perfectly true but in that instance we took the view that there were particular features of this type of behaviour which justified making it a statutory aggravating factor in every case. Principally, that was the fact that offending on bail is a direct contravention of the trust which is placed in an offender by a court when it placed him on bail. The Government consider it right that an offender should know in advance what would be the consequences of a breach of that trust.
The courts have made clear that an offence which is racially motivated is more serious than an offence which is not. Like most aggravating factors, it bears in a very direct way on the offence which has been committed. But the position as regards offending on bail was not as clear, and that is why a statutory requirement was introduced in that case. Before the change it was not the case that offending on bail would automatically be treated as an aggravating factor. The Government wanted to ensure that the breach of trust which had been demonstrated by the further offending would be taken into account in every case, even when the type of offence was different.
I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend that the courts need to be provided with the evidence which will enable them to come to a proper decision about the seriousness of an offence. That is why there is already a duty on the prosecution to inform the court of the full circumstances of the offence and the character and the antecedents of the offender.
I can understand the concern of my noble friend about occasions when, despite the views of the police and the victim that the offence was racially motivated, the prosecution has not presented such evidence to the court. It is clearly right—indeed, it is required by the existing general duty—that such evidence should be brought to the attention of the court. But the Crown Prosecution Service is dependent on others for the information it receives and it has no direct contact with victims and witnesses. It can only present evidence which is in its possession. And such evidence can only be adduced in court if it is admissible within the rules of evidence.
To determine what motivates a person to do what he does is very difficult indeed. It is much easier to prove intent. I fear that, even with a specific duty, as proposed by my noble friend's amendment, it will remain very difficult to gather evidence of racial motivation which could be admissible in court. Rumours, innuendo or

1695
local police reports would not be sufficient, and yet the victim and the family will have had their expectation raised that the court would be able to treat the offence as racially motivated.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I have made it clear that we believe that action is required to ensure that the prosecution and the courts may have before them all the information they need. Research is under way on sentencing practices in general and should provide more information about how such evidence is being presented in court and how it is being taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked whether binding guidelines could be given to the judges. I am bound to tell him that my right honourable friend has no power to issue guidance to judges: that is for the Court of Appeal. Guidelines for the prosecution are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. We shall be pursuing that point with the director of the service as an important route to improving the practical handling of these offences. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made that clear in a major speech on race relations on 4th July at a conference organised by the Commission for Racial Equality.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? He said that guidance is given to the courts, and I accept his word for that. However, the noble Baroness said that magistrates had received no guidance at all on these matters. Can the Minister comment on that?.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, guidance to the magistrates would not be for the Home Office to give. It is a matter which should be considered and I shall certainly look into it. I cannot go further at this time.
It is at every stage of the process—not just in court —that evidence of racial motivation needs to be indicated and acted on. It is a matter of tightening the existing procedures in order to ensure that cases are given the right level of attention. And it is a question of ensuring that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service know and understand each other's needs in bringing a prosecution which has a racial element attached to it. I think that this can most effectively be achieved through administrative action rather than by legislation.
I come back to the point at which we started. I certainly have no quarrel with the idea or the thought underlying the amendment of my noble friend Lady Flather. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it is not a question of aims but of means. However, it would be wrong to highlight this one particular factor of all the aggravating factors and enshrine that in statute. That would give it a pre-eminence above all other factors when all other factors, together with this one, should be considered by the judges before sentencing. That is what happens at the moment, and that is the right way to proceed.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down and since he has been kind enough to refer to my brief intervention, can I clarify the
1696
position for myself? I made it clear that my attitude would be guided by whether the Government were able to give an assurance that there were in place clear and binding guidelines on judges and on the prosecuting authorities. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said. As I understand it, there have been no discussions even with the Lord Chief Justice as to whether new guidance needs to be given. As I understand it, it would not be an error in law for a sentencing judge to breach what is in the first amendment at the moment. As regards prosecuting authorities, we are told that it is a matter for further research rather than any settled intention now to give binding guidance. If I am right about that I shall be very grateful to be told. If not, I suggest that the House needs something more if it is not to give favour to these amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that in all those cases when guidance is given it can be binding guidance because, by its very nature, guidance is what it says: it is a method of guiding judges as to the course of action they should take. We have no power to issue guidance to judges, as I said. I have no doubt at all that judges will have sufficient guidance and that if they do not have it, they will receive it.
It would be wrong for me to say that there are binding guidelines on these matters. I have referred to the position with the Crown Prosecution Service. My right honourable friend said that he had every intention of pursuing this route to improve the practical handling of offences. Guidelines for the prosecution are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. We hope that the guidelines will address these points. I cannot give the noble Lord a firmer answer than that.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am grateful for all the support I have had. It has been an interesting experience in another way. Those noble Lords who have found reasons why they cannot support the amendments have said that they despise and abhor racially motivated crimes. They are very upset at what happens to families yet they cannot support these amendments nor are they able to bring forward anything else. It is a very interesting situation, is it not? We had long statements from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about examples. If there are examples of another form of blight affecting this society, please tell us because that is what we should be debating here and now.
We are debating racially motivated crime because it is a blight on your society which I consider I belong to as well. I want to be proud of it. How can you sit here and tolerate that blight and say that there is every reason not to do this or that? If there is another blight on society where people are treated in that way, please tell us. Would you accept it if your wife and children were treated in that way for no other reason except that they may look slightly different? Would you accept it and tolerate it? I believe that you would not. You would be speaking very differently on this occasion. You would find some way of dealing with that kind of crime. You would not say, "Ah well, there are others like the person in the wheelchair".
At Committee stage my noble friend the Minister gave an example of a woman in a wheelchair who had

1697
stones thrown at her. I believe that that is absolutely despicable and so do you. We all do. But are there thousands and thousands of women in wheelchairs who have stones thrown at them? If there are, then we need a special law to protect women in wheelchairs who have stones thrown at them. But every day, when the Bangladeshi women of the East End take their children to and from school, they have stones thrown at them.
We have been told that we do not want any signal or affirmation; in other words, we do not want empty gestures. These are not empty gestures. I was very grateful for the support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who is not in his place at the moment. They would not support an empty gesture. Nothing is more telling than support for these amendments from the noble and learned Lords. Together, the amendments will clarify a great deal of the grey area that exists at the moment.
I was particularly disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, went down the road of administrative guidance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, for bringing that point out. We do not want administrative guidance. There is plenty of administrative guidance. It makes no impact. It does not create confidence. If your Lordships are minded to do something, then do something which will create confidence in the minds of those who suffer from this kind of blight. I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow that there are many aggravating factors. This is one of the aggravating factors. Why are we discussing it once more? We are discussing it because a tremendously large number of people suffer from racially motivated crime.
We have statistics which tell us of the thousands and thousands of people who suffer every day from various kinds of racially motivated crimes. I do not want empty gestures, as my noble friend the Minister has said. I do not want affirmations, and I do not want signals. I do want to feel that Parliament has done what it can to create confidence, and to place a duty upon the prosecution and the judges. That is not an empty gesture. It is an important step forward. Since I have had no assurance from my noble friend, I shall take the opinion of the House.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.l46B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Airedale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Annan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Attlee, E.

David, B.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Desai, L.

Bonham Carter, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brightman, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Carter, L.

Falkland, V.

1698

Flather, B. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Glenamara, L.

Nathan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parmoor, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Healey, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollick, L.

Ponsonby of Shutbrede, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Rea, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Renfrew of Kaimsthom, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rennell, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Rochester, L.

Jeger, B.

Roskill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

Judd, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, B.

Kintore, E.

Shepherd, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Warnock, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wharton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McNair, L.

Wolfson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Digby, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Annaly, L.

Downshire, M.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Arran, E.

Elles, B.

Astor, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Balfour, E.

Elton, L.

Barber, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bethell, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Birdwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blatch, B.

Geddes, L.

Boardman, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V, [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gray, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Burnham, L.

Harmsworth, L

Butterworth, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harvington, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hemphill, L.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hertford, M.

Chesham, L.

Hives, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Clinton, L.

Hood, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Howe, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L

Cornwallis, L.

Kimball, L.

Courtown, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Leigh, L.

Cranborne, V.

Lindsay, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V.

De L'Isle, V.

Lyell, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Chancellor]

1699

Mancroft, L.

Rodney, L.

Manton, L.

Romney, E.

Marlesford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Massereene and Fenard, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Sandys, L.

Milverton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monson, L.

Sharpies, B.

Moran, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottislone, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Moyne, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Munster, E.

Stewartby, L.

Nelson, E.

Stockton, E.

Nickson, L.

Strange, B.

Norfolk, D.

Strathclyde, L.

Northesk, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ullswater, V, [Teller]

Peel, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pender, L.

Vinson, L.

Perth, E.

Vivian, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pym, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 146C:
Before Clause 141, insert the following new clause:
("Duty on prosecution to place information showing racial motivation before court

.—(1) In relation to a prosecution for any offence it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any information or material tending to show that the offence was committed with a racial motivation.

(2) In this section 'racial motivation' means a motivation on grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not speak to this amendment; but I shall divide on it, too. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 141 [Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 116, line 6, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 14 and insert:
("on racial grounds he—

(a) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b) uses words or behaviour or displays any writing, sign or other visual representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had full debates on these racial issues and I shall be brief. I assure the noble Earl that in supporting the amendment I shall not maintain that there are no serious arguments against it any more than I would expect him to borrow a leaf from the book of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and oppose the amendment on the basis that
1700
it is seriously intellectually flawed. I shall be more modest in my presentation, as I imagine he will be in his reply.
Clause 141 is a general harassment offence not specifically aimed at racial harassment. It does not meet the case that we urgently require a new offence of racial harassment. There are other objections to Clause 141. There will be greater difficulties in proving the Clause 141 offence than the existing offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Under that section, it is necessary only to prove that the particular behaviour was likely to cause someone to be harassed. Thus the victim does not have to participate in the trial and expose himself to the risk of reprisal. The required evidence can be given by police officers or by local authority officers.
The Clause 141 offence requires proof that someone has been caused harassment, alarm or distress and that will normally require evidence from the victim and therefore expose the victim to reprisals. Although I do not speak to the amendments now, I believe that that is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 147ZA and 147D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If I am right in that, I shall support those amendments.
Moreover, when addressing the deficiencies of the Government's Clause 141, in some cases—for example, graffiti on public walls or racist chanting in the street —there will be no identifiable victim. Therefore, Clause 141 will not even reach those situations. Further, strangely—and I invite explanation backed up by example from the noble Earl—it is a defence for a defendant who has intentionally used threatening, abusive or insulting language to another, which in fact has caused the victim harassment, alarm or distress, that he acted reasonably. How can such conduct be justified as reasonable in any circumstances? I would welcome the Minister giving an explanation by way of example.
Nor do I understand—and the noble Earl gave no explanation in Committee—why such conduct, if committed within a dwelling and causing harassment, alarm or distress to another within that building, does not constitute an offence. Again, I invite the Minister to give an explanation. As a result of the existing deficiencies in Clause 141, that clause does not effectively strengthen the law on harassment in general. Nor does it recognise the need for the effective protection of ethnic minorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, so eloquently reminded us, their lives can literally be made hell by persistent harassment ranging from verbal abuse, being spat upon and stoned to the posting of excrement through their letter boxes. This Bill does nothing to alleviate the plight of those people.
The addition of trespass and nuisance in the amendments to which I am speaking cater for the kind of behaviour typical of harassment on racial grounds. The amendment will cover activities such as daubing graffiti on walls, pushing excrement through letter boxes, dumping litter and trespassing into a garden or a front yard.
The third amendment provides for punishment of 12 months' imprisonment on indictment. Such a penalty in an appropriate case would appropriately reflect the gravity of some incidents of racial harassment. The noble Earl may say that racial harassment should attract

1701
no greater penalty than harassment in general. That is cold comfort to those who suffer racial harassment as a daily blight on their lives. I shall not revisit the arguments that we exhaustively had on Amendment No. 146. I say only that, in the same way as racial violence, racial harassment, selects its victim on the basis of the accident of birth and for that reason it is especially pernicious and merits distinct punishment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in the previous debate, we face the situation in which whole communities in East London and elsewhere are living in fear as a result of a series of activities of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. There is a fear of assault, of excrement being pushed through their letter boxes and of fire bombing. Many of those people—often they are women living on their own or with small families— have an inadequate grasp of English and they live in a state of constant fear.
We are talking about a major emerging social problem in this country. It is now more recognised by the police than it was a few years ago and it requires some action as regards the statute book. To sweep the issue aside and not to take action even in this most limited area on the lines as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, would be a profound mistake. We are dealing not only with the fear of people living in such communities but also with the social cohesion of our country.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl may just recall that I wrote to him on this subject possibly two or more years ago. He replied in his usual helpful way. But I do not believe that we have made a great deal of progress in that time in preventing such behaviour. I support this series of amendments. If they were accepted by your Lordships, it would show that this country is playing its part in Europe in combating a rising tide of very unpleasant racial behaviour.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I may be wrong but Amendment No. 147 seems to be worded in such a way that harassment on grounds other than racial grounds would be permitted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government's intention in tabling Clause 141 was to provide higher penalties for the more serious cases of harassment, particularly where it occurs on racial grounds. Your Lordships approved that in Committee.
I remind your Lordships that Clause 141 states that:
"A person is guilty of an offence if. with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he … uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or … displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting".
I should have thought that to push excrement through someone's door would surely be an act which would fall fairly and squarely within that part of the Bill.
The noble Lord said that he would not use the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in describing his case as "unanswerable" and he requested
1702
me not to use the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and say that the amendment is seriously flawed intellectually. I assure the noble Lord that I shall not do that. The noble Lord asked me to use more reasonable language. I merely say that the amendments turn the clause on its head. They bring into the criminal law, not the most serious cases of harassment, but the most minor categories of anti-social behaviour, and they raise the penalties way beyond that which Parliament has approved for far more serious offences.
First, I take the extension of the offence to include not just harassment but any trespass and nuisance. It is already an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to engage in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour or disorderly behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. That is the lowest offence of all the Public Order Act offences. But Amendment No. 147 would create an even lower offence by making it a criminal offence to trespass or to cause a nuisance which is likely to cause harassment to the occupant of a dwelling.
We all know of minor irritations between neighbours; for example, garden bonfires or music being played too loudly. These can be very tiresome to a person quietly sitting in his home, but I really cannot believe that these should now become criminal offences. Furthermore, this sort of behaviour would be a criminal offence only where it was committed on racial grounds. That cannot be right. But even if it were, I cannot see how a court is supposed to establish that some minor act of neighbourly irritation was carried out on racial grounds.
As regards Amendment No. 148, the test for that new offence is whether a reasonable person would have suspected such behaviour to cause harassment. That appears to be an explanation of what is meant by "likely" to cause harassment. The courts are already well used to understanding the ordinary meaning of "likely to cause harassment" from its use in Section 5 of the Public Order Act. This additional formulation lowers the test considerably by moving it from behaviour which is "likely to cause harassment" to "behaviour which a reasonable person would suspect would cause harassment". It clearly does not make sense to lower the tests in that way. We would not wish to make a criminal offence which is based on suspicion of the effects of the most minor nuisances.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked what is a "reasonableness" defence. I believe that such a defence would be shouting to alarm a person who you find breaking into your car. The noble Lord said that the provisions do not affect what happens in dwellings. That is perfectly true because this is public order legislation and is not about domestic conduct. It would be wrong to incorporate that into public order legislation.
Then I turn to the penalty—Amendment No. 149. For behaviour which is less serious than anything which is at present in the Public Order Act the noble Lord proposes a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment. Section 4 of the Public Order Act relates to behaviour such as making a person fear the immediate use of violence against him or of provoking a person to unlawful violence. That is reasonable. That

1703
is clearly a serious matter and it rightly attracts a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. But for the very minor behaviour which would be covered by the noble Lord's amendment—for example, lighting a bonfire next door—the maximum penalty would be twice as high—namely, 12 months' imprisonment—and the offence could be tried before a Crown Court. I think that we must keep some sense of proportion in the penalties within this Act. The noble Lord's amendment manifestly does not do that.
The existing Clause 141 covers the gap in the law which has been identified and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, will realise that his amendment is not suitable for this part of the Bill.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the House is now well aware of the issues of principle which separate the noble Earl and myself. No point will be served at this stage by rehearsing those differences in any detail because I recognise that there is much merit in concluding before the Dinner Break the amendments which deal with racist crime.
But there is one point which I shall not leave unanswered. The burden of the noble Earl's argument was that, if the amendments are accepted, they will bring minor trespasses within the criminal law. He gave an example of bonfires. He must appreciate that those minor trespasses, as he describes them, become criminal under the amendment only if they are committed on racial grounds. That is the short answer to the objection which he raised.
Having regard to the hour, and having regard to the vote that was secured on the previous amendment, I do not press this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 147ZA:
Page 116, line 7, leave out ("a person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to my Amendments Nos. 147D and 148B. These amendments are concerned with the tests which a class of offence has to pass in order to fall under Clause 141. Those tests ask: does the worst imaginable form of this class of offence deserve the maximum sentence proposed?
The first test which the Government propose is intent. They contend that someone who harasses but does not intend to harass should not face a prison sentence. I agree with that. I did not always agree, but my noble friend, who kindly wrote me a long and informative letter after the Committee stage, has changed my mind.
The second test that the Government propose is that actual harassment should have occurred. Perhaps my noble friend will give the House a concrete example of a worst imaginable offence which would pass the test of intent but fail the test of actual harm and for which a prison sentence would be inappropriate. I cannot think of one but I can imagine instances where serious crimes would fail this test because victims were too frightened to testify.
Many crimes that carry a prison sentence do not require actual harm to be proved. Some excellent examples are those associated with possession of
1704
firearms, where we are to be invited to increase the penalties later this evening. My Amendments Nos. 147ZA and 147D would remove this test of actual harm. I believe that this removal would hurt no one unjustly and might prevent injustice.
My Amendment No. 148B is aimed at another test: the border between private and public acts. As the Bill stands, if I harass my neighbour over the front-garden fence I am in no danger. If I harass him in exactly the same way as he steps out on to the pavement I can be charged. I do not believe that that is the best boundary for the offence. Much grief is caused to minorities by the actions of their neighbours. Therefore, what should the boundary be? It is clear to me that what someone does within his own dwelling is not an appropriate subject for a public order offence.
My amendment would be a little broader. It would exempt acts within any dwelling. One might argue that it should be a bit wider still and exempt, say, acts which are not visible or audible from a third dwelling or a public place. In any event, I believe that the test as it stands is drawn too wide and that it will exempt behaviour that it should catch. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will forgive me if I do not comment upon his amendments. However, my Amendments Nos. 147A, 147B and 147C have been grouped with his and I should like to take the opportunity to speak to them. As drafted, Clause 141 seems to those few people who have had the time to study it to go somewhat over the top. For example, it provides that a person who on a single occasion intentionally uses insulting words to another person which cause that person distress can, if convicted, be sent to prison for six months. That is an extraordinary infringement of the traditional British right of free speech.
Our tradition of free speech tends to be rumbustious and outspoken and is, by definition, often rude and boorish. Rudeness and boorishness certainly ought not be encouraged; indeed, they should be discouraged, but surely not by bringing in the heavy hand of the criminal law. Social pressures should do the trick.
Despite the let-out, so to speak, of reasonableness —which is a gamble because no one can be sure whether the courts will decide that a particular incident or course of behaviour was reasonable—the clause could inhibit hard hitting exchanges of views at, for example, Speakers' Corner. It could even inhibit free speech in pubs, where passions often intensify after a few drinks. Indeed, I cited pubs when speaking to an earlier amendment.
Let us take motoring, for example. It is an activity where passions always run high. Motorists will freely use four-letter words to other motorists from the safety of the steel box in which they are travelling, in a way that they would never do if they were pedestrians encountering other pedestrians on the pavement—and that has nothing to do with the size or strength of the pedestrian in question. Therefore, as the clause stands, two motorists shouting insults at one another after one

1705
of them has dented the bumper of the other's car could, in theory, find themselves going to prison for six months.
My amendments would introduce some minor safeguards. In Committee, the noble Earl explained that, for various reasons, the word "persistent" which implies repeating a particular offence or action more than, say, three or four times, would be unacceptable to the Government. For that reason, I propose instead the word "repeatedly" which means on more than one occasion. Therefore, two occasions would suffice to trigger the offence. That would prevent prosecutions for a one-off verbal incident which might occur when tempers are frayed.
I turn now to the word "grossly". I have no problem with the words "threatening" or "abusive"; indeed, there is little ambiguity about either of them. However, the word "insulting" is another matter given the fact that people are insulted by different things. For example, a motorist may shout to another motorist who has just scraped the paint off his brand new car, "You silly little twerp, you must have an IQ of minus 50!". If the other motorist were six foot tall and a member of MENSA he would simply laugh: whereas if he were five foot two and educationally somewhat backward he would, in all probability, be highly insulted. Therefore, qualifying the word "insulting" by the word "grossly" introduces a necessary element of objectivity and would thereby cut down the number of expensive and unnecessary prosecutions.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I shall be brief. I support the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the reasons that he outlined so economically. However, I urge the noble Earl not to accept the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just spoken. I have already made my criticisms of Clause 141 and have sought to define the deficiencies from which, I submit, it already suffers.
If the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, were accepted, Clause 141 would then become a dead letter. I disagree with the noble Lord's remarks regarding his proposed addition of the word "repeatedly". That word would emphatically not be construed as covering one or two occasions. Indeed, repeatedly connotes a continuous course of conduct. I see. that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am much obliged. Will the noble Lord accept that I took great care to look up the word "repeatedly" in a number of dictionaries in the Library? Indeed, my research confirmed my interpretation of the word.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I have been involved in too many cases in the courts concerning the construction of a word used in a statute to rely upon its meaning in a particular context from the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives a list of possible meanings. I suggest that "repeatedly" would emphatically not be construed as covering one or two occasions and that it would require a continuous course of conduct.
Moreover, in my respectful submission, if there was a single occasion of a person, with intent, using
1706
threatening, abusive or insulting words and, as a result, causing harassment, alarm or distress, that should be an offence just as the clause provides. Therefore, I urge the Minister to stand firm and reject the amendments of the: noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I like being able to meet the requests of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. He wants me to stand firm and I can tell him that that is precisely what I shall do. All the amendments seek to adjust the balance between addressing the suffering which is caused to the victim and extending the law beyond what is necessary to do that effectively. We believe that we have the balance right.
Amendment No. 147A, which is tabled in (he name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seeks to limit the offence to behaviour which takes place "repeatedly". It was certainly our intention to bring forward a clause which would deal with persistent harassment. But we found it impossible to draft a satisfactory definition of persistence which did not create as many problems as it solved. For example, should the repeated behaviour take place within one week, one month, one year, or what? Should previous convictions for the same offence mean that a further offence counted as "repeatedly"? What about other offences occurring at the same time which are more serious? Should they not be considered relevant?
Such problems are all different and, indeed, almost insoluble. For those reasons, we chose to concentrate on the single offence, with the seriousness marked by the intent and the actual distress which is caused to a victim.
There are other amendments which would replace; the word "insulting" with the words "grossly insulting". The wording that we have used is taken from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I believe that those provisions should stay clearly in step. I am not sure that the courts would relish determining the difference between insulting words and grossly insulting words; and, indeed, the victim would certainly have his own perceptions of the offensiveness of the remarks. I believe that it would be wrong to move away from the terms that are already used in the Public Order Act.
I turn now to Amendment No 147ZA. My noble friend Lord Lucas is concerned that it should not be necessary to prove that the defendant intended to harass, alarm or distress a particular person. I can understand why he may think that such a change is needed—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I must have used the wrong words. I meant to say exactly the opposite. I entirely approve of the test of intent. Indeed, through the letters that he so kindly sent me, my noble friend has convinced me that the word "intent" should be in the Bill. On that point, I totally support the Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is fine. Let us move on, then, to Amendment No. 147D, which would make a substantive change to the new offence as it would remove the requirement that a person actually be caused harassment, alarm or distress. I can sympathise with the intentions behind this amendment. When formulating the offence, we did consider whether it would be enough for the conduct to be likely to have the effects in

1707
question, which is the present test under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. However, we concluded that such a test was necessary if a person is to face imprisonment for his conduct.
Victims of racial harassment often already have to be identified or give evidence in court, as there are frequently no other witnesses to the incident. There are provisions in place that enable courts to accept as evidence statements made to the police by victims unable to attend court out of fear. The Government are also proposing a number of initiatives to improve the way all victims and witnesses are treated. But, it is an inescapable fact that it is often very uncomfortable to be a witness in a system of open justice. There are measures we can take to allay this discomfort, but we cannot remove it.
Amendments Nos. 148A and 148C would extend the scope of the new offence to cover intentional harassment that takes place within buildings. Amendment No. 148B would extend the scope of the offence to cover harassment that takes place when the defendant and victim are inside different dwellings. Whilst I can see the potential mischief these amendments seek to address, we have no evidence to suggest that the similar existing restrictions on Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act are presenting any practical problems in dealing with harassment. It is much more common for people to be abused or threatened by others outside the home or in the street. The construction of the new offence reflects the public order nature of the Act on which it is based. We do not believe it would be acceptable to extend the powers contained in this Act into the realm of all domestic disputes, which would be the effect of my noble friend's amendments. Nor do we believe it would be desirable for the new offence to be out of kilter with the rest of the Public Order Act. It is designed to fit in between the existing offences under Section 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act, which have a similar structure.
These are all minor safeguards and adjustments which are proposed to this part of the Bill. However, we think that the Bill has the position about right and that it is better without the amendments. I hope the noble Lords will not press the amendments.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course I shall not press the amendment at this time of night; supper is waiting for us. But I should just like to ask my noble friend if he will at some time before Third Reading reply to the question which I asked him, which is: can he name a specific offence which ought to fail the test that actual harassment should have occurred? In other words, what exactly is that test designed to exclude from the scope of this clause? Having said that, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147A to 149 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Betting and Lotteries (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
7.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Betting and Lotteries (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 is to introduce provisions broadly in line with the corresponding provisions already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. It may be helpful if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The order amends current legislation in this area principally to enable charitable organisations and football pools to compete more effectively with the forthcoming national lottery. The Government included provisions in last year's National Lottery etc. Bill to enable societies' lotteries to counter possible loss of revenue arising from the introduction of the national lottery. They also made concessions to the football pools industry which had regarded the new lottery as unfair competition. In addition, some further controls on lotteries were introduced. This order contains the corresponding appropriate measures for Northern Ireland. It allows a society to sell tickets in a private lottery to non-members of that society while they are on the society's premises.
In relation to the football pools, the order removes the current restrictions which prevent premises being used for the delivery of football pool coupons and related stake money. It also reduces the age limit for participation in the football pools from 18 to 16 years.
The order increases the maximum prize in a society's lottery from £8,000 to £25,000 in amount or value or 10 per cent. of the lottery proceeds, whichever is the greater. The requirement to use at least 30 per cent. of the lottery proceeds for prizes is omitted. It also introduces new, or amends the existing, rules on advertising, donation of expenses, the frequency of lotteries and other miscellaneous matters.
The order will, for the most part, bring Northern Ireland law into line with the corresponding provisions of the law in Great Britain. In Great Britain, however, the maximum proceeds for a single lottery have been increased to £1 million and the maximum annual proceeds of all lotteries promoted by one society are now £5 million. In view of Northern Ireland's smaller population, it was decided to retain the present equivalent maximum limits of £80,000 and £1 million.
The proposed changes attracted few responses from our consultation. It may be, however, that this was because the White Paper on the national lottery was

1709
issued to a wide range of interests in Northern Ireland and my department took account of the views expressed on the local lottery law as a result of that exercise. The order will, in my view, make a significant contribution towards the fund-raising efforts of charitable organisations and assist the operation of the football pool industry in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining this short order. What is important is that the changes which will be brought about by the order broadly reflect the views and the values of the residents of Northern Ireland. For that reason I would appreciate hearing from the Minister —if she can tell me—precisely what consultations preceded the drawing of the order. How wide were those consultations? For what period of time did the consultations proceed? Was the draft of the proposed order amended in any way to meet the objections or the comments raised in the course of such consultation?
I read the Official Report of the debate on the order which took place in another place on 28th June. I have no fresh points of detail to raise but it would be helpful if the Minister could deal with just two questions which were the cause of some concern in the other place.
First, are the Government fully satisfied that the amendments to the general law of Northern Ireland embodied in the order will provide adequate protection to the smaller charities serving the local communities against the impact of the national lottery? It would be a mischief crying for redress if the national lottery were to undermine the spirit of giving which has sustained local charities for generations. It seems to me that when she introduced the order the Minister went a long way to giving the assurance that we require.
My second question seeks information about the future of working men's clubs in Northern Ireland. Do the Government have any plans for future legislation relating in particular to working men's clubs and to friendly and benevolent societies in Northern Ireland? That question was of particular concern to my honourable friend Mr. William O'Brien in another place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, is the Minister with special responsibility for such clubs in Northern Ireland I trust that she will be able to take the House into her confidence.
With those few comments I am pleased on behalf of these Benches to support the order.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on these Benches we feel that the order in itself is relatively uncontentious. However, one or two points are raised by the order and I hope that the noble Baroness will be kind enough to comment on them. She has already explained the order and what it relates to very clearly.
Obviously, the national lottery will have some effect on Northern Ireland. We do not expect a great deal of income to flow into Northern Ireland as a result of the lottery. So far as I know, there are few, if any, shareholders in Northern Ireland of the firm which won
1710
the contract to operate the lottery. We on these Benches have always been keen to see that the proceeds for distribution from the lottery are evenly spread throughout the United Kingdom. We still maintain that that is desirable. I believe that some comfort will be derived from the order as a result of what the noble Baroness said.
Many small communities rely on their own lotteries in order to fund activities which help to cement community relations. It would be sad if, as a result of the national lottery, those smaller lotteries were to suffer in any way.
I am curious about one or two points relating to the 1985 order and why the Government have not to date seen fit to alter them. One is the ticklish question of competitions which, according to the law, require some element of skill in order to win a prize. In a recent competition in Northern Ireland purchasers of a chocolate bar qualified for a prize if they had a winning wrapper. It seems that in Northern Ireland the law has not been enforced in that area. It is an important point and I would value the response of the noble Baroness in relation to the importance of enforcing that law or whether steps should be taken to repeal it.
Overall, the order appears to be sensible. I do not know whether other noble Lords have any views about reducing to 16 the age of those who are qualified to take part in football pools. It seems that generally throughout the United Kingdom public policy as regards gambling has changed, almost imperceptibly. I have no strong feelings on the matter myself, but one has only to take the recent case of cash betting on Sunday racing going through on the nod. There appears to have been a change, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say whether the consultation which has taken place in Northern Ireland indicated any community view reflecting concern about the change of attitude towards gambling, of which lotteries are a part.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their input on the order, which they have welcomed overall. Both raised specific points, which I shall try to answer.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the consultation process was wide and followed the normal arrangements for consultation on proposals for draft Orders in Council. The proposal was published in December 1993 with comments required in February 1994. No changes were made to the draft order as a result of that consultation process. As I indicated earlier, I believe that that was mainly because the consultation on the National Lottery etc. Act itself had been wide and in drafting the order officials had taken into account the Northern Ireland comments on the Act. That meant that we were able to represent the views that we had heard.
I repeat the assurance that my honourable friend gave in another place that we shall be monitoring closely the effect of the national lottery on small charities. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, there is a great ethos of charitable giving in Northern Ireland. It is my expectation that such is the affection and involvement of people in Northern Ireland for their own specific

1711
charities that we shall see much continued support for those charities. However, as I said, the matter will be monitored closely.
I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that Northern Ireland will be represented on the UK council for the national lottery. We shall try to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits. There are many areas in which it could well benefit. I am sure that people will make those areas known. I can assure the noble Viscount that the Minister also has a loud voice on such occasions.
The question which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised about prizewinners and the lack of a skill element in competitions is outside the scope of the order. However, I shall investigate the point and write to him.
As regards the reduction of the age for involvement in football pools to 16, I think that it would be wrong for Northern Ireland to be different from the United Kingdom. There was some comment on the point from the community but no widespread objection.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of working men's clubs. A separate review of the law on registration of clubs in Northern Ireland is being carried out at present, as indeed is a review of the licensing laws. Both are closely interlinked. I believe that I am to see the last delegation on that issue this month. Following that consultation we shall bring forward proposals for change, which will be set out in a draft order. Therefore, that subject is high on the agenda.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions that were put. I shall write to noble Lords in respect of those I was unable to answer. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
8 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a brief order which nevertheless makes several important changes in Northern Ireland's rating legislation, principally to the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. For a number of years, the rating system in Northern Ireland has been significantly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom and that difference has, if anything, increased since the introduction of council tax.
The different legislative regimes stem mainly from the fact that in Northern Ireland central government and its agencies provide up to 90 per cent. of the services; which in Great Britain are the responsibility of local authorities. In the very different circumstances the Government have no plans at present to make fundamental changes in the Province's rating system.
1712
But although that remains the situation, it is necessary to review the legislation regularly to ensure that it is kept fully up-to-date. The order is intended to do just that.
I should like briefly to mention the main articles of the order. Article 3 will overcome an inconsistency in the existing principal rating legislation. At present, where properties have been structurally altered and come back into use, the degree of backdating of rate liability can vary depending on whether or not the properties have remained in the valuation list during the period of alteration. This illogical distinction was not intended when the 1977 rates order was in preparation. The present amendment therefore provides a common method of determining the date of rate liability for all properties which have been out of occupation because of structural alteration.
Article 3 corrects a second defect in the primary legislation. Where at different times two or more structural alterations have been made to a property, the article will permit the issue of separate certificates of alteration for each stage, with retrospective effect where appropriate. Under existing legislation, a certificate of alteration must reflect the state and circumstances of an altered hereditament at the date of issue of the certificate. It cannot be backdated to reflect staged alterations. This absence of a backdating provision can result in a loss of rate income to the Exchequer. It can, however, apply also in cases where the ratepayer would be at a disadvantage; for example, where premises are damaged and partly out of use for a period but are restored to full use before the district valuer takes action. In the absence of a facility to backdate, the opportunity to seek an abatement for the period out of use would be denied to the ratepayer.
Article 4 will clarify the provisions relating to rate relief for institutions for the disabled in Northern Ireland. It provides for the removal of anomalous references in the present legislation to use for profit and also to old people's homes, neither of which appear in the equivalent Great Britain legislation on which the Northern Ireland legislation in this area was based. It also makes provision for the reimbursement of district councils for the rates incomes foregone where rate relief is granted by way of rate rebate to institutions for the disabled. Councils are losing revenue under the present regulations and the new order will correct the position.
I said earlier that this was a somewhat brief order. It is also, in part, rather technical but I hope that the House will agree that these are useful and important changes which have practical and beneficial consequences for ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this technical order which nevertheless alters the law in Northern Ireland in at least three main ways.
I make this general comment. This is the second order to have been made to amend the principal rates order of 1977. To that extent, Northern Ireland has been spared the traumatic and unfair upheavals which have

1713
affected the householder in the remainder of the UK. However, I am not sure that I have correctly grasped the significance of all the provisions of Article 3. I am not sure of the meaning of the words "altered hereditament", or "structural alterations" within the order. I must confess that I have not been able to find the principal order; that may explain my state of ignorance. But it would be helpful if the Minister could say how she defines and applies the phrase "alteration … by reason of more than one event".
When does the one event begin? When does it end?
We welcome very much the rebate for institutions for the disabled in Article 4. Perhaps I may ask the Minister for an explanation of paragraph (7) of the new Article 31B. In what circumstances will a building qualify for a rebate for a period which is part only of a rebate period? One would have thought that it should qualify for a rebate for the entirety of the rebate period. The answer to that question is not immediately apparent and it would be helpful if the Minister could say more.
The paragraph raises another question. If we assume that without the applicant being at fault in any way the department has mistakenly repaid too large an amount, or allowed too large a rebate, is it intended that the department should be able to bring an action for recovery against the owner of the building, and his or her personal representative, at any time within six years? Alternatively, in those circumstances, should there be a shorter period of limitation?
My last point is purely a drafting one. It arises out of Article 5 which exempts from rates certain industrial fishing hereditaments. It applies where the right to fish is exercised by means of a fishing engine. What does a fishing engine mean? It is defined in the schedule to the principal order of 1977. But by virtue of this order, and in particular paragraph (3) (a) of the order, that definition is omitted and is replaced by reference to the definition which I found in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 for the purposes of that Act. We understand that legislation by reference is perfectly legitimate and indeed often unavoidable. On the other hand, in the circumstances of this order, I should have thought that it would be advantageous for the reader if the 1966 definition had been set out on the face of the order instead of having to trace the 1966 Act. I should not have thought that that would cause the draftsman too much difficulty. On the other hand, I am equally certain that the draftsman has a very good defence to the comment.
With those few questions, on behalf of these Benches, I am happy to welcome the order.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches have nothing to add. The order clearly amounts to adjustments and fine-tuning of a system which is obviously working well in its application. Otherwise the Government would have sought to bring it into line with other parts of the United Kingdom and the system which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I hope that the order will continue working satisfactorily, as it implicitly seems to be. I look forward to the noble
1714
Baroness's answers to the points raised by the noble Lord on the Labour Benches, particularly concerning the fishing engine, about which I had intended to ask.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may start my response by saying that I am by no means a drafting expert. I shall endeavour to answer the noble Lord's questions. However, I doubt that I can get myself entirely into the draftsman's mind.
On the issue of the structural changes, the order simply changes the way in which the backdating can take place. It does not change any of the meaning. Local authorities have concern for building regulations and they identify what the structural change is.
The other matter which the noble Lord queried was whether it was possible for an overpayment to be pursued for six years. The answer is that six years is the limited period, and yes, during that period, it can be pursued. However, as it is taxpayers' money I suspect that the noble Lord will agree that it would be wrong to be casual in looking for recovery of the money.
On the question relating to the drafting on the fishing engine and the omission from the face of the order, the order reclassifies salmon and eel fisheries as properties not to be treated as hereditaments. Consequently, references to fishing engines in the main order as hereditaments have had to be removed and we have reverted or referred back to the meaning assigned in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. I hope that the House will accept the order, I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.12 to 8.45 p.m.].

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 151 A:
After Clause 141, [Formerly Amendment 138]
Insert the following new clause—
("Promotion of tobacco products Publication of advertisements for tobacco products
.— (1) Subject to subsection (2) and section (Defences in proceedings under section (Publication of advertisements for tobacco products)) below, if any person publishes or causes to be published an advertisement for a tobacco product, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to the publication of an advertisement inside a shop used for the retail sale of tobacco products if the advertisement is not capable of communicating directly with persons outside the shop and—

(a) the shop is used wholly or mainly for the retail sale of such products; or

(b) the advertisement—

(i) contains only information as to the price of tobacco products, a warning of the damage to health caused by the use of tobacco products and such other information as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations made by statutory instrument; and

(ii) complies with such other requirements as may be so prescribed;

and in relation to any case where only part of a shop is used for the sale of tobacco products or access to a shop ('"the inner shop")

1715
can only be obtained by passing through another shop, references in this subsection to the shop shall be taken as references to that part or, as the case may be, to the inner shop.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(4) In this section and sections (Defences in proceedings under section (Publication of advertisements for tobacco products)) to (Power to prohibit or restrict promotion of smoking or tobacco) below "tobacco product" means a product made wholly or partly of tobacco for the purpose of being smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or otherwise used orally or nasally.
(5) In this section an "advertisement for a tobacco product" includes any form of communication which might reasonably be considered to promote the smoking or other use of a tobacco product or of tobacco products in general, whether directly or indirectly, other than a communication made by means of the packaging of such a product in a quantity available for retail sale.
(6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5) above whether a communication might reasonably be considered to promote the smoking or other use of a tobacco product or of tobacco products in general, whether directly or indirectly, regard shall be had to all relevant considerations and, in particular, whether—

(a) the name of, or of the producer, supplier or sponsor of, the product, service or event the promotion of which is the ostensible purpose of the advertisement is the same as or similar to the name of, or of a person engaged in the business of manufacturing or otherwise dealing with, a tobacco product; and

(b) any word, sign, symbol, picture or other feature which appears in the advertisement or any use of a colour or combination of colours in the advertisement is the same as or similar to any word, sign, symbol, picture or other feature or any use of a colour or combination of colours which is associated with a tobacco product.

(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 151A to 151D. When these amendments, which are intended to ban tobacco advertising, were debated at the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur—I see that he is in his place—described them as "bizarre".
The noble Lord said:
"The Bill with which we are dealing is concerned with a number of serious matters … It deals with a number of issues which are widely regarded not only as offensive but also as dangerous".—[Official Report, 20/6/94; col. 112.]
He apparently excluded tobacco smoking from those categories. That tobacco smoking is widely regarded as offensive was then borne out by the noble Lord, who said that at a personal level he disliked smoking, a fact that was not unknown to a number of your Lordships, of whom he said, using yachting terminology, he occasionally tried to get up wind in various parts of this building.
The noble Lord said nothing of the 110,000 people who died, half under the age of 69 years, losing an average of 23 years of life from diseases caused by tobacco. He made no mention of the hundreds of thousands of others who live in poor health, disabled by tobacco related diseases.
It is now 40 years since I qualified in medicine. There has hardly been a week during that time when I have not had to treat patients whose health has been adversely affected by smoking, whether it was a matter of simple sinusitis or of diseases right through the gamut to lung cancer. The noble Lord did not remark at all about the
1716
unchanged prevalence of smoking among children in the United Kingdom. In 1982 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys recorded that about 24 per cent. of 15 year-olds were smoking regularly. By 1992 it was about 23 per cent. There was no real change, despite a series of voluntary agreements that were allegedly designed to make smoking less attractive to children.
A number of eminent expert bodies have declared nicotine addiction, which, as all noble Lords know, is most commonly achieved through tobacco smoking, as being as strong as or stronger than addiction to cocaine and heroin. They include the United States Surgeon General and the American Psychological Association; and it has been stated by our own Professor Griffith Edwards, who is head of the addiction research unit at the Maudsley Institute of Psychiatry. Tobacco is a dangerous product. It is highly addictive and kills one-third to one-half of its users, even when they use it in the manner that is intended by its manufacturers— say, at a level of 20 to 25 cigarettes a day.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, also asked: what about motor cars and what about alcohol? Are they not dangerous too? Motor vehicle manufacturers do not recommend that their customers drive their vehicles recklessly, thereby causing motor vehicle crash fatalities; and there has been widespread concern about advertising that emphasises speed. The advertisements have been changed to some extent.
The alcohol industry would be happy if everyone consumed alcohol up to the level recommended by the Health Education Authority. Ironically, that would increase alcohol consumption because of the number of people who do not at present drink alcohol every day. The alcohol industry certainly does not want its clients to abuse their consumption of alcohol so that the risk of diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver, marital and family disputes and motor vehicle crashes are increased. In fact, most noble Lords will be delighted that recent research shows that light to moderate alcohol consumption may be beneficial to health, particularly in the case of cardiovascular disease.
So there is a very clear distinction between tobacco and other potentially dangerous substances. Tobacco is dangerous when used according to the manufacturer's recommendations and expectations.
There is very strong support for a ban on tobacco advertising in this country. In another place more than 387 Members—more than half the 650 total and in fact nearly six out of every 10 Members—have written letters to their constituents in support of a ban on tobacco advertising. There are more MPs as well who have not committed themselves to paper and who would also support it. Even among the Cabinet there is support for a ban on tobacco advertising. The President of the Board of Trade has recently written to say that an outright ban is the credible way forward. The Environment Secretary has also written to say that if the Government want to be seen to be serious about reducing the problems of smoking and improving people's health, the right course of action would be to go for an outright ban on tobacco advertising. The Secretary of State for Health has said that tobacco

1717
advertising does affect total tobacco consumption, not just brand share. Further restrictions up to and including a ban could therefore be expected to reduce smoking.
When my professional friend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, put forward nearly the same amendments during the Committee stage of the Bill, there was some criticism that people who advertise tobacco would be liable to go to gaol if the amendments were passed. I believe that someone who advertises and promotes a product which causes 110,000 people per annum to die prematurely probably should go to gaol. But the amendments put forward today reduce the penalty to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, which is a maximum fine of £2,500.
That brings it into line with the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which I took through this House and which was assented to on 27th June 1991. Under that Act, a person who sells tobacco products to persons under 16 years of age is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale; therefore, extending the "legal to sell, legal to advertise" argument, those who advertise tobacco products illegally to children after this Bill is passed will be subject to the same penalty as those who sell tobacco products to children illegally.
The hour is late. There is much more that I could say to back up the case for this amendment, but I wish to hear what other noble Lords have to say. I shall move the amendment and listen to what people have to say. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has drawn to the attention of the House some of the remarks that I made at Committee stage, perhaps I may return to the charge, partly in a sense because the noble Lord addressed not even half of the burden of the remarks that I endeavoured to put across at that stage. If I expressed surprise at the amendments introduced at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord McColl, which were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I can only say that my surprise has now grown into something more akin to astonishment, particularly perhaps in the light of the noble Lord's remarks this evening.
With these amendments the noble Lord has sought to introduce into the Bill a subject which, by any rational argument, is wholly alien to the Bill. It is a subject which is particularly emotive and closely coupled with the overall matter of the regulation of advertising. I do not believe that even the noble Lord can say that that particular subject of advertising is a matter with which the Bill is concerned.
The amendments create serious new criminal offences. They remove existing commercial freedoms, overturn policies which have a record of substantial success and create a precedent for the future which could be relevant to other products. They would introduce sweeping new powers for Ministers by way of regulation.
I am not trying to indicate that the amendments are in any sense out of order. If they were, I have no doubt that they would not have been allowed. No, it seems to me that the proposers of this amendment have been driven
1718
by something of a crusading spirit—which I understand; the noble Lord is a very eminent doctor. They have taken the opportunity provided by the Bill (which is something of a Christmas tree Bill ready to be adorned by all manner of issues) to decorate it—the tree, if you like—with a topic about which they feel passionately and about whose defeat they and others felt aggrieved when the Private Member's Bill fell in another place. I do not blame them taking the opportunity presented by the Bill because that is what the procedures of the House allow.
I make no apology for again declaring a set of conflicting interests: as a non-smoker with more than a passing distaste for tobacco (to elaborate further on the quotation from my speech which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave); as an employee of a company which owns Imperial Tobacco; and as chairman of a National Health Service trust. There is nothing mutually exclusive about any of those interests. But as a Member of your Lordships' House I feel exceptionally strongly about what these amendments set out to do in this particular Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, condemned me a minute or two ago for not acknowledging at Committee stage that smoking does damage. I have very little doubt that for many people smoking is more harmful than many other things and certainly more harmful than not smoking. I have to say, though, that many noble Lords might be thought, by the length of time they have inhabited this House, somewhat to disprove that theory. I strongly support devising ways of discouraging children from taking up smoking. I have seen smoking in my own family and very much welcome efforts that can be made to try to diminish it. But I hope that the noble Lord will accept that smoking is not an illegal activity; nor, for that matter, is drinking—to which he referred; nor is chewing gum, eating baked beans or doing a host of other things, all of which in excess probably do us precious little good So I find it astonishing that the noble Lord is trying to write into the Bill a series of amendments which would make wholly illegal the advertising, free distribution and other aspects of a perfectly legal substance.
It is not for me to try to interpret the noble Lord's motives. However, one is bound to wonder whether he would in fact like to ban smoking altogether and make smoking totally illegal. The noble Lord seemed to claim that the various changes introduced to the amendments since my noble friend Lord McColl withdrew them at Committee stage somehow make them more acceptable. However, the changes represent only tinkering at the very edges of the Bill. The essential point of principle remains.
The amendment introduces to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a substantial new topic much more closely related to advertising than to criminal justice, let alone public order. It is introduced at a point in the Bill's passage which precludes a Second Reading and indeed a Committee stage debate on the merits of the amendments. To that extent, in the middle of a long, hot July, one may be forgiven for believing that it somewhat trespasses on your Lordships' time.

1719
I shall not dwell upon the technical merits or demerits of the amendments, though I believe them to be real enough in the case of the demerits. Nor shall I repeat the economic arguments which were advocated at Committee stage regarding tobacco revenue, or the importance of allowing the voluntary agreement to take effect. I am concerned with principle more than anything else and on that ground alone I hope that the amendment will be resoundingly rejected.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to say first that I am charged to speak in this debate by my noble friend Lady Robson, who is a dyed-in-the-nicotine smoker if ever there was one. She strongly supports the amendments. She recognises, as everybody in this House must, that it is an addictive habit and that it is dangerously encouraged by advertising. After the Committee stage it was said to me that it was very illiberal to try to ban the advertising of tobacco. But there is nothing illiberal about introducing health provisions of one kind or another—something which we have supported over decades. In all common sense, and to all except the most prejudiced people, it is surely desirable that the smoking habit should not develop into an addictive habit.
We were given the horrifying figure that 25 per cent. of 15 year-olds are smoking. If 25 per cent. have admitted to it, one can be pretty certain that the figure is in fact much higher. Knowing what we do about the effects of tobacco ads, we must do all we can to see that youngsters do not acquire the habit. If they see advertisements pressing them in one way and another and inducing them to smoke, we are failing to block a dangerous risk to their health and that is something that we most emphatically ought not to do.
There are many people wishing to speak who are far more experienced and knowledgeable than I am on the subject and whose words will carry much greater weight than mine. However, I hope that we recognise the real danger in which we are placing the younger generation. The numbers of children smoking have grown enormously. I do not know why; it was so much more difficult to do it when I was young. It is an extremely harmful habit and we should take all the steps we can to protect them.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that the issue was being injected into an unsuitable Bill. I agree that it is a Christmas tree Bill and many things are included in it. But he did not object to any of the others, so why does he pick on this issue? It is only one part of a Christmas tree Bill and it seems to me to be extremely sensible to take the opportunity to introduce this amendment to achieve something that we feel urgently needs to be done.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must confess that I have smoked for almost 30 years. However, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that I have never once been influenced to smoke by tobacco advertising.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can say why he thinks tobacco companies advertise if it does not influence people to smoke.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall come to that point in a moment. There is a good parallel which I can draw for the noble Baroness. I suspect that I started smoking because my parents and friends smoked and when I tried my first cigarette I enjoyed it. What tobacco advertising has done occasionally over the past few years is to persuade me to switch brands. The noble Baroness asks why tobacco companies advertise. Why do petrol companies advertise? I have never seen a petrol company advertising in order to persuade more people to drive their cars more miles around the country in order to enjoy themselves. Of course not. They advertise to try to persuade us to buy Esso rather than BP, Shell, Texaco or whatever. There is no doubt about that. The point is exactly the same in relation to tobacco advertising.
I want to return to these curious amendments. They are not amendments. They form a Private Member's Bill which has been imported into a government Bill on criminal justice. I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who promotes the amendment, how it is that when the amendment was moved at the last stage it required a change to the Long Title of the Bill, and apparently it does not require that change tonight. Why not?
I want to ask the noble Lord a number of questions in relation to my specific interest in the subject; that is, sports sponsorship. The noble Lord may or may not be aware that tobacco companies are major sponsors of sports in this country—to the tune of around £9 million. As I read the amendment, that would be banned if the amendment were included in the Bill. Well-known events such as the Benson & Hedges Cup in cricket, the Dunhill Cup in golf, the Silk Cut Challenge in rugby league and the Embassy World Snooker Championships are all major sporting events sponsored by the tobacco companies. Where will the evident benefit that we all receive from the events being sponsored by tobacco companies come from if the amendment is carried?
Arguments may be put forward that others would step into the gap and non-tobacco companies would take on the sponsorship. Perhaps they would. But there is only a finite amount of money available for this kind of thing and the money would come from somewhere else; it would be diverted from the lower levels of sport and therefore many people would lose out.
My specific interest is in motor racing and many noble Lords will have watched the British Grand Prix last Sunday. It was an exciting event won by Damon Hill and was a great triumph. We saw the Rothmans Williams-Renault team, the Marlboro McLaren team —all sponsored by the tobacco industry. Motor racing is one of the UK's major success stories. All the leading teams at Silverstone last Sunday —or most of them anyway—are based in the United Kingdom. It is one of the things that we do really well in this country.
These, I admit, are Committee points, but we do not have the privilege of having a Committee stage. We are now at Report stage and we have an amendment before

1721
us which, if it is carried, is almost impossible—I agree that we have Third Reading—to amend. This should be a Private Member's Bill. It should be a Bill where we have a proper Second Reading. We could then go into Committee stage, Report stage and so on. We should look at the Bill and analyse it line by line instead of having to deal with the entire matter at one stage as we are tonight.
I have another point on sports sponsorship by tobacco companies. Did the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he put down the amendments consult those involved with sport? Has he asked them what they think about these proposals and the impact they would have on sport? Coming back to Grand Prix motor racing, a few weeks ago, along with another 4.5 million people, I watched the Canadian Grand Prix. It carried extensive advertising for tobacco companies. Will the broadcast of an event of that kind be banned by these amendments? My reading of the amendments is that it would be because it carries advertising for tobacco products. Are we therefore going to deprive all those people who want to watch that kind of event merely because they carry tobacco advertising from overseas? Those are just some of many points I should like to make. The hour is late and I shall not go on. But we ought to have the opportunity of looking at these amendments properly if we are to deal with this matter at all tonight.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to oppose these amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, I am concerned that an attempt should be made to try to insert virtually a new Bill—not an amendment or a new clause but the Barron Bill from another place which was rejected by another place—into another Bill in this House. At least that should be questioned. If this new Bill in the form of a group of amendments is incorporated, the Minister should when she replies explain to us whether there should be or would have to be a change in the Long Title and a recommencement of the Bill. I do not think it is good parliamentary practice anyway to try to insert all these amendments in the form of a new Bill into this Bill.
In this country we have a system whereby Her Majesty's Government and the tobacco companies negotiate a voluntary agreement which increasingly restricts tobacco advertising and gives warnings on tobacco products that tobacco is injurious to health. With restrictions getting tighter and warnings looming larger, both parties—government and tobacco com-panies—are jointly playing their part and consumption is being reduced. I must say that the evidence I receive does not support the view that banning the advertising of tobacco products necessarily cuts the sales of tobacco. There are one or two countries which have banned advertising but consumption still increases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, tobacco advertising is mainly a competition between brands and not necessarily to sell more tobacco products. That is quite obvious because sales are going down. Brand switching is the result in what is in the United Kingdom a dwindling market. It is also a legal product, produced by 1 1,000 men and women in our country. It has a legal right to be advertised. It is a commercial freedom and as
1722
such we have the right and the freedom to enjoy smoking tobacco, and those 11,000 British workers have the right to see their product advertised and also at the same time to combat the cheaper, high-tar, more unhealthy cigarette imports which now constantly threaten their jobs.
If this non-advertising of a legal product continues on the grounds that it may be injurious to health, what then of alcohol—beer, whisky, gin and brandy? Are they not also injurious to health? Where does it stop? Do we also ban the advertising of butter, fats and cream? And then what of the German scare over our beef and BSE? Where does it end?
There is the case concerning McDonald's. Two persons distributed leaflets (they call themselves the McLibel Two) claiming that a McDonald's diet, high in saturated fat, was linked to some forms of cancer— linking the company's meals to heart disease and cancer.
A correspondent wrote recently about these interferers—they are petty dictators really. Last year there was a furore over the refusal of at least two big heart centres to operate on smokers unless they kicked the habit. The correspondent said that he was horrified that medical practitioners were discriminating against people who were indulging in a perfectly legal, if unhealthy, pastime. Would drinkers be refused liver operations, joggers be left to suffer sprains and injuries and butter lovers be denied heart operations? We have to keep a sense of proportion about all these things.
I am the founder and convenor of the Lords and Commons Pipesmokers' Club founded many years ago when I was in another place. As a pipe smoker I am interested in the adverts; whether a brand is being changed in its ingredient make up—usually these days they have been made milder—or whether, due to low demand, production is being switched to another brand. It is the information that I want to help me to continue enjoying my smoking. I still have the right to smoke if I so wish. I am still in a democracy although the way the anti-smoking campaign is being waged there appear to be more dictators than democrats.
Another point I hope I am allowed to make—and I do not want to be too controversial—is about passive smoking. Two of my late smoking club colleagues, Lord (Manny) Shinwell happily puffed a pipe every day and lived until he was a 100 and Lord (Fenner) Brockway also enjoyed his pipe and he lived until he was 99 years of age. I guess that the average age of Members of the pipe club of this House are over 70. I have smoked a pipe for over 50 years. All that time our pipemen have had undiluted smoke in their mouths daily for years. It is a wonder, according to the opponents of passive smoking, that they have survived for 10 years.
I would guess that a jogger in London at lunchtime takes in more toxic fumes—a cocktail of harmful pollution—going down his gullet from London vehicle discharges every day, which are now admitted to be injurious to health. So should we not ban adverts of pollution-emitting taxis, lorries and London buses? We have to keep all these matters in perspective.

1723
These amendments, if successful, will ban all tobacco advertising for a start and by way of fines criminalise the advertisers. As the Minister said:
"a total ban and the criminalisation of advertising. This is not a small step. It is a major and significant move which raises issues well beyond simple health matters".—[Official Report, 20/6/94: col. 124.]
I totally agree with that point of view and that is what I shall support.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as I anticipated, this is proving to be an absolutely fascinating debate. It is entertaining, amusing, but in some respects incredibly misguided. It has in fact totally missed the point of the reasons underlying the setting down of these amendments. I fully support the views of those who defend the right of any adult who wishes to smoke. I wholly accept, as a member of the medical profession, that a number of the pronouncements made by my colleagues in the profession relating to the association between various environmental hazards on the one hand and disease on the other, have not been proven statistically to be the case.
But of one thing there can be no doubt whatever. The evidence relating to the devastating effect on human health of smoking is incontrovertible. Those who deny that association are blinkered and I fear that they have not been capable of interpreting the evidence. Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of premature death in the United Kingdom. Smoking kills a proportionately larger number of people at younger ages and older ages. About one-third of all deaths between 35 and 69 years of age is due to smoking, with each smoker losing on average 23 years of life. Smoking causes 14 per cent. of deaths after 69 years of age.
The "legal to sell/legal to advertise" argument is spurious because of the existing ban on radio and television. One hundred years ago, Parliament in its wisdom passed a Bill forbidding the advertising of patent medicines which purported to cure venereal disease. So far as I am aware, that particular Bill is still on the statute book. There are many other examples where advertising is no longer allowed.
The problem here is that, while government action, particularly their excellent tobacco tax policy of persistently increasing the price of tobacco, has led to a steady fall in adult smoking rates, no significant change in children's rates of smoking has been observed. Other approaches are needed. In 1982, 24 per cent. of 15 year-olds were smoking regularly, and in 1992 the rate was almost exactly the same. Eight out of 10 regular adult smokers have begun smoking by the age of 15. Of course, I accept the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about advertising and sport. I have always had an abiding interest in cricket and other sports. I accept wholly the problems that would arise if tobacco advertising were banned.
I look back on my own personal experience. In a small mining village in Durham County where I was brought up I think I smoked my first cigarette at about the age of 10. By 14 I was a regular smoker, out of sight
1724
of my parents. When I was in the Army just after the war on a hospital ship, where cigarettes were 50 for 1 s 8d, I think that I smoked 25 a day. When the first evidence of harm to human health emerged and suggested that pipe smoking was less harmful, I moved on to the pipe.
Twenty years ago the evidence became perfectly clear that pipe smoking, though much less harmful also carried serious hazards in relation to peripheral vascular disease, stroke, heart disease and cancer, and with the most painful of decisions I eventually gave it up, even, to paraphrase Lady Macbeth, feeling for some years, "Is this a pipe which I see before me, its handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee. I have thee not, and yet I see thee still". Giving up smoking is in fact the most agonising problem. We know that. I gave it up 20 years ago.
I make that point because for those who begin in childhood it is much more difficult to give up after many years of smoking. That is the whole point underlying the amendment. Technically I wholly appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and others about the problems that would arise if all tobacco advertising were banned. But two wrongs do not make a right.
The evidence from Norway, where tobacco advertising has been banned, is that it has had a significant effect upon the number of children who start to smoke. I accept wholly the beneficial effects of the voluntary arrangements which the Government have entered into with the tobacco industry. They have had a beneficial effect, but they do not go far enough. Every medical and nurses' organisation in this country (the BMA, the Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Nursing) want to see a ban on tobacco advertising introduced, if not now, shortly afterwards.
In Norway tobacco advertising was banned in 1975. There has been a 9 per cent. drop in consumption since then. In Finland the ban was introduced in 1977 and there has been a 6.7 drop since then. In Canada the ban was introduced recently, in January 1989, and there has been a drop of 4 per cent. New Zealand has another ban which was introduced in December 1990; there has been a drop of 5.5 per cent. Your Lordships may regard those figures as a drop in the ocean, but anything that will persuade fewer young people to take up this pernicious habit, with the devastating effects that it has upon human health, would in my view be of enormous benefit. It is for that reason that I have added my name to the amendments.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this question as a medical man. Does he disavow altogether any beneficial effects of smoking for some people? For example, evidence was published recently to the effect that people over 60 have a better chance of avoiding Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease if they smoke. Does he not see any glimmer of that kind anywhere?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, no, I do not. In fact that evidence relating to Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease has, I understand, been refuted subsequently.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, each time that we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, we take account of his experience and knowledge and the way in which he addresses us. I suppose that in the beginning I too had a similar experience: I started smoking cigarettes, but then I turned to a pipe. However, unlike the noble Lord, I have not given it up. I do not believe that the fact that I have smoked for 65 years, and I am in reasonable health, proves that what I did was disastrous to myself any more than what the noble Lord did has manifestly proved to be disastrous to him.
We are dealing with the claim that a ban on advertising will discourage young people, in particular children, from smoking. That is the case which my noble friend put to us the other night and it is the case which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has put today. I heard my noble friend the Minister say that there is absolutely no proof that advertising affects a child in deciding whether to take up smoking. That appears to me to be sensible because I am certain that when I started smoking it had absolutely nothing to do with advertisements. It had to do with the fact that I was at an OTC camp and that there was a certain stage in the morning's proceedings when it was desirable that I learnt to smoke—and I did. I would guess that the same was true of my children. Only one out of the three smokes but they have all been educated, they have all had a warning from their parents and elders and they have all made their own decision. I do not believe that there is any evidence to show that a ban on advertising will affect young people.
The important points about a ban on advertising are, first, the principle, to which I shall return. The second is the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley about brands. One cannot keep a brand going unless one advertises it, and I should have thought that that was common ground. Today's brands are of a high quality and my noble friend warned us that if we eliminate brands, the cigarettes on the market will be of a lower quality and that people who smoke for whatever reason will be smoking a more dangerous product. That might even apply to pipe tobacco, too.
I beseech the House not to sweep away the point of principle. I am sure that like all principles there are exceptions to it; but it is fairly mad for this House, after dinner at a Report stage, to begin to legislate for five pages of clauses which introduce a new crime banning the advertising of a perfectly legal product that is used for a perfectly legal activity. Whatever the effect of that is, we should be satisfied that by agreement between the Government and the tobacco industry people who look at the advertisements and buy the products are aware of the danger and are aware of the quality of those products.
The right way to deal with young people is by education—and the noble Lord and his colleagues have a perfectly good opportunity to educate—and by parental advice. But I sound a word of warning about the education and the advice. There is a danger of crying wolf. The noble Lord, myself and many other people are perfect examples of the fact that smoking does not kill everybody. To anyone who says that by continuing to
1726
smoke I am trying to commit suicide, all that I can say is that during 65 years I have been remarkably incompetent at achieving that object.
This is a serious subject and it must be tackled in the way now proposed by the Government; that is, by constantly improving education, the contents of advertisements and a description of what is going on.
At this stage of the day and at this stage of the Bill, we should not use the loose procedures of this House to pass through, almost on the nod, this evening a five-page Private Member's Bill—because that is what it is. We have absolutely no opportunity to look at its detailed provisions which affect the health and security of people and whether or not: they go to prison. That is not the right way to proceed. Noble Lords who feel strongly about smoking and who feel that it should be made illegal should introduce a Bill to put that into effect. If they feel strongly that the advertisement of tobacco products should be made illegal, then they should introduce a Bill to achieve that. We should then be able to discuss that legislation carefully, fully, and line by line. But as it stands, I hope that the House will reject this amendment with contumely.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I also have to declare an interest as a contented smoker of a pipe for some 50 years; an interest as the chairman of FOREST; and I am director of a newspaper which derives some income from advertising of one kind or another. I am also one of the self-appointed guardians of a free society. My objections to the amendments are based on principle and also on my interpretation of the evidence about which we have heard.
I am astonished that we do not hear more about the principles of a free society in this House. But it must be true that in principle, all censorship is a sin against liberty. A free society not only tolerates but positively welcomes the widest conceivable expression of opinion and variety of action.
There is no virtue in boasting—as some noble Lords have done—about permitting freedom to do those things of which they approve or which they believe will benefit us. In my opinion, the unwritten contract between free men and women is that we uphold the rights of others to choose their own lifestyles, although we may personally vehemently and passionately dislike the results. We do that not out of charity but in return for others respecting our own peculiar eccentricities. In the vernacular, the phrase is, "Let us live and let live", or even, "Let us live and let die" because those prim medical puritans now tell us that most things that we do and enjoy are bad for us and are self-inflicted. They would discourage all manner of pleasant, agreeable, social experiences. They are people who, in a telling phrase, "see other men's lives as a proper end product of their own activity." I object to that intensely, however well intentioned it may be.
I shall not follow the statistics. It is perfectly clear that smoking in this country has been reduced more over the past 20 years without a ban than in Norway, Finland, Portugal or New Zealand. We heard of the example of Canada. That is a mere misuse of the evidence. There

1727
was a ban on the advertising of smoking in Canada; but, also, the price of cigarettes doubled. It cannot be said that the ban reduced smoking. It is not even clear that smoking has been reduced in Canada.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, observed in Committee—shrewdly, as always—the absence of commercial promotion in Russia for 70 years did not check record smoking by both children and adults in that country. It prevented the shift from high to low tar tobacco, which advertising in Britain helped to achieve.
We are told that smoking is dangerous to health. If that is so, it is certainly in no way unique. I have read many medical reports which tell me that it is one among 20 complex variables in the development of cancer ranging from genetics, ethnic origins, social class, housing, geographical location between town and country and, not least, diet.
As I was assembling my thoughts for the debate, an appeal arrived in my post—one that I welcome more than many appeals that I receive—from the World Cancer Research Fund, which states:
"Scientific studies indicate that 35 per cent. of all cancer deaths have been estimated to be related to diet".
The argument is better balanced in this House tonight than on earlier occasions. Therefore, I shall conclude with a brief diatribe against passive smoking. I earnestly believe that there is nothing whatever in passive smoking. FOREST produced a publication a short while ago by three doctors which quoted Sir George Godber in 1975 addressing the World Health Organisation. On that occasion, he emphasised that it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them. In other words —and these are my words—the purpose was to work up animus against the smoker in order to recruit battalions of anti-smoking fanatics.
In a forthcoming report by FOREST—and I have declared my interest—we have a statistician looking at studies of passive smoking. I shall read out a quotation and then, your Lordships will be glad to hear, I shall sit down.
"The American Environmental Protection Agency report discusses 30 studies on passive smoking but limits its own statistical analysis to 11 studies of the spouses of smokers"
— that is spousal smoking; in other words, a non-smoking wife living with a vicious, smoking husband.
"Of the 11 studies, the EPA claims that 10 reported no statistically significant association between ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) exposure and lung cancer. Only one reported a statistically significant association"—
that is, one out of 11 studies from the original 30.
"But that claim about the one US study is true only by using the EPA's unique 90 per cent. confidence level. Moreover, using the accepted 95 per cent. confidence level"—
and statisticians will be familiar with such terms—
"none of the 11 studies reported a statistically significant risk."
That powerfully reinforces the common-sense observation of the noble Lord, Lord Mason; namely, that those of us who have been puffing away for 50 years have much more exposure in one day or one week than our spouses and other innocent bystanders will get in a whole lifetime.
I shall conclude by referring to a press clipping which I do not have with me but which I remember reading. It
1728
told the story of a splendid old lady—who, indeed, could have been a Member of this House—who was 125 years of age. She said that she had in fact packed up smoking at the age of 110 for health reasons.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to make only one point as time is moving on. I should like to draw a parallel between the proposed ban on tobacco advertising and the compulsory use of seat belts. Both are undoubtedly public health issues and both, to a degree, infringe civil liberties. Yet I would ask whether there is anyone in this House who would doubt that the introduction of compulsory seat belts in 1983 has been a great success and reduced the number of casualties in accidents. I believe that that is an appropriate parallel and one which should be borne in mind when considering the amendments.
We have to ascertain the difference between those two public health measures. In all frankness, I have to say that the difference that I see is the interest of the tobacco industry—that is, the massive financial interest that it has in preserving its right to advertise cigarettes. I do not believe that that is a good enough reason to reject the amendment. Therefore, I shall be supporting my noble friend.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can say what is the parallel between the compulsory use of seat belts and advertising of tobacco products. I can see no parallel whatever.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the parallel is that it is generally accepted—I think we have heard that this evening—that the seat belt measure and the banning of tobacco advertising measure will increase the health of the British public as a whole.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my first practical memory was the black cat on a Craven A packet before my father went off to the war. My father died aged 57 coughing his lungs out from a tobacco related disease. There is nothing that has convinced me that tobacco smoking is not a quite filthy and very dangerous habit that should be discouraged at all possible costs. However, there is no way that I could vote for a ban on the advertising of a legal substance of which we also subsidise the production. The Common Market subsidises the production of Greek and Italian tobacco to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. We really cannot be so crassly hypocritical as to say, "No, you cannot sell your legal product, however disgusting it is". I have given up smoking. It made one cough up globules of green disgustingness; anything you like to mention. There is nothing to recommend it at all. But it is legal and we get lots of money from tax on it. And we subsidise it. There is a logical case for banning it altogether for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and because of the effect it has on human life. But while it is legal we cannot ban the advertising of it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, whether or not one subscribes to the theory about lies, damn lies and statistics, it cannot be denied that statistics are frequently ambiguous and contradictory. The noble

1729
Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Walton have mentioned a few statistics. But the British Heart Foundation, which, be it noted, supports this amendment, tells us that the death rate from heart disease in Scotland and in Northern Ireland is twice the death rate in France from heart disease. Yet as anyone who spends any time in France knows, the French smoke far more than we in the United Kingdom—and they smoke higher tar cigarettes at that. Moreover, a recent official survey in Australia covering 12 million people—almost the entire adult population—revealed that while smoking has a malign effect upon bronchitis, as might be imagined, it would appear to have, on balance, a broadly neutral effect upon heart disease and a positively beneficial effect upon hypertension.
Noble Lords may dispute those statistics even though the sample covered is an extremely large one. If time permitted I could equally dispute the Department of Health statistics which contain many curious ambiguities. The main consideration is that in this amendment we are faced with the thin end of the wedge —banning something which, as has been said, is totally legal. Moreover, we are not only banning tobacco advertising but banning the use of a mere word which has any association whatever with tobacco. For example, no one would be allowed to give a new fountain pen, portable radio or rucksack the trade name of "Camel" which also happens to be the trade name of a cigarette. How extreme can one get?
During our lengthy discussions on this criminal justice Bill we have been talking a lot about homosexuality in general and buggery in particular— one of the greatest spreaders of the AIDS virus known to man—despite which local free newspapers (quite legally, as far as I am aware) carry thinly veiled advertising for every sort of homosexual service that can be imagined. If this amendment is carried, the message will go out from this House that the House of Lords believes sodomy to be preferable to smoking. Is that the sort of message we want to send out?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. It has been an interesting debate, conducted with great humour and with quite a lot of laughter. But I wonder whether there is a lot of laughter in 300 homes in this country tonight where 300 people have died prematurely today because of smoking related diseases. That is what we are talking about when the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentions 110,000 premature deaths per year from smoking-related diseases. I am sure that all of us in this House have first hand experience of seeing loved ones die of smoking-related diseases or, as in the case of strokes, tragically disabled as a result of smoking-related diseases.
I support the amendment solely because I am convinced of the link between smoking and these dreadful deaths and as a result want to do anything I can to prevent more premature deaths and catastrophic disablement.
There are those who claim that advertising has no effect on encouraging people to commence smoking and does not encourage smokers to increase their smoking. They must think that all people involved in marketing
1730
—indeed, throughout the world—are completely wrong in using those techniques. All research shows that advertising does have impact. I ask those who oppose the amendment to give some thought as to what they think is the purpose of advertising.
Previously in this House I have drawn attention to the very clever slanting of some tobacco advertising towards young women and young men. At that age people are so impressionable. They want to be part of the crowd. They want to have "street cred". All of this, encourages them both to start smoking and to continue until such time as addiction sets in.
Young people are the prime target for tobacco advertising. Adults are being killed off by smoking-related diseases so new smokers have to be found to maintain cigarette sales. That may seem a cynical view but, sadly, I believe that it is true. The new smokers who are recruited by advertising are almost exclusively children and adolescents. Very few 30 and 40 year-old people commence smoking.
My attention has been drawn to a growing body of evidence which indicates that children have a degree of receptiveness and awareness about tobacco promotion. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has not had the benefit of hearing about that evidence. The evidence was included in an article by Mr. P. Aitken entitled Children and cigarette advertising which appeared in a series of essays entitled Pushing Smoke: Tobacco Advertising and Promotion, published by the World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe in Copenhagen in 1988.
That article states that children are so well acquainted with tobacco brand imagery that many can identify edited cigarette advertisements that show no brand names. They can also identify cigarette brands in "brand stretching" advertisements—namely, those advertisements which advertise products or services such as sports clothes or holidays but which are marketed under another brand name such as Silk Cut Holidays.
Too many members of my family—husband, father, sister and members of my extended family—have said, while suffering from smoking-related diseases, "How I wish I had never started smoking and, even more, how I wish I could have stopped". I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Rea. I am delighted to follow the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
I speak from the Front Bench tonight. There is a free vote on this side of the House. I believe that that is not the case on the other side of the House. I speak from the Front Bench in the confidence that the measures which are included in the amendments were included in the 1992 Labour Party manifesto. They are currently in the Labour Party health consultation document Health 2000, and, as I confidently expect that consultation document to go through the next Labour Party conference, I believe that I speak to future Labour Party policy on banning tobacco.
Noble Lords: Tobacco advertising!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry. That was a Freudian slip. Perhaps I may re-emphasise that in the Labour Party health consultation document which is at present under discussion but which has gone through both the Shadow Cabinet and the National Executive Council—for those who are interested in these procedures—we are signed on to banning tobacco advertising. I thank noble Lords for the correction.
I should like to address briefly questions which noble Lords have raised around the House about the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill and whether that is a problem. It seems a little extraordinary for noble Lords implicitly to question the wisdom of the Clerks in agreeing to the amendments if they are as inappropriate as has been suggested.
We have, for example, already considered the amendments which were put down in another place on the homosexual age of consent. We shall consider later this evening the new clause which was put down in another place by Dame Jill Knight on human embryos. Those measures fall into the same miscellaneous category as those on tobacco advertising. The fact that those amendments have been included and that we have discussed them, and will discuss them further, indicates that it is a perfectly legitimate way to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, described the debate on the amendment as fascinating. I have found it somewhat extraordinary. Many noble Lords do not seem to accept the consensus which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, put most authoritatively. It is agreed by people on all sides, in particular the Government, that health intervention measures are necessary to seek to reduce smoking in this country. A number of noble Lords seemed to suggest that smoking was an entirely neutral activity and that anything done to try to reduce it was a rather extraordinary intervention in private lives. There is surely a consensus between us—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to not smoking. However, the amendment refers to tobacco advertising. She has not spoken on that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall move on to that. I want to emphasise, if I may, that noble Lords who spoke earlier—I do not wish to take time to quote them—have suggested that smoking in its own right is perfectly commendable and not in any sense to be attacked. However, we all know that it is the position of Her Majesty's Government, through the Health of the Nation policy, to try to reduce smoking by 40 per cent. by the year 2000. Various noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment have noted that that target is far from being achieved. In fact, in the most vulnerable groups —children have been referred to by several noble Lords—we have seen no decline at all. We have simply seen a standstill since the Health of the Nation policy was introduced.
I commend the Health of the Nation policy. I think that many of the activities undertaken on the educational side by Her Majesty's's Government, the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority to seek to
1732
reduce smoking have been commendable. Unfortunately they have not so far been successful with the vulnerable group of young smokers.
Perhaps I may refer to the speech made in Committee by the noble Baroness who will reply tonight. From many of the arguments that she put forward, one would have expected her to state that she supported the amendment, that she supported the ban on tobacco advertising. She said that there was a need for a broad approach in attacking the problem; that we needed to consider a whole range of influences; and that no one sought to say that we could do it through a quick fix. Indeed not, my Lords. No one says any of those things. We simply say that the ban on tobacco advertising would help that generally agreed policy of seeking to reduce smoking by 40 per cent. by the end of the decade. That is an enormous percentage.
I add one final political point. In another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on 1st March this year that children under 16 years of age are estimated to consume 842 million cigarettes each year. The excise duty alone contributes £65 million to the Treasury. I believe that the estimates of VAT suggest that a further £15 million is contributed by those smokers. In total children's smoking contributes £80 million a year to the Treasury. This is the nub of the issue.
I think that the Ministers and the Department for Health should have the courage of their convictions, accept the arguments of all the health organisations which have been quoted this evening and accept the ban on tobacco advertising as aiding their own health programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My
Lords, these amendments were discussed at some length during the Committee stage on 20th June. On that occasion I sought to set out in some detail the reasons why the Government consider that the case for the amendments has not been made. I do not intend to repeat all those arguments today and I hope that those noble Lords who were not able to attend on 20th June have had the opportunity to read Hansard.
However, I want there to be no doubt about the importance the Government attach to reducing the level of smoking in this country. Despite the comforting words of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, the overwhelming body of medical and scientific evidence shows that smoking has a devastating effect on health.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, questioned that. His contribution brought some light relief, I believe, on that occasion and was welcome. However, the House will not be surprised to hear that the Government do not share his views. Smoking is a serious cause for concern. In considering the figure of an estimated 110,000 deaths a year which can be attributed to smoking against total numbers of deaths, the noble Lord suggested that smokers' chances of survival are just as good as those of non-smokers. The overwhelming body of medical and scientific evidence shows that that is not the case. It is important to be clear that the figures for premature deaths and illnesses associated with tobacco represent the extra risks that smokers are

1733
exposed to, over and above the risks that we all experience. Of course, my noble friend Lord Aldington is right. Smoking does not make a premature death a certainty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness quoted my speech at Committee stage and she has prevented me from speaking in this debate because the convention is that no one speaks after the Minister has got up at Report stage. Therefore, perhaps I may say to her that my remarks at Committee stage were not intended to provide light relief. They were simply meant to be arithmetical projections of the claims made by the anti-smoking lobby and of the facts which she gave me in answers to perfectly reasonable questions. If they showed —as indeed they did—that far more people die who do not smoke than who do smoke, then so be it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I remember on that occasion that the noble Lord was very interesting. I think that his creative use of figures portrayed a certain situation and tonight I thought I should do justice to the noble Lord's speech and put him in the picture. As he knows, I have written to him in great detail on his figures.
The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Walton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady O'Cathain, are right in saying that smoking is damaging. It does increase our chances of dying before our time and also of suffering from serious illness. Such unnecessary waste of life and health is something which I believe unites your Lordships' House and which we are trying to stop.
Few countries have done better than the UK in reducing smoking. In introducing his amendment to the Committee on 20th June, my noble friend Lord McColl acknowledged Britain's record in Europe in that respect. He queried, however, how well we compare with Canada, New Zealand and Australia. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the UK's record in reducing smoking stands up very well against those other countries. Perhaps I can encourage the noble Lord, Lord Walton, by telling him that our record is not just one of the best in Europe but is one of the best in the world. Figures published in the International Journal of Advertising show that from 1974 to 1990 adult tobacco consumption fell by 39 per cent. in the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, stated, this was a slightly greater reduction than in Canada, New Zealand or Australia, the countries to which my noble friend drew our attention. So the UK's record in reducing smoking is at least comparable to that of those other countries.
That does not mean that we are complacent. Your Lordships are aware that the Government have, for the first time, set ambitious targets to reduce smoking still further. We have adopted a wide-ranging strategy published in Smoke-Free for Health to achieve those targets. This strategy covers the whole range of influences on smoking, but, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, there are two things which certainly have a major impact on children. Those are whether their parents smoke and whether their friends smoke at school in the playground. With adults price is also a
1734
major factor. We have therefore focused our efforts on those areas. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that with children whose parents do not smoke we have already met our targets.
The strategy is having an impact. The number of people who smoke and the amount of cigarettes that are sold continue to fall. But the Government are pressing ahead with action on a broad front. For example, I am delighted to tell your Lordships that around 58,000 Londoners are estimated to have given up smoking during the course of the Health Education Authority's "Quitting is Winning" campaign earlier this year. We will be launching a £12 million health education campaign on smoking later this year which will focus on the important role that parents have to play. The charity QUIT, with financial support from the Department of Health and BT, will be launching a project in the autumn aimed at encouraging 16 to 19 year-olds to give up smoking.
As the noble Lords, Lord Mason and Lord Walton, and my noble friend Lord Aldington reminded the House, the Government's approach includes controls on tobacco advertising. With the new measures that were announced in another place on 13th May, the UK's advertising controls will be the toughest to be introduced under a voluntary agreement anywhere in Europe —or indeed, I suspect, anywhere in the world.
The new advertising controls will be implemented over the next few months. The question before the House is whether the evidence justifies the draconian further steps that are set out in these amendments— amendments that aim not just at a total ban but at the criminalisation of tobacco advertising. In Committee on 20th June my noble friend Lady Young explored very skilfully the implications of legislating against tobacco advertising in the context of a Bill dealing with criminal justice and the implications of making it a criminal offence to advertise a legally available product. We reject the arguments that were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on this issue, and we support the arguments of my noble friend Lady Young.
As my noble friend Lord Aldington reminded noble Lords, during the Committee stage I made it clear that the evidence does not support a statutory ban. I do not wish to detain the House by going over all the reasons of the Government's position again. However, I do think it worth highlighting two central points which are often overlooked by those who quote the Smee Report in making the case for a ban on advertising. First, the UK studies reported in the Smee Report, which used data up to 1987, failed to find a significant effect on consumption by banning advertising. Earlier studies did find some effect, but they were conducted before the 38 per cent. fall in smoking prevalence that has taken place. Supporters of a ban on tobacco advertising seem to ignore this uncomfortable fact.
Moreover, the House should be clear that those countries in Europe which have already banned tobacco advertising or which support a Europe-wide ban have not found a panacea for reducing smoking. The fact is that none of those countries has a record which matches that of the UK, and in some of them smoking is still increasing.

1735
In conclusion, the Government remain convinced that our voluntary approach is correct. The agreements have served us well. We believe that they will continue to do so and that the recently strengthened controls will deliver an even more effective level of protection to children.
Many people have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to make tobacco advertising into some sort of symbolic issue. They are aiming at the wrong target. What should interest us are the opportunities for real progress to cut smoking itself. All this time and effort can be much better employed in helping to tackle the really critical issues associated with tobacco. So we should be concentrating our fight on helping parents to give up smoking for their children's sake, since smoking in front of children is the very worst form of tobacco advertising; on encouraging employers and managers of public places to introduce effective non-smoking policies which protect the interests of non-smokers, who are in the majority; on supporting action against those retailers who break the law by selling tobacco to under-16s; and on a campaign for further reforms of EC subsidies for tobacco growing. My noble friend Lord Onslow is right. We simply must not take lectures on tobacco advertising from a European Commission which continues to hand out close on £1 billion a year in subsidies to tobacco growing countries.
There is plenty of work to be done on these and other important fronts in the fight against smoking. As for the measures set out in these amendments, I put it to the House that the case for them has not been made. I hope that the House will support the Government and resist the amendments.
Lord Rea: My Lords, this has been a very good-humoured and I believe very revealing debate. Many noble Lords have spoken and I wish to thank every one of them for having taken part. It is impossible for me to answer every point raised by every noble Lord. A number of those points have already been answered by noble Lords who supported me.
Let me once again turn to the question of whether the advertising of tobacco is an appropriate subject for the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Surely, if a lethal product is being advertised, a criminal justice Bill is precisely the place where it should be. It is true that tobacco is legal. But, as I mentioned at Committee stage, the Secretary of State for Health, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, said in another place that if it were to be introduced now it would probably be banned.
Another point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, concerned the Long Title. My noble friend Lord Mason also mentioned that matter. I notice that in this series of amendments it was not mentioned. However, I have been assured that if the amendment is agreed to, the necessary adjustment to the Long Title can be introduced at Third Reading.
A third point related to the problems for various sports if an advertisement ban were brought in. I should like to remind the House of what was done in Australia when tobacco sponsorship for sport was banned. A
1736
special fund was taken from the tobacco tax specifically to sponsor sport. There has been no difficulty in keeping going fully the sporting activities of Australia.
The noble Baroness placed a great deal of importance on the current voluntary agreement. I suggest that it only represents the lowest common denominator of agreement between an industry whose obvious aim is to sell as many cigarettes as possible and a Government who are reluctant to take appropriate and effective steps to curb tobacco advertising, curbs which have been recommended by every eminent medical and scientific society in the country, including all 35 of the professional health organisations in the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, of which I am vice-chairman.
What is the basis for removing poster advertisements from within a 200-metre radius of schools but not from a 201-metre radius? Surely children can read and understand tobacco advertisements placed 201 metres from schools, Since they nearly all live more than 200 metres from schools, they will see the advertisements. The agreement is not logical.
Tobacco advertisements and promotions exist freely on the high street and freely on poster hoardings which are seen by children. The noble Baroness spoke about quitting smoking tobacco. The purpose of these amendments is to stop children from starting to smoke tobacco and to prevent them from a lifetime of smoking, which they will find great difficulty in giving up. It is high time that we put an end to the charade. It is time that we stopped dragging our feet. We should assist the Government to attain their target of reducing smoking from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. by the year 2000. I wish to take the opinion of the House, and I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
10.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 151 A) shall be agreed to?
✶ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mayhew, L.

Darcy (de Knaylh), B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Nicol. B.

Geraint, L.

O'Cathain, B. [Teller.]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Halsbury, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hamwee, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Richard, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Seear, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Judd, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

1737

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Annaly, L.

Manton, L.

Arran, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Astor, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Balfour, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Milverton, L.

Bethell, L.

Monson, L.

Blatch, B.

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Bruntisneld, L.

Nickson, L.

Burnham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Northesk, E.

Carnock, L.

Onslow, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Palmer, L.

Colwyn, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Courtown, E.

Peel, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Pender, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Perth, E.

Cranborne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

Romney, E.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Salisbury, M..

Donoughue, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Downshire, M.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Faithfull, B.

Sherfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gray, L.

Stockton, E.

Harlech, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Strange, B.

Hemphill, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hives, L.

[Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howe, E.

Tebbit, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Torrington, V.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller]

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lothian, M.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lyell, L

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Warnock, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Young, B.

Chancellor]

[✶ The Tellers for the Contents reported 51 names.
The Clerks recorded 50 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.17 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 151B to 151D not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford moved Amendment No. 152:
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause:
("Incitement to religious hatred
. A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or who publishes or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up hatred against any group of persons in Great Britain on the ground of their religious beliefs; and

(b) having regard to all the circumstances such hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.").

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, the present law on blasphemy protects only the beliefs of Christianity and the formularies of the Church of England. When recently this House debated an amendment which would have the effect of dropping the law on blasphemy, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the noble Earl the Minister argued that abolition at this stage would have serious and unhelpful repercussions, and the proposed amendment referring to blasphemy, was withdrawn. However, I think we all recognise that the present law is too narrowly focused for the society which we now enjoy. Many would like to offer some degree of reassurance to other faith communities that their religious beliefs also are respected and that their communities are protected from incitement to religious hatred. That is why we bring this amendment before your Lordships' House this evening.
Before doing so I contacted all the diocesan bishops of the Church of England and spoke privately to many of them at the General Synod in York last weekend. I know that the amendment enjoys substantial support which, I believe, reflects a widespread desire in the Church of England as a whole on the issue. A leading Moslem said on the radio recently that he regarded the established Church as the trustee of the religious life of the nation. It is in that spirit that we hope to persuade your Lordships to accept this amendment.
However, I should like to stress that we fully recognise the difficulties mentioned in the previous debate by the most reverend Primate and the noble Earl the Minister. First, there is the question of defining what constitutes a religious belief. A Moonie or a Scientologist might claim that their beliefs were being abused. But I do not believe that that is an insuperable objection. For a successful action to be brought the group who claim that they were being abused on the grounds of their religious beliefs would have to prove: first, an intention to stir up hatred; and, secondly, that hatred would in fact be likely to be stirred up thereby for those are the key features of the proposed amendment. So even if a group defined itself as religious in a way which others would have difficulty in accepting as such, the crucial question would be whether there was an intention to stir up hatred. It is as wrong to incite hatred of a sect with bizarre beliefs as it is to stir up hatred for people of one of the mainstream religions.
The second objection to the proposed amendment is more weighty. It is suggested that there is no present need for such a law and that anti-semitism, for example, can be prosecuted under existing laws. This is a disputed area about which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will say something shortly. But whatever the adequacy of the present law in this field, I would want to stress that there is a strong case for precautionary legislation.
Some years ago the Government admitted in relation to the environmental sphere that you do not wait to see bodies piling up in the street before you take precautionary measures to prevent the likelihood that

1739
this will happen. The religious environment is no less crucial than the natural one. Your Lordships will hardly need to be reminded of the extent to which religious hatred has bedevilled human history and the extent to which it is still present in the world today. We need an amendment to make it absolutely clear where this society stands in relation to the religious beliefs of all our peoples.
The third difficulty presented by our proposed amendment is that it might arouse expectations which cannot be met by the law. I recognise that in the short term this could very well happen. But a law like this on the statute book would play a crucial part over a period of time in educating other faith communities in the difference between lawful criticism, however hurtful, and material which is only there to outrage and stir up hatred.
At present there is resentment that only Christianity and the Church of England in particular have their beliefs protected by law. This resentment will persist so long as the present blasphemy law alone remains on the statute book. Some would prefer to see the law on blasphemy go altogether. But as it will be remaining for the foreseeable future, it is important to give reassurance to other faith communities that their most precious beliefs will also be afforded a measure of protection.
I do not in any way underestimate the difficulties I have mentioned which I know that a number of your Lordships feel. But they are not insuperable. We believe that the difficulties are more than outweighed by the clear message that this amendment, if passed, would send to the other faith communities and by the safeguard of this precautionary legislation in a world which is still darkened by religious hatred. I very much hope that your Lordships will be able to support this amendment which stands in my name. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure and privilege to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on this amendment, which also stands in my name on the Marshalled List. When the subject was debated on 16th June in Committee it was in the context of an amendment which I tabled to abolish the common law offence of blasphemous libel. That amendment proved to be controversial; but there was a very wide consensus on all sides of the Committee for the creation of a new public order offence of deliberately inciting religious hatred. Before obtaining leave to withdraw the amendment I said that I believed that the subject of deliberately stirring up religious hatred is, and will continue to be, a running sore in this country, and expressed the hope that it would be possible to secure a consensus to tackle the problem.
I was persuaded by that debate that it was inopportune to continue to seek to abolish the crime of blasphemous libel and therefore I do not seek to do so in this debate. But that makes it all the more important, I suggest, to provide some limited but real legal protection, not just to the Anglican faith and the Church of England but for adherents of other religions in our plural, multi-faith, democratic society.
1740
It is especially important to remove a source of legitimate grievance—for that is what it is—in the Moslem, Jewish and other religious minorities in this country. Members of the Moslem community—I speak here of the decent moderate majority, not of extremists —settled in this country undoubtedly feel affronted because of what they regard as the discriminatory legal position, protecting only Christianity. As believers in Islam, they are unprotected also by the Public Order Act provisions which forbid incitement to racial hatred. That is because Moslems are not a racial group. Only on a highly technical view of the law could they indirectly obtain any protection.
As for the Jewish community, I can hardly speak on its behalf when the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, is present. But there is no doubt that many Jews find it offensive that they are protected against vile, anti-Semitic tracts only if they can be classified as a race or a racial group. Of course many Jews do not regard themselves as members of a racial group, but rather of an ancient religion.
We have tailored the amendment carefully so that it does not unjustifiably threaten the fundamental right to freedom of speech. The offence is committed only in the extreme circumstances where the defendant uses threatening, abusive or insulting words, or publishes such literature deliberately to stir up hatred—a word akin to violence—against groups because of their religious beliefs, and where such hatred is also likely to be stirred up.
The formula is much narrower, and rightly so, than the present offence of incitement to racial hatred which does not require proof of a deliberate intention to stir up racial hatred. The formula is also, I think rightly, narrower than the equivalent offence which one finds in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which protects Moonies, oddly enough, and Scientologists, and which is committed even where there is no deliberate intention to stir up religious hatred.
We have chosen that narrow definition because of our concern to protect freedom of expression; for example, the freedom of Salman Rushdie to publish his controversial novel The Satanic Verses, and to interfere with free speech only where really necessary. As someone who, as counsel, was privileged to defend the publishers of The Satanic Verses against an attempt to extend the blasphemy law, the last thing I would wish to do is seek in any way to penalise the publication of that novel, and no one should suppose that an offence of this narrowness could be so interpreted. A further potential safeguard, if any of your Lordships are worried, is the requirement in Section 27 of the Public Order Act that no proceedings for an offence of that kind can be brought except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. Again, that is a prophylactic safeguard to make sure that troublemakers and idiots of one kind or another do not seek to use the criminal law in a mischievous private prosecution.
Some may argue that there is no sufficient mischief to justify this step. That is not the view taken by those close to the ethnic and religious minorities in this country, who are in a position to know. I speak of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Runnymede Trust,

1741
the present Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, who broadcast on the subject in a programme earlier in the year, and leading moderate Moslem leaders and commentators as well as the great weight of opinion among the Anglican bishops.
I suggest that it is surely wiser to act now to discourage the spread of vile anti-Semitic and Islamophobic extremist propaganda and to create a legal framework which gives more equal protection—it will not be completely equal—to all religious groups in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland. Prevention is better than cure. It is surely better to enact the amendment now than to wait until it is too late for such an amendment to be really useful in combating the alienation and resentment that may be felt in particular by the large Moslem community in our country.
Perhaps I may make a lawyer's point but it is not an unimportant point. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for mentioning it but it may become relevant on the international plane. The amendment also seeks to give effect to the obligations imposed upon this House as well as upon the Government by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; it is the UN equivalent of the European Human Rights Convention. Article 20 of that covenant states:
"Any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement among other things to violence shall be prohibited by law".
Of course, it has not been prohibited in Britain but it has been in Northern Ireland. Article 2.2 of the covenant obliges the UK:
"to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to that obligation".
If the Government are opposed to this amendment I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what legislative or other measures are in place in Great Britain which would give effect to this aspect of the covenant. Inevitably, the matter will arise in New York next year when the Human Rights Committee considers our compliance with our international obligations.
Finally, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his care and fairness in discussing these arguments with the promoters of the amendment since the Committee stage. If it is accepted, I am confident that it will be widely and enthusiastically supported across the country by Christians and non-Christians alike. Indeed, it is difficult to identify any likely opposition to it. I also suppose that it will receive powerful support in another place.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment. I wish to draw attention to two aspects of the way in which it has been argued. The first, which I find particularly heartening, is that the amendment stands in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It is most heartening that an amendment which directs itself to the range of faiths in this country is proposed by a Prelate of the Church of England. As has already been made clear tonight, a number of us have been most uneasy that hitherto only the Christian faith—in particular, the Church of
1742
England—has been protected by law against blasphemy or opprobrium of a blasphemous kind. That is one aspect which is particularly heartening.
The other point to which I should like to draw attention has already emerged. It arises from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It relates to the freedom of speech aspect. I was extremely heartened to hear him say that in his view—and he is clearly well informed about this matter, as well as about many others—the publication of Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses would not have been caught by the amendment. Perhaps I may express that: rather more clearly by saying that, had the provisions of the proposed amendment already been law, the publication of the book would not have infringed the law in terms of this new clause.
It is clearly very important that writers and others should be able to discuss religious matters and should be able to be critical of religious faiths in quite a severe way. No one doubts the severity of Salman Rushdie's words. But the amendment has been very carefully worded and it would be necessary to demonstrate that the author intends thereby to stir up hatred against any group of persons. I imagine that the noble Lord would argue, with justification, that Salman Rushdie did not intend to stir up hatred against the Moslem faith, even though there are clearly some members of that faith who infer that that was his intention. Clearly, there is a wide range of views on the matter. I was scandalised by the fatwa proclaimed against Salman Rushdie by certain Moslem clerics in another country.
It is extremely important that in this country we should maintain our traditions of liberalism and freedom of speech. It is very important also that we should move more successfully towards a multi-cultural society. This amendment is helpful and constructive in that regard, and, as I say, it is appropriate that it was moved by a Prelate of the Church of England.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to say very briefly that, as a Roman Catholic convert, I have received such mail. Without doubt, it was threatening, abusive and insulting. I should say to the movers of the amendment that it is not easy to identify the authors of such mail because most of the letters that I received were anonymous. The only aid to identifying where they came from was the postmark.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I ask a question, again, in all naivety. This is not a party political matter and I do not seek to persuade my noble friends to any particular point of view. But is it not a fact that threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour are already illegal, particularly if they are intended to stir up hatred against any persons? Why is it necessary to add the words:
"on the ground of their religious beliefs"?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that question. The noble Lord is right in relation to racial hatred. That is covered by Sections 17 and 18 of the Public Order Act. However, there is no protection in relation to religious hatred.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that there is no protection. It is not protected under that section of the Public Order Act but threatening, insulting or abusive behaviour is against the law and can be pursued. The difficulties arise because of the attempt to provide without definition the additional criterion:
"on the ground of their religious beliefs".
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that I find it extraordinary that he should seek to adduce in support of the amendment the case of Salman Rushdie and the fatwa. I should have thought that the case of Salman Rushdie and the fatwa was a very strong argument against the amendment. Of course it is nonsense to say that The Satanic Verses is insulting to the Islamic religion. In that sense, the noble Lord is entirely right. Those few of us who have read the book and the even fewer who read the book with very great pleasure will confirm that without any difficulty.
But let us suppose that he had insulted the Islamic religion. Is that a reason why there should be special legislation in order to prosecute Salman Rushdie? The arguments which the noble Lord uses in the case of Salman Rushdie seem to be utterly in conflict with the conclusion which he reached about the amendment.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I do not like to say so, but I agree with those who cannot see the point of the amendment. Surely the best way to prevent any kind of discrimination against any faith, any religion or any person is for each one of us, according to our faith, to have respect and honour for every human being. That respect and honour must be seen. If they are seen and if more and more people reflect them in their lives, surely that is better than any legislation. I am firmly of that view.
I do not believe that you can legislate and say that people must not act in a certain way towards another faith. According to my faith, Christianity, one has to bear that burden in love by simply saying, "Oh God, help those people". But I do not believe that you can do it by legislation: it must be done by showing the dignity and honour that you firmly believe ought to be given to any person, even if that person's belief and outlook are not yours.
We need to get back to the word "love" before any kind of legislation is passed. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. However, does he have in mind the fact that the Christian religion is protected by a law of blasphemy? Does the noble Lord not find that asymmetrical in relation to the other faiths to which he referred?
Lord Milverton: My Lords, that be may so. But according to my experience of life I believe that Christianity has in many ways been blasphemed against by people; and, indeed, by Christians against Christians. Although we are supposed to be protected from it, I do not believe that that has worked out in practice. There are many Christians who have experienced not only a kind of blasphemy from non-Christianity to Christianity
1744
but also a pretty ghastly blasphemy and un-Godly love of Christians to Christians. I can say that because in my experience in my ministry I have both seen and experienced it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I believe that this point was made when a similar amendment was debated in Committee. There is already protection for the Christian religion, especially in respect of the Church of England. The argument that was made in Committee needs to be put forward again this evening in view of the comments that have been made. The legislation gives a privileged position to one faith in what is now a multi-faith society.
Therefore, as I see it, the option is that either we have to get rid of all protection and remove the existing law which protects the Church of England or we have to extend the law to cover the other faiths. It is not defensible to have provisions which are particularly favourable to one faith in a multi-faith society. Although it is not mentioned in the amendment, the real argument is whether we get rid of the protection as regards the Church of England. That is why it is necessary to have new legislation now. We do not accept the idea that we have to get rid of all protection, but if we do not do so the discrimination in favour of one faith will become increasingly unacceptable in a multi-faith country.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, after the reference to my presence by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I suppose my support for the amendment can be taken as read. I rise merely to add two thoughts. To me, representing a minority faith, such words as I have heard were most comforting. Exposed as we have been to the expression of hatred on a massive scale—and, indeed, we still are —to have heard the words that were uttered tonight by my dear friend the right reverend Prelate and by his supporters was a source of profound gratification.
When the issue of the possible amendment of the blasphemy law was raised I did not support any change in the existing law. I believe it is only right that this law, protecting as it does specifically the established Church, should stay as it is because it is part of the culture, the history and the ethos of this country and I would not want it in any way to be compromised or to be amended.
However, if I support the amendment before us tonight, I do so not merely because I believe that religious minorities need the kind of protection that is available for others. It is not a case of the minorities only; it is the majority that requires the protection enshrined in the amendment. Any society that allows what I would call verbal violence to be practised against any part of that society is itself becoming depraved and is missing one of the ingredients of a civilised order.
If we allow in society—irrespective of the sufferings to minorities that may result—people to ride roughshod over others' most profound and most sacred beliefs, then that society is defective. Therefore we should ensure for the sake of both the minorities and the majority that we maintain levels of decency and respect for one another. At a time like the present we see so much hatred being built up and generated with results that are utterly beyond imagination in terms of human suffering. We shall contribute here both to the welfare of the majority and to the welfare of the minority if we

1745
enact the proposed amendment. We will thus make sure that we do not allow our mouth, as it were, to be defiled by insulting the beliefs, convictions and religious commitments of other people, whatever their denomination.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I cannot speak in any official way for the Catholic Church. Nevertheless it seems to me that the wording of the amendment fits in extremely well with the documents of the second Vatican Council, and in particular with the decree on religious freedom, the document on Judaism and its condemnation of anti-Semitism. I hope very much that the amendment will be approved and that it will give particular reassurance to Moslems living in Britain. I hope, as a consequence, that British Moslems will use their influence to reduce and, I hope, eliminate the persecution of Christians in such countries as Egypt, the Sudan, Iran and Pakistan. As to the drafting of the amendment, I was a little surprised to see that it spoke of Great Britain and did not mention Northern Ireland. I think perhaps I can be reassured that that point has already been covered for Northern Ireland in a public order regulation.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I always become amazed when we start to discuss religion because I find myself in tune with so many people from the religious field that I almost believe I am becoming religious. However, I am not religious, and some noble Lords here will know that. Three years ago I tabled an amendment or a resolution to abolish the law of blasphemy. I was persuaded, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, not to proceed with it. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord decided at one stage in his career to try to abolish the law of blasphemy. Now, it seems, the noble Lord has adopted another method of approach. It almost appears that the noble Lord wants to extend the protection of the blasphemy law to other religions. The noble Lord shakes his head. I did not say the noble Lord intended that. I said it seemed to me that that was what was happening; that the noble Lord was going to leave the law in regard to the Church of England alone but was seeking to give the same protection to other religions. If that is not, in practice, extending the law of blasphemy, I have never heard anything nearer to it. We were told by the right reverend Prelate that he had some reservations about the amendment. Other speakers have had reservations but nobody has opposed the amendment. I am bitterly opposed to it.
I started my political career in Liverpool. I shall give a small quotation that used to circulate in Liverpool and which has some connection with the Northern Ireland problem, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. It was a question of one Christian sect against the other. A small magazine which one printed had the headline:
"Hammer away ye hostile bands. Your hammers break. God's anvil stands".
That is stupid. I have seen people battered over the head in Liverpool because of that kind of belief. The amendment would evidently outlaw it.
1746
The amendment would also outlaw the fatwa on somebody in this country which still exists. Nobody is going to prevent me from standing up in public and saying that I detest the very idea of somebody being condemned to death because he wrote a certain book which offended a religion which is based on a supernatural myth which I do not recognise. If that is interpreted as preaching hatred against the sect that would do such a thing, so be it; but I shall do it.
Does anybody in this Chamber think that I am preaching hatred by saying that it is thoroughly detestable for one religious organisation to establish a fatwa on those grounds? Will anybody stand in this; Chamber and say that I am wrong? There is more than respect for people's religions. There is respect for people's honesty. I believe in being honest.
If someone tells me that the religions are succeeding in establishing humanity among men I point to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is the classic example of where religions have gone mad. So I am against the blasphemy law. I am against any further protection for religious bodies which are based upon the supernatural. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Lester, should have gone for the abolition of the blasphemy laws. We should pursue that and allow people to act in accordance with their beliefs, but remembering all the while that it is, only a belief.
There should be a moral lesson to be learnt from the number of attendees compared with the attendance when we debated smoking. We were told that the amendment moved in relation to smoking should not have been pinned upon the back of another Bill. Nor should this amendment have been pinned on the back of this Bill. I hope that the Government will reject the amendment, but without any establishment of principle. This is not the proper place to do this. The proper action —as somebody said in relation to the banning of advertising for a legal product—is to bring forward a Bill. I shall give your Lordships a treat: I shall bring forward a Bill. It will deal with the abolition of blasphemy. Then we can debate the wisdom of saying, in effect, that you can bring a group of religions together. Let us face it honestly and in the open. You can have the Moslems saying something, and the Jews saying something and the Christians saying something —all blaspheming each other. Then people say, miraculously, it is all religion and they are all united.
I conclude on this note. I have said before and shall say again, that we are talking about a multi-cultural society. Whenever people talk about a multi-cultural society—and I listened deliberately until everyone who wanted to speak had spoken, and they all talked of a multi-cultural society—they ignore the one main element in our society. It has nothing to do with religion. The vast majority of people in this society of ours could not care less about religion. They worship Mammon, not a god. That is the society that we have. It is a secular society. But no one mentions that until I do. Then people say to themselves, "He's a funny chap. He's a mischief maker. He's a trouble maker". I wonder what is said about me when I say what I think about the Moslems, or about the people who deliberately segregate the children of Northern Ireland until they reach the stage when

1747
young girls and boys cannot be trained together. I shall certainly be laid open to a new charge if the amendment is carried.
As I said, I could speak at length. I learnt my politics in a city in which religion was used to divide working class people, and to turn them on to the streets fighting, and the politicians of the day were glad of that. I have seen the sham of modern religion. I have noted the dishonesty about people who seek to say that the Jews, the Christians and the Moslems are all the same. They are not all the same. Those faiths are fundamentally different and they should recognise that factor and not try to dress it up, as they do, in order to preserve the congregation.
On a quiet note, and for the first time in my career in this Chamber, I appeal to the Government to reject the amendment on the grounds that this is not a suitable Bill for the provision. I ask everyone to look forward to debating the real issue of whether the blasphemy laws should be abolished with all the other restrictions.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the intention of the amendment, and to many of the points raised in support of it. However, I wish to ask the proposers whether we could study more closely the wording of the amendment. It seems to me that the provision would prevent campaigning, denouncing and advocating most strongly against what some would call religious beliefs but which would probably be universally condemned in this House. I cite, for example, witchcraft, wizardry and black magic. Would the amendment as drafted give protection to what I am sure would be claimed as religious beliefs from those who would wish to denounce them and to campaign strongly against them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the issue of religious hatred quite separately from the law on blasphemy. I think this is sensible, as the issues are different in many respects and are best treated separately. I am also grateful to the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate for coming to see me after the Committee stage to discuss with me their anxieties and their approach to the matter. This is a sensitive and delicate matter which goes to the core of people's fundamental beliefs and attitudes to life. It therefore has to be approached with caution and with care.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government have considerable sympathy in principle with the approach which is adopted by the amendment. Its purpose is to extend the existing law in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it an offence to stir up racial hatred, to include hatred which is stirred up against people on religious grounds. That is a cause which has great attractions. It is also consistent with the important principle of ensuring that freedom of speech is only curtailed when there are clear and compelling reasons for that to be done.
Successive governments have taken the view that the basis for restricting freedom of speech should only be
1748
when it poses a threat to public order. That is why Part III of the Public Order Act sets the high test it does, which is that of hatred. That is a very high test. I welcome the recognition in the amendment that this has to be the only basis on which we can justify extending the law to offer protection for religious groups. Hatred is a high threshold and it is a very unpleasant emotion, whether on racial or religious matters. That is as it should be. Freedom of speech is not something which any of us would like to see curtailed other than where it is absolutely necessary.
Unfortunately, the amendment as drafted would not be consistent with the existing provisions on racial hatred in the Public Order Act. The test in the amendment would be higher than that in Part III of the Public Order Act. It would be necessary to prove that a person both intended and was likely to stir up religious hatred. Under Part III, those tests are offered as alternatives. The amendment also carries no penalty and makes no links with the equivalent offences of stirring up racial hatred or the provision which covers the related offences; for example, the publication and distribution of material or broadcasting, all of which are offences relating to the incitement of racial hatred.
If the amendment were to be accepted as it stands, it would be an offence to display material which was intended to stir up religious hatred but it would not be an offence to publish, distribute or be in possession of such material. I am sure that it would not be the intention of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, who put down the amendment, to create anomalies. I would not wish to labour the difficulties but it is proper to draw attention to them. They are points which would have to be ironed out before anything could pass into law. We would also have to consider whether any offence of religious hatred should include all the provisions which at present apply only to incitement to racial hatred, including the requirement for the Attorney-General's consent before a prosecution can proceed.
I do not believe that, appalling though the stirring up of hatred on religious grounds may be, we have yet seen significant evidence to suggest that hatred is being stirred up on religious as opposed to racial or ethnic grounds. There is an equivalent provision in Northern Ireland, but the circumstances there are, of course, very different. One might have expected to see much clearer evidence of incitement to religious hatred there, but the provision has been used only twice since its introduction some 20 years ago and not at all in the last decade. The House needs to be clear that this amendment, or any law against stirring up religious hatred, would not deal with comments or behaviour on religious matters which are felt to be unfair, offensive or even deeply insulting. However distasteful they may be, they do not amount to stirring up religious hatred and they should not be criminal offences.
The Government are very concerned that any change in the law in this area should be properly considered. I have grave doubts about the wisdom of introducing a measure of this sort at such speed and at such a late stage in the Bill, although I concede that that is not the fault of the right reverend Prelate or the noble Lord, Lord

1749
Lester. It has been their only opportunity and they have quite rightly taken it. But there is so much potential for its effect to be misunderstood. The amendment could raise expectations that religious belief is now going to be protected against criticism or insult. That would not be its effect and the Government do not believe that it should be. But without very careful consultation over the purposes and the effect of any change in this area, many people and, I fear, many Moslems in particular, might be deeply critical of any law when they realised that the expectation that religion was to be protected from vilification was not going to be met. They might well feel let down and misled.
Perhaps I may refer to what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said in Committee:
"The point is that legislation arouses expectations. If a new criminal offence is put on the statute book without a reasonable expectation that it will prove effective, it may do more harm than good. That is particularly important in this case, where we are very properly seeking to protect and reassure groups which feel themselves to be vulnerable. If the legislation proves to be ineffective or is found to be directed towards the wrong target, such groups, which may be placing great hopes in Parliament to do something for them, will feel particularly let down".— [Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1894]
So said the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York at Committee stage. I believe that the most reverend Primate was right.
There also remains the question of defining religion. An earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford attempted to deal with this tricky matter. Unfortunately, it did not prove to be workable. We need to be clear about what the effect of leaving religion undefined in this way would be. Based on previous relevant rulings in this area, I am bound to say to noble Lords that it is difficult to see how the provisions in this amendment could not include the protection of some extreme sects and cults.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward this evening, and I understand the support there is for a measure that will deal specifically with religious hatred. I think that most of us feel that there is a good cause for that. But it is clear from the number of attempts that noble Lords have made to find a suitably worded amendment that it will not be easy to get it right. If we are to legislate in such a sensitive and complex area it is essential that we get it right. I do not believe that I could advise noble Lords that it would be sensible to support this amendment, for the reasons I have given. I think it would be difficult to attempt to bring forward a new amendment to cover all the pitfalls that we see at such a late stage in the Bill, especially when so many matters concerning the practical operation of the law have yet to be fully explored.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was concerned about our obligations under the United Nations convention on civil and political rights. The United Kingdom has formally entered a reservation on Article 20 recording our view that the article must be read with the articles protecting freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and reserving the United Kingdom's right not to introduce fresh legislation on the subject. The reservation reflects the difficulties that we see with the noble Lord's amendment.
1750
This is a deeply complex issue, which needs to be very carefully thought out. It needs thorough consideration, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said in Committee. We are certainly prepared to listen to any evidence of a real problem in this area, and in the light of that to consider how best it should be addressed. We have had discussions with religious groups on the subject through the Inner Cities Religious Council; and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently discussed it with a group of Moslem leaders. We will continue to use these routes to explore the issues with the care and thoroughness they deserve.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will not feel that I have unduly dampened their enthusiasm. I understand the reasons that prompted them to put down the amendment, but I suggest that it needs more thought than any of us has been able to give to the problem so far.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I have been very encouraged by the degree of support shown by the House for the amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl the Minister, not only for the sensitive way in which he has handled the issue this evening, but for his courtesy in seeing the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and myself and discussing the matter with great seriousness and in depth.
The noble Earl expressed some concern about the exact form of wording. I believe that I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Lester and myself when I say that, if the Home Office lawyers can come up with an improved form of wording, I am sure that it would be acceptable to the House as a whole.
The noble Earl also mentioned the reservations of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I have had contact with the Archbishop and spoke to him about the form of wording. He was quite enthusiastic about the form of words. Unprompted, he said, "Well, yes, that really sounds quite good."
It is true that in his earlier speech to your Lordships' House he put forward the very serious consideration that this amendment, if passed, might arouse expectations which could not be met. I tried to deal with that objection in my opening remarks. But a more crucial consideration is the fact that there is a very great deal of resentment in some other faith communities at the moment that they do not receive from the law the kind of protection that the Church of England has. Only if they feel that there is something for them in the statute book can we get on to the very serious business of helping people to distinguish between legitimate criticism, however hurtful, and outrage, which is intended only to stir up hatred.
I can assure those noble Lords who are anxious that this measure might limit freedom of speech that there are no more passionate defenders of freedom of speech than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and myself. But this amendment is very tightly and narrowly worded, so that there would be no way in which Salman Rushdie and what he said, for example, could be prosecuted under

1751
such an amendment. We are concerned with material that is intended to stir up hatred. That would be quite hard to prove.
I am very reluctant to keep people in the House for much longer this evening. But there has been a lot of support for this amendment. I believe that it would be helpful both for the Government and for the other place if people were able to express their opinion on this issue. I ask that we may be allowed to express our opinion on this particular amendment.
11.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 152) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No.5

CONTENTS

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxford, Bp. [Teller]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller]

Wigoder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Harvington, L.

Aldington, L.

Hemphill, L.

Annaly, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lothian, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Camock, L.

Chancellor]

Carr of Hadley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Colwyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Morris, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V.

Nickson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Norfolk, D.

De L'Isle, V.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Perth, E.

Downshire, M.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Salisbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harmsworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

1752

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stockton, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Strathclyde, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Warnock, B.

[Teller]

Wynford, L.

Torrington, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.21 p.m.
Clause 143 [Prohibition on use of cells from embryos or foetuses]:
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 152A:
Page 117, line 8, after ("line") insert ("except where the nucleus has been removed or inactivated").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that, when earlier tonight the amendment proposing the ban on tobacco advertising, to which I had attached my name, was criticised very powerfully from various parts of the House, it was suggested that the amendment had been inappropriately tabled in a Bill dealing with an entirely different topic. At the Committee stage many of your Lordships, in considering Clause 143—it was then Clause 138—expressed concern over the somewhat indecent haste with which an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act dealing with an entirely different topic had been tabled in another place. However, I would make the point that the amendment which I have tabled tonight to this clause is in a single line and certainly not in five pages.
When that clause was inserted into the Bill in another place, almost universal concern was expressed by the medical and scientific bodies in the United Kingdom over the way in which it had been inserted at a time when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, a statutory authority established by government to consult public and scientific opinion widely on the use of foetal tissue—foetal ovarian tissue in particular—was undertaking at the request of government a very extensive consultation exercise. The views expressed by, for example, the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, the BMA and many other bodies, were that the acceptance of that amendment as a part of this Bill—the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—sent out a signal to the scientific community which would have the effect of discouraging research using such tissue.
Let me make it clear that I do not intend tonight to labour again at that point, which was made extensively at the Committee stage. I wish to stress at the outset that it is not my intention, nor the intention of those who have supported the amendment, to seek any overturning of the prohibition which exists in this clause preventing the use of foetal ovarian tissue in the programmes of fertilisation of adult females. I wholly accept that the intention in tabling this clause in another place was to prevent the use of foetal ovarian tissue for that purpose. In fact, it is virtually certain, as has been said before, that any such use would at least have lain some 10 or 20 years ahead and it is also virtually certain, in my contention, that the result of the consultation exercise

1753
still continuing would have meant at the end of the day that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would have accepted a ban on such tissue for the fertilisation of adult females.
One point which is of crucial importance is to recognise that research on donated ovarian tissue—the study of the maturation and development of such tissue, including the use of techniques of tissue culture—is likely in the ultimate to make treatment of infertility much more successful in years to come. It is also clear from evidence already available that the use of donated eggs from adult females used in such research is infinitely less valuable than the use of immature eggs derived from foetal tissue. Such research is likely not only to cast light on the causes of infertility, on the causes and prevention of miscarriage and the cause and prevention of ovarian cancer but also to be helpful in the prevention of genetic malformations, of inherited diseases and of the premature menopause.
Ultimately too such research involving the use of eggs derived from foetal tissue (aborted foetuses) is likely in the longer term to improve techniques of in vitro fertilisation and the treatment of infertility but not involving the use of such eggs for fertilisation, as I said, of the adult female.
I had the privilege of seeing a document of the Royal Society produced in response to the HFEA consultation exercise. It was drawn up by a committee chaired by the distinguished geneticist, Professor Richard Gardner, and now accepted by the council of that society. It sets out all the potential uses of research involving foetal ovarian tissue. But it ends by making it quite clear that the Royal Society would be opposed, as indeed I am personally, to the use of foetal eggs for the fertilisation of adult females.
What I seek first tonight, I hope as a means of reassuring the medical and scientific community of this country, is that the clause at present standing in the Bill does not discourage or ban the use of foetal ovarian tissue in research with the kind of objectives which I have set out. I take heart in reading the clause in the Bill, however inappropriate it may be for it to appear in a criminal justice Bill, stating that
"No person shall, for the purpose of providing fertility services for any woman"—
which I understand to mean fertility services for an individual woman. I believe that the remaining clauses are subservient or secondary to that clause. I trust that the Minister will be able to give the assurance which I believe that the scientific community seeks—that the use of such tissue in research which may in years to come lead to major developments in treatment is not likely to be banned by the clause as it stands.
I turn now to the important issue addressed by the very brief amendment which I have set down, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. This relates to one single issue only which was not recognised as likely to be important when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was debated in your Lordships' House.
That Bill very properly bans nuclear exchange. The clause on nuclear exchange was included to prevent the
1754
cloning of human embryos —a situation which might have led, and could have led, if approved, to the development of genetically identical embryos. What was not fully appreciated at that time was that the same clause would ban what is known as cyto plasmic exchange, where the object was to change the cytoplasm rather than the nucleus of an embryo produced by straightforward in vitro fertilisation, which is the product of an egg fertilised by sperm from the woman's partner.
It is important to understand why that major potential therapeutic application was overlooked. When the Bill was passed medical science had not yet discovered the extent to which major disease could be caused by defects in the mitochondria. Perhaps I may try briefly to explain again what I tried to explain in Committee. The nucleus of the cell contains some 75,000 genes; 99 per cent of the genetic material of the cell is included in the nucleus. But within the cytoplasm which surrounds the nucleus lying within the membrane of the cell are the energy-forming structures which produce energy in that cell called mitochondria. Those mitochondria contain 37 genes in comparison with 75,000 in the nucleus.
Mitochondrial inheritance is peculiar. It is transmitted only by the female. It cannot be passed on through the male. We now recognise that there are many serious, crippling diseases, some less serious than others, but some causing mental defects, dementia, epilepsy, late onset diabetes, and many other diseases, including others causing paralysis of the muscles, which are due to disease of the mitochondria.
The curious thing is that a woman with one or two minor defects in her mitochondria may appear absolutely normal but may pass on severe mitochondrial disease to her children. The purpose of the amendment is merely to include a provision that at an appropriate time in the future, when the research becomes practical, and when a licence for such work might be provided by the HFEA, the possibility of transferring cytoplasm carrying normal mitochondria to the cell of a woman with mitochondrial disease who is likely to have severely affected children might become feasible.
It is a minor but crucially important point in the prevention of serious human disease. I accept that it is a form of gene therapy. It would have to be recognised and approved by the HFEA. Such cytoplasmic transfer could have no effect other than to allow a woman likely to pass on those serious conditions to her children of either sex, in the course of in vitro fertilisation, using her husband's sperm, to have normal children. It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment which I regard as being very important for the future of human health. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I should like to point out some of the deeper implications of this short amendment. If the egg or germcell has had its nucleus removed, or inactivated, as is said in the amendment, it is impossible for it to develop further. Therefore, if it is to be used in fertility procedures, the nucleus must be replaced, and once one does that one interferes with the germline.

1755
Virtually every medical and scientific body in Europe and, I am sure, in the world, has condemned manipulation of the germline because of the great hazards which could result. Consequently, both Houses, supported by the Government, deliberately outlawed such procedures in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would make a fundamental change to that Act, allowing a procedure which would involve manipulation of the germline; the DNA process.
At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke of what he claimed might be achieved if doctors were allowed to carry out cytoplasmic exchange. My pronunciation might be wrong but I believe that the noble Lord understands it. I have already told your Lordships that my Greek is very bad. I learnt Greek for only a short time at school; I was in the half of the class that did not continue with it after the first six weeks. "Cytoplasmic exchange" is removing the nucleus of an egg (germcell or oocyte) and replacing it with a nucleus from another egg. This, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, claimed, would be used to free the baby and its descendants from mitochondrial disease, which is an extremely rare condition.
However, it is essential to understand that this procedure —that is, exchanging the nucleus of an egg —would involve interfering with the DNA content. At present that is expressly forbidden under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act because of the dangers to mankind and the fact that it could well lead to cloning. I repeat that it could well lead to cloning.
The mitochondria, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, generates the energy by which the cells function, and nobody at this stage in time knows the complete role of the mitochondrial DNA in the genetic mechanisms that operate within cells. The best simile that I can use to explain this in layman's terms, rather than scientifically, is that, if we extracted the yolk of an egg and replaced it, the yolk would have a different DNA structure, while the white of the egg would continue to have the original DNA. At the moment nobody knows the interplay between the two and what might be the ultimate effect of the exchange.
It is extraordinary that we should be called upon to legalise such a fundamental change through an amendment. The matter is of such major significance that it should be considered only after full debate at all levels of society and not introduced in this back-door manner by an amendment.
However, not only would the amendment allow us to exchange the nucleus of one germcell for another, as if that were not enough, it would also allow even greater changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In Section 3(2) (d) of that Act, one form of cloning is outlawed by forbidding the replacement of a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from a cell or any person, embryo or subsequent development of an embryo.
The amendment appears to get round that because the cell from a person, embryo or subsequent development of an embryo could be inserted into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. There is nothing in the
1756
noble Lord's amendment to stop that and I am told that it is scientifically possible that the cell so treated may then develop like any other embryo. I leave your Lordships to recognise the dangers of that.
I recognise the fact that at this point in time at least the use of any such procedures will be in connection with avoiding some disabilities. We do not know that for certain, but let us accept that that is what scientists will seek to do. However, the fact is that we in this House will be passing a law to allow the production of a baby with two genetic mothers, with all the terrible emotional effects that that could have on a child.
In addition, I must repeat what I said at the beginning. We have no idea of the short-term or long-term effects of interfering with the DNA. Added to that, it would drive a coach and horses through Clause 143, tabled by Dame Jill Knight, which aims to outlaw the use of foetal eggs for fertility treatments. I beg the House not to agree to Amendment No. 152A.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has said. I should explain that I witnessed the results of such research and experiments by the Nazis. Your Lordships may think that that is long ago but it is still extremely relevant today.
It is quite horrendous to think that we, as mere mortals, are, to be quite frank, messing around with so-called research which is no business of yours or mine. Surely those matters should be left to the creator of the universe. As I have said before in quoting from the Book of the Hebrews:
"To be alive is no man's gift; it is God's gift".
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, it is 20-to-12 and the fourth day of our consideration on Report of the criminal justice Bill. Through the amendment we are asked to consider some of the most profound matters —the origins of life and death—in a Bill designed to deal with criminal behaviour.
At this hour, is the House going to accept what is proposed so that we can discover then whether those human cells will or will not help people? The effect of the amendment will alter the provisions of the 1990 Act which was passed four years ago. It passed through all its stages after mature consideration and discussion. We had the opportunity to amend it. It was then enacted into the law.
At 20-to-12 on the fourth day of Report stage—I say that again—is the House going to accept an amendment which deals with matters of such importance? Of course, it is perfectly proper to table such an amendment so that the House can consider the matter. But we should look at our obligations as legislators and as men and women. It is said that war is too important to be left to the generals and the soldiers. This matter is too important to be left to the doctors and the scientists. It should be understood and recognised that there is great public unease about all these matters.
I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in this, but there is among much of the community of scientists and doctors a condescension towards the ordinary layman's point of view—that of a

1757
man and woman making and bringing up a family. I beg your Lordships not to consider a matter of such great importance at this stage and at this hour.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I would not dare to enter into the scientific aspect of this matter, but I must part company with the noble Lord who has just spoken about the time.
I should point out to him that it was at a later time in the other place that that unfortunate amendment was spatchcocked into a Bill where I consider it was totally irrelevant. In my day—I do not wish to sound vain— when I was chairman of Standing Committees in the other place, we had a very strict rule with regard to the relevance of amendments.
I am very much opposed to the present practice of amendments which do not belong to the main purpose of a Bill being stuck in in such a way. I must remind the noble and learned Lord opposite—who, I believe, shared some of my years in the other place—that we passed marvellous Bills at dawn. We cannot decide on the Tightness or wrongness of legislation by looking at the time on the clock. That is not our duty—
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. However, does she really think that it is to the credit of Parliament— even during those days when we sat in another place —that we did really good enaction of law at four o'clock in the morning?
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord thinks that the time of night means that the business is not very good, then what does he think about the spatchcocking of the amendment when it was passed in the other place at an even later time of night? He seems to be saying that we should not take any notice of anything that goes on late at night.
However, I also have a constitutional problem. I understand that the statutory authority has sent out thousands of invitations asking people to comment on this important matter and that the final date for receipt of those scientific responses is the end of July. I do not think that anyone can tell me that I am wrong in my understanding. I have received many letters from scientists who realise that I know less than nothing on the subject. They say that the question that the House should be deciding concerns the decision that is taken by a statutory authority to invite discussion—that is, open government and freedom of expression.
Many of my friends who are involved in such matters have taken much time to send in their views and representations. But they are now writing to me saying, "We have wasted our time; Parliament is making a farce of discussion and of invitation as regards collecting our views". Before the end of July, which is the closing date for the exercise, Parliament has suddenly decided, "We don't care what you lot say. We are not interested in the result of this so-called discussion; we are going to bang this out".
I simply ask the House whether we can delay the decision until all the responses have been received at the end of July. Let us remember that it is a statutory
1758
authority that has invited such discussion. Therefore, to ignore it is an offence to all those who have spent their time and expertise in sending in very detailed responses. I do not understand why there is such a hurry to settle the matter. Apart from all the clever scientific detail, which I do not understand, I do try to understand the value of democracy and discussion. I totally support the amendment because I believe not only that the clause which was passed in another place contains scientific problems that I do not understand but also that it is undemocratic and an offence to those who have tried to put forward their views in response to a request from a statutory authority established by Parliament.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I feel like a Grade 6 medical student who is having trouble with his finals. We have heard the smooth tongued Lord Walton pouring medical verbiage at us and I am afraid that I am too stupid to understand most of it. I would merely urge the House to take the advice of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and vote against this amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton—I think I quote his words rightly—was brief, and I think he also said it was minor. If I may say so, the trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is his great skill and his great medical and scientific knowledge, which, so far as I am concerned, obfuscate the real issue. The real issue, as we have heard the noble Duke and many other people say, is a moral one and it is one of great importance. It is an issue which should be debated—if it is to be debated—on its own, after, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, more information is known on the various aspects of it but, more importantly, after public opinion has been fully alerted to what it is all about.
What is proposed is that a fundamental change—as we have heard said already—to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is made now. I feel that this is really a wrong thing even to contemplate. I hope very much the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will reconsider or not press this amendment to a Division.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am not a scientist and I am not a doctor but I am a patient of doctors and I believe that medical research is of the greatest possible importance. I also believe, deeply, that one cannot come to moral conclusions without basing those conclusions on a thorough understanding of what it is one is making a moral judgment about. Therefore I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for his explanation of the structure of the human egg, which was really not known at the time that the committee of which I had the honour to be the chairman sat. We knew nothing, and the medical profession and scientists knew nothing, about the kind of genetic defect which occurs only in the outer coating of the egg and not in the nucleus.
It is of the greatest importance, I think, to try to limit the damaging effect that this clause will have on medical research and on the treatment of genetic diseases of a particular kind, not immediately but in the long-term future, and the damage which might also be done by this clause to the discovery of more knowledge about the causes of infertility. We are not talking in this

1759
amendment about using the foetal material for the treatment of infertility. I think we all agree that the clause as it stands deals with that problem and criminalises it. I personally have said before—and I repeat—that I think this Bill would be a better Bill if that clause were not in it, but it is there and it will stand. But I believe that this amendment will modify it. It is a minimal amendment that will limit the damage to medical research in this country. I believe that the damage will be very severe unless this amendment is accepted.
Therefore, I urge your Lordships to listen to the precise point that is being made in the amendment and to recognise how limited the amendment is. However, it will open the door to future research which in 10 or 20 years may have a profound effect, particularly on women who pass on these extremely serious diseases to the female line. This is something we are not accustomed to. It is a new discovery. I believe that if we shut the door on research on that particular kind of genetic disease we shall be doing a great disservice not only to scientists and the medical profession but to women in this country and to the reputation of scientific research in which we have the lead at present. I support the amendment very strongly and recommend it to your Lordships.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, there is a great deal of unease about this matter. One has searched one's heart. In relation to all the material one has received one has examined oneself not only morally but spiritually. I am very uneasy at the way that it seems we can say, "Let's go on and on".
1760
It is said that this is a minimal amendment. But how far have we gone? If we accept this minimal amendment I believe that it could be a step too far. We should start to treat human beings with nobility and dignity not at a certain age when they begin to speak, but, I believe, when there is the nucleus of a human being.
I cannot be convinced. I believe that we have gone far enough in research. I do not believe that the majority of the human race is yet morally or spiritually capable of dealing with purely scientific knowledge. No. I am not happy. I believe that we have gone far enough. I believe that we can use the knowledge that we have quite well enough without going further. I would not and could not accept the amendment. I hope that many others will not accept it.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may make a few remarks in relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and particularly in relation to the contribution of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I believe that the noble Duke's informant is wrong. We are not dealing with alteration of the germ line in this amendment. It is precisely the reverse. The amendment proposes that a woman who suffers from this disease and therefore cannot produce healthy children is enabled to pass on her nucleus and have a healthy pregnancy by means of the use of the cytoplasm from another ovum. That is a very different matter from interfering with someone's nuclear germ material. The purpose is to help that person's own genetic material to be reproduced into posterity.
Midnight
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am not a scientist and I find much of what has been described extremely difficult to understand. However, unlike other noble Lords, although I find it difficult to understand, I do not find that necessarily a frightening experience. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, described extremely lucidly the narrowness of his amendment and its effect in terms of trying—as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, indicated—not to extend the ban on infertility treatment, which is included in the clause as it now appears in the Bill, to research. Very different signals have come from the various people associated with the new clause about its precise effect. I shall be grateful if the Minister in her reply will explain to your Lordships' House precisely how she sees the impact of the clause as now drafted on the research community. The Member in another place who originally introduced the clause, Dame Jill Knight, stated at one stage that she had no intention of affecting research; at another stage she spoke most forcefully about sending a message to scientists that there was no point in spending any more time on research in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has effectively conveyed that if that message is the case, it is a devastating result of a provision which its author in another place suggested was simply to affect treatment regarding fertility. As noble Lords have discussed on several occasions, such treatment is far in the future and was not the original intention underlying the amendment. Nonetheless, it is difficult if people now believe that research will be blighted for reasons which I do not need to reiterate. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has explained them most clearly.
However, it is worth saying in lay language that if we were to ban research we should not be banning fertility treatment —that is not relevant to this issue—but inquiry into genetic diseases, early menopause, and other such conditions which affect many women and couples in this country. The issue is nothing to do with the rather Frankenstein images which have been conveyed tonight.
Since the debate on a similar amendment on Dame Jill Knight's clause in Committee, I have received two documents which I found most impressive. One was the document from the Royal Society to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred. That is a dense, scientific argument from which he quoted. I found it most persuasive in its consideration of the areas of pure research which could be conducted in this field if the amendment is carried. The other was a more populist document, published in a series, Contemporary Papers, called, Is Science Dangerous?, written by Lewis Wolpert. Many noble Lords will know that he is a very distinguished Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine.
If your Lordships will allow me, I shall quote from the document because it answers for me, as a lay person, some of the questions raised in the debate. In discussing the area of genetics, Professor Wolpert states:
1762
"Are there doors immediately in front of current research which should be marked 'Too dangerous to open'?."
He asks the rhetorical question which several noble Lords have put tonight. He continues:
"I realise the dangers but I cherish the openness; of scientific investigation too much to put up such a notice. I stand by the distinction between knowledge of the world and how it is used…Once one begins to censor the acquisition of objective knowledge, one is on the most slippery of slippery slopes."
That is why I as a lay person hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and will not go down that particular slippery slope.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in introducing his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has again spoken with conviction and clarity on this issue, as indeed have other noble Lords tonight. This issue is a very sensitive one. It is a subject which arouses conflicting emotions. Great sympathy for couples experiencing difficulty in having a baby is mixed with anxiety about the nature of some of the scientific developments taking place. The medical research of clinicians and scientists who work in this field gives hope to many couples. Parliament has decided that certain developments are acceptable, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, reminded us, we have set up the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to regulate that activity. The Government hold the authority in high regard. It was set up by Parliament in 1990 and it has served Parliament well since then. The authority has made it clear that it respects Parliament's wishes and will abide by any decision Parliament makes. Its consultations continue as planned.
At Committee stage I spoke at length about the principles of Clause 143, and I intend to keep my comments brief. There are, however, one or two points which I should like to make.
In the Government's view, this amendment is workable. If it is the will of your Lordships' House that it be passed, then Parliamentary Counsel will consider whether any technical change is needed. However, the Government's position remains one of neutrality, both on this amendment and on Clause 143, the clause which was added to the Bill in another place after being proposed by my honourable friend Dame. Jill Knight It deals with a subject on which many people have very strong and deeply held views. For this reason, the Government believe that it is a matter for your Lordships' individual judgment and conscience.
This amendment would ease the total ban for infertility services imposed by Clause 143 by amending the definition of "female germ cell". The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, requested reassurance that Clause 143 only prohibits treatment and not research. I can reassure him and the noble Baroness, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that that is the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has explained, the medical treatment that he particularly wishes to allow involves using that part of the female germ cell which carries very little inheritable material. This is known as cytoplasm. The part that carries the majority of inheritable characteristics, the nucleus, would not be used.

1763
The amendment restricts the operation of Clause 143 to foetal eggs which retain an active nucleus. I acknowledge the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that the amendment is limited in some respects; but I should point out that it would allow the use of all other parts of the egg when treating women. Its effect goes wider than permitting the use of cytoplasm in mitochondrial disorders —distressing conditions described by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
As my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said, it is not possible to specify what those wider uses might be because, as in the case of mitochondrial disorders, the treatment is far in the future and at present only theoretical.
When your Lordships' House considered this issue during Committee stage, I drew to your Lordships' attention the question of germ line gene therapy. That is where inheritable characteristics are passed on not only to the person treated but through him or her to future generations.
During the debate on his earlier amendment and again this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, acknowledged that the treatment he wishes to allow is technically germ line gene therapy. In other words, a child born as a result of such treatment would have some genetic material from the donated foetal egg.
The Government consulted widely on the issue of germ line gene therapy and in 1992 accepted the Clothier Committee's recommendation that this therapy should not be attempted at this time. At present in the United Kingdom, gene therapy research is directed towards the alleviation of genetic disease, but restricted to somatic cells—cells which do not carry characteristics which are passed on to future generations.
Clause 143 bans treatment using foetal eggs. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to restrict the ban so that it does not apply to treatment using the cytoplasm. This work, being germ line gene therapy, is not currently acceptable and the amendment does not affect this. The Government look for advice to the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, the successor to the Clothier Committee, on these issues. Therefore, if this amendment is passed and if the committee recommends that germ line gene therapy should be permitted, the work could proceed without breaching the prohibition on treatment using foetal eggs, provided it is approved by the Government.
In the meantime, the Government continue to support the decision not to approve any proposals for germ line gene therapy. I endorse the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson that we need a wider discussion and we should start by seeking the views of the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee and invite Parliament, in a fuller debate, to consider the wider implications of such a development when the time is right.
This is a free vote issue. It is a matter on which your Lordships have an opportunity to exercise your individual judgment. As I have said, the Government consider that the amendment is workable. It is for your Lordships' House to decide whether it is acceptable. I
1764
think we have had a full and constructive debate on the amendment and I hope that my comments will assist your Lordships in reaching your decision.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on this extremely sensitive issue. I hope that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, will forgive me if I say that in his opening remarks after I had spoken he had totally misinterpreted the objectives and the meaning and significance of my amendment. I hope that I did not confuse him by what I said. Let me make it quite clear.
This is not an amendment which is concerned with the transfer of the nucleus of a foetal egg to the ovum of a woman. It is concerned solely with the possibility that a foetal egg from which the nucleus had been removed or in which the nucleus had been inactivated—that the cytoplasm of that cell containing the mitochondria might then be used to be transferred into the cell of a woman undergoing in vitro fertilisation. That would result in a cell in which 99.5 per cent. of the genetic material in the nucleus was that of the natural parents. Only the tiniest proportion would result from the transfer of cytoplasm. There is no prospect that this could lead to cloning. There is no prospect that it could lead to any of the disturbing consequences which some noble Lords have mentioned. It is simply a means of using a tiny proportion—37 genes as against 75,000 in the nucleus—to prevent serious and crippling human disease.
I wholly appreciate the point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. This matter was not considered in the 1990 Act. The reason why it was not considered at that time was that medical research had not moved sufficiently far for this process to be understood as being a mechanism which could have the enormously valuable effect of preventing crippling disease of very great severity. I accept that it is rare; and it would therefore be very rare indeed that this mechanism, if once it became feasible as a consequence of research, would be used.
I accept the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The same criticisms as were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, about the inclusion of the clause late at night were made in another place. But if only Dame Jill Knight had waited until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority had completed its consultation. Twenty-thousand consultation papers went out around the country. An enormous number of replies have been received. This clause in the Bill pre-empts that consultation process.
The amendment that I have set down is one that would produce —it is perfectly true; as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said—a form of germline gene therapy. Had there been time, and had we been able to accept that the consultation process being undertaken by the authority must be completed and then legislation would be brought before both Houses of Parliament for all the implications of the use of foetal ovarian tissue in research to be considered, it would not have been necessary for me to bring forward an amendment such as this, important though it is in the prevention of human

1765
disease. Therefore I answer the noble Earl, Lord Perth, by saying, of course public opinion should have been consulted. If only Dame Jill Knight had waited for that process to be completed we should not have been in the situation that we now recognise.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for her support. I believe that to allow matters to stand as they were will do a disservice to women and to humanity as a whole. To the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I would say, as a committed Christian myself, that we have no intention—and I hope that there is no misunderstanding—that this amendment would allow nucleus transfer; it would not allow any of the horrors that might arise in consequence of the kind of genetic manipulation that has been of such concern to other Members of this House.
I believe that morally and spiritually this amendment is well worthy of serious consideration by your Lordships. As a neurologist and one who has seen children and adults paralysed, suffering severe epilepsy and severe mental deterioration as a consequence of mitochondria] disease, I believe that the Christian attitude must be and should be to take whatever action is reasonable and proper, with full legal limitation, through the licensing activities of a statutory licensing authority, to allow such work to go ahead. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for her support on that point also.
Finally, in reply to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I am grateful for her reassurance and careful consideration. I am also grateful for the consideration given by her officers as we discussed the amendment. She said that it is workable and I believe that to be the case. She said that the Government are neutral and I am happy to accept that point. As I said, it is only dealing with cytoplasmic transfer. I accept that that is in minimal degree a form of germline gene therapy. Had there been time, it would have been much better to have consulted the Clothier Committee on gene therapy before any such amendment were tabled.
Now that the clause set down in another place by Dame Jill Knight is a part of this Bill, we do not have the time to undertake that consultation. I must remind the House again that we are dealing with an issue which could only relate to 37 cytoplasmic genes carried in the mitochondria - nothing to do with the 75,000 genes which are the major constituent of the body's genetic constitution which lie in the nucleus. I have to say, with the greatest reluctance, that it is my wish to test the opinion of the House.
12.17 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 152A) shall be agreed to?
✶Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 57.

Division No.6

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

David, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Courtown, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Craigavon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hamwee, B.

1766

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hylton, L.

Rea, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Kimball, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lawrence, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stockton, E.

Marlesford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monson, L.

Walton of Detchant, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Warnock, B. [Teller.]

Nickson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Palmer, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lothian, M.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Burnham, L.

McNair, L.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Milverton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountevans, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D. [Teller.]

Cranborne, V.

Northesk, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Parmoor, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perth, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Salisbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hemphill, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

✶[The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 57 names. The Clerks recorded 60 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed, to accordingly.
12.26 a.m.
Clause 144 [Age at which homosexual acts are lawful]:
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam moved Amendment No. 152B:
Page 117, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has—

(a) laid before Parliament,

(b) published, and

supplied to—

(i) Health Education and Authority, and

(ii) any other bodies and persons he considers appropriate,

guidance for homosexual men on the dangers of those sexual practices (including committing buggery with another man) which are likely to lead to the spread of disease, and on the measures that can be taken to minimise such dangers.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to introduce yet another medical point in another bolt-on clause which has nothing to do with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I hope noble Lords will find this matter somewhat less complicated and more understandable.
The amendment seeks to remove a anomaly in the drafting of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. The subject of the amendment has been clearly rehearsed by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in Committee, which concentrated on the health aspects of the act. What we mentioned at that time was the report of SIGMA. SIGMA was set up by the Medical Research Council to research into the homosexual community and to report its findings, which it did in detail in 1982. The report was published with the authority of the Department of Health. A copy of the report is in your Lordships' Library.
There is much debate about the causes of AIDS, but what is clear is that of deaths from AIDS-related diseases 75 per cent. were among the homosexual community and some 25 per cent. were from the misuse of needles and other minority factors. The 1967 Act refers exclusively to homosexual practices and was drafted without knowledge of the impending crisis resulting from AIDS. Indeed, it is not concerned with the other minority causes of the disease. The chronology is important, as I hope your Lordships will agree. It supports the case for this amendment as a rider. For instance, the Wolfenden Report was prepared in the 1950s and was brought out with reference to ethics, religion, morals, society and even medical health but not with reference to disease. In the 1960s, the Act was prepared and passed—again without reference to health. In the 1970s the homosexual sub-culture developed and the first case of AIDS was not reported until 1982. What would Wolfenden have reported had he known that AIDS was to develop within a generation? As it was, all ages were considered by Wolfenden and 21 was adopted as the best compromise.
The reason we are speaking today is that a bolt-on clause to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in another place reduced the age to 18. It is not the intention of this amendment to argue against that decision but it must surely be true that the 1967 Act would have been a different measure had we known then what we know now. It is ourselves who have the benefit of hindsight. It must surely be correct for a revising House to use that benefit while we are in the course of amending this bolt-on clause. Perhaps I may have the temerity to mention your Lordships' duty. We are all well aware of our own duty. It is a duty which we have to warn those newly enfranchised young men that there are dangers to health and life in the forms of lifestyle which, by influence, we are recommending them to adopt.
The work of the department and of the voluntary bodies, and especially the work of the homosexual community itself, is enormously successful. Indeed, government expenditure in publishing advice and facts and running hospices marks our country as being in the forefront of successful treatment of this matter. I have had the benefit of a kind response from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, giving me advice about the work which is being done. Expenditure this year is about £214 million.
That is all highly commendable and absolutely right. Her advisers tell me that we shall not be rocking the boat
1768
—although they would not use such an expression—by tabling an amendment which varies the efforts that they are making and which puts something on the face of the Bill. Their aim is to influence and educate the community in methods of safe sex, but, in the context of the acts to which this amendment refers, there is no such thing as safe sex. There are only means to make it safer. All agree on that.
This amendment applies equally and most important-ly to the uncommitted young men. It would have the authority of Parliament for the benefit of parents, who are the ones who should be given this advice, including teachers and other professional counsellors.
The truth is that the Act is flawed. There is a glaring, cardinal error. I ask your Lordships whether Parliament should abrogate its responsibilities to the nation and rely on its departments to make good the fault revealed. I think not. I am sure that I am not alone in that. As regards the nanny state, there are many more onerous interferences in our choice of lifestyle as it is. We have been debating the smoking clauses. Smoking is prohibited in many places already and indeed it is of itself almost acceptable only between consenting adults in private. There is a warning on the pack of cigarettes, but there is no point in putting a warning on the pack in this matter. It would be too late. Alcohol is allowed. Driving under the influence and making a disturbance is illegal and heavily punished. As for drugs they are illegal as much because they are lethal as because they are habit forming.
On the other hand, an act which is three times more lethal than drugs is not even the subject of a mild warning on the face of the Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a necessary reform and an amendment which we know, with hindsight, to be correct and upon which we fail to act not so much at our own peril as the peril of future generations. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, there is one further incidental merit in the noble Earl's amendment. It may be incidental but I believe that it is important. If this amendment is passed, it will place beyond doubt the view of this House that, although it may oppose the legal prohibition of anal intercourse, nevertheless it regards it as something to be discouraged. It is strange that it should be necessary for the House to make that clear. There has been no opposition at all in our debates to the fact that anal intercourse, with or without protectives, is a health risk. There is a risk of contracting a fatal disease to which there is no known cure.
The facts have not been disputed. One might have expected those opposed to the legal prohibition of the practice to make clear, in their eloquent and successful speeches, that they were not meaning to encourage it; indeed, that they wanted positively to discourage it. That must be the view of us all. It would help the Bill, and the House, to make the position clear. If we pass the amendment it will show that although the House may not agree with the legal prohibition of anal intercourse, it believes that the Government and the country have a duty firmly to discourage it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to say, first, that I have the greatest respect for the thinking behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam. It very properly emphasises the need for health education to prevent the spread of disease. However, the Government believe the amendment to be unnecessary and therefore, I regret, are unable to support my noble friend.
The amendment seeks to place on the Secretary of State for Health an obligation to issue guidance to homosexual men on the dangers of infection of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. The issue of that guidance will then enable the clause lowering the age of consent for homosexual men to 18 to come into force. My difficulty with the proposal is that it does nothing new. At present the Secretary of State has the powers to make available advice of this sort to homosexual men, and indeed to any other group which may be placing itself at risk of acquiring any sexually transmitted disease. The Government's Health of the Nation strategy recognises that no single public health measure is sufficient to combat the risks of HIV and AIDS but rather that a concerted campaign involving many different agencies is called for. One of the great strengths of the United Kingdom's response to this new disease is the involvement and innovative partnerships of statutory and voluntary sectors in public education initiatives.
Since 1986 the Government have produced or otherwise supported an enormous range of health promotion work. The action taken has been widely admired and is emulated throughout the world. At the start of the epidemic in this country homosexual men were by far the largest group to become infected. Today they represent a smaller, but still significant percentage. To the end of March this year, there were over 21,000 reports of HIV infection in the United Kingdom of which over 60 per cent. were among homosexual men. That percentage shows that the epidemic is increasingly affecting heterosexuals, but it also shows the impact of public education on the homosexual community.
The Health of the Nation set a target for 1995 which would act as a proxy measure of incidence of sexual risk behaviour. This aimed to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in new cases of gonorrhoea, from 61 cases per 100,000 of the population to 49 cases per 100,000. Gonorrhoea is often diagnosed in homosexual men. The target was reached two years ahead of time. That is a very promising sign.
The Government have an excellent record, with all-party support, of providing guidance to homosexual men. Indeed, the United Kingdom can claim to have done as well as some other countries and better than most. In France the Paris region alone has more AIDS cases than the entire United Kingdom. Spain has four times as many and Italy three. I do not say that to criticise our European neighbours but to give a picture of the remarkable achievement we have made in this country.
I am afraid that all the amendment would do is oblige the Secretary of State to continue with that effort. As drafted, it would also apply only at the one point in time that the clause comes into effect. Surely, the position is
1770
better protected by not having the amendment but by continuing under existing powers and with existing efforts. The Secretary of State is already empowered to make available advice to the whole population on the full range of health issues whenever medical science or public concern shows that that is needed. The position on HIV and AIDS will continue to be monitored closely in your Lordships' House and in another place, not only at the time of enactment but for so long as there remains a danger of spreading HIV and AIDS. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response. Of course, I did not find it at all satisfactory. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for his valiant support. It is apparent that there is no further support for me in the House and I shall not bother your Lordships further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 153:
Transpose Clause 144 to after Clause 136.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 155 and 157 seek to bring together in a separate part of the Bill the clauses dealing with sexual offences. This will be located between Parts X and XI of the Bill as it stands.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw Baroness Ryder of Warsaw moved Amendment No. 153A:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
Restriction on custody of children by homosexuals

(" .—(1) Notwithstanding any other statutory or common law provision, it shall be an offence for a homosexual man or woman, other than the natural parent, to have the care or custody of a child under the age of eighteen.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it saddens me that an amendment such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, has become necessary in our society. Although we know that homosexual behaviour has been present for thousands of years, it has usually been a private matter in which adults engage. Children have certainly suffered from homosexual abuse in the way that they have suffered from heterosexual abuse. But in the main, children have been and are still brought up within families with a mother and father or, in some sad circumstances, by one parent alone.
What is happening now is that some homosexual lobby groups want us to support homosexuals either individually or together having the right to bring up children. They would like homosexual partners to be able to foster and adopt children not covertly but overtly. They would also like lesbian women, who obviously have the ability of any woman to conceive a child, to be able to do so anonymously through artificial insemination and then to be able to bring up the resulting child with their lesbian partners. Indeed, a

1771
recent court case gave parental rights to such a couple, although in that case the child had been conceived with the help of a male friend.
My concern in all of this is for the children. None of us chooses our parents or the circumstances in which we are born. Government can do little to influence such things. However, we can seek to protect children from being brought up in an environment which will not help them in their existence.
That is why I move the amendment. Its wording may not be perfect but it gives the Government the opportunity to state their position in this matter. Therefore, I hope that in reply the Minister will set out a clear statement of what the Government believe should be done to protect children from the determined homosexual lobby. I beg to move.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I apologise most profusely to the House for not being in my place when the amendment was called. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, for stepping in so gallantly. Perhaps I may explain the situation—it is not an excuse but a statement of fact. Mathematics has never been my strong suit and obviously the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is better than I. We were Tellers in the Division on the previous amendment and I thought that we had done rather well because we agreed implicitly. However, there was a disagreement and I was called outside to do some mathematics. At just that critical juncture, the amendment was called on, and that was the cause of my absence, for which I apologise sincerely.
The amendment makes it a criminal offence for a homosexual man or woman to have care or custody of a child. I hope that the Government will state in their next Bill on childcare that the welfare and best interests of a child are never served by any order as a result of which a child is placed in a homosexual household.
The Lord Jesus Christ said:
"If anyone causes any of these little ones, who believe in me, to sin … it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea".
That quotation comes from Matthew, chapter 18, verse 6. I bear that warning very much in mind.
Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 forbids a local authority from intentionally promoting homosexuality either as such or as what it describes as a "pretended family relationship". Contrary to the statement in law that two homosexuals are not a family, Mr. Justice Douglas Brown ruled in Manchester the week before last that the Children Act 1989 may be interpreted to give the lesbian partner of a child's mother residence rights over the child, making her, in law, a parent. I feel sure that that was not intended by those who framed the Children Act. The Government should act on that point.
Homosexual relationships are notoriously short lived. On average they draw to a close after 18 months for males and two years for females. Both males and females normally have other partners during the course of a so-called monogamous relationship—males more so.
Studies of children growing up in homosexual households have rarely progressed with the child
1772
through adolescence into adulthood. The samples are very small. If anything can be read into them at all, it is that parental behaviour does indeed influence sexual identity in children, particularly daughters raised by lesbians. Of course, where homosexuals claim that their children show no ill-effects from being raised in a homosexual household, it is important to note that they do not regard as an ill-effect a child growing up a homosexual.
Homosexual households are inherently unstable. All the evidence shows that there is something self-limiting about homosexual relationships. Men and women are made for each other, physically and psychologically. It may not always seem so but men and women are complementary. According to psychologist David Reuben, homosexuals are:
"trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces".
There are no real boundaries and the need to search for the ideal partner drives their sad and inevitable promiscuity.
In spite of the blurring of the edges which the Children Act has achieved, below the age of 18, a teenager is still legally a child. That is the age at which the young are particularly appealing to homosexuals. Homosexual literature bears witness to that.
I turn to a particular situation which the amendment will address. Children may leave home for all kinds of reasons. A row over something or nothing can result in a young person walking a lonely country road or ending up at a railway station. Homosexuals are on the look-out for such young people and will offer to take care of them. The aim is to integrate the child into the homosexual network.
My investigations suggest that in Britain there is a network of homosexual men who have boys living with them. The network has what it describes as "safe houses" all over the country. By making it a criminal offence for a homosexual to have custody of a child, such frightening abuses of children should stop. I hope that this amendment will also put the brakes on homosexual men and women being given custody of children in the courts. But I recognise that an amendment to the Children Act may also be necessary. I do not claim that the amendment is perfect in every detail, but I believe that the issue is of fundamental importance. The Government have the opportunity on Third Reading to introduce their own amendment. I shall expect my noble friend the Minister to tell us tonight the Government's practical proposals to respond to the problem. I have to tell my noble friend that I may have to press the matter to a Division if it seems that the Government are unwilling to grasp this particular nettle. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Orr-Ewing, for drawing my attention to the case which stimulated the amendment. The case occurred in the Manchester High Court on Friday 24th June, when Mr. Justice Douglas Brown made the order. The facts were bizarre in the extreme. A couple who had been living together for some time made the decision that they wanted a child shortly after they had started living together. One of the

1773
women reached a private arrangement to become pregnant by a man who wanted no involvement in the child's life. Her partner applied for a residence order after the birth of the child so that she could acquire parental responsibility, thus giving her equal legal status with the child's mother. That is a feature of the case which I believe requires some stressing.
The Official Solicitor was appointed to act for the child in order to satisfy himself that it was in the child's best interest for the order to be made. He supported the making of the joint-residence order. Mr. Justice Douglas Brown made the joint-residence order in respect of the two women, stating that he had had the child's welfare as his first and paramount consideration and that he was wholly satisfied that it was in the child's best interest to make the order.
In my respectful submission, that indicates that the ordinary legal process is perfectly appropriate for dealing with such a situation, bizarre though it is. The Official Solicitor, acting purely on behalf of the child, inquired into the situation and was satisfied that it was in the best interest of the child for the residence order to be made. On hearing the matter, the judge approved the order.
Of course, it is open to the natural mother to apply, on proper grounds, for the residence order in favour of her partner to be removed at any time. I respectfully submit that the proper approach to such cases is to leave the decision to be made by the High Court judge with his experience—and Mr. Justice Douglas Brown is a highly respected judge of the Family Division—and that any attempt to bring in a criminal offence, as suggested in this case, is an inapposite approach to this rather difficult problem which would produce a high degree of inflexibility and overrule the ordinary approach to matters which relate to children; namely, to be satisfied as the paramount consideration that it is in the child's best interest to make or not to make the order sought.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my only reluctance in opposing this amendment is my respect for the proponents of it, with whom I normally expect to find myself in agreement. But, if I may say so, all my experience as a matrimonial judge concerned in countless of these custody cases convinces me that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner is right and that these matters are far better left to the unfettered discretion of the experienced judge who is accustomed to dealing with them.
In these cases there is very rarely any one clear supervening consideration. Practically always, even when there is one predominant consideration, there are others which have to be weighed. As my noble and learned friend said, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. That was the word that was used by my noble friend Lady Ryder. The paramount interest is the welfare of the child. That means that its welfare outweighs all the other considerations, not merely any one of the other considerations but all the considerations put together.
It was claimed that this amendment was necessary to keep a child away from homosexual influences but it does not do that because it concedes, rightly and
1774
inevitably, that a homosexual natural parent should not automatically, and on criminal sanction, be deprived of the custody of his or her child. One came across a somewhat similar situation after the war during the time of the cold war. At that time there was little doubt that Communists owed their allegiance to other than this country and were busily engaged in proselytising their faith. It was constantly urged that they were, for those reasons, unfit to have custody. Neither I, nor I think any other judge, ever accepted that. It was a consideration that obviously had to be taken into account; namely, how much influence might be improperly brought on the child. Of course, one can always be sure that any consideration against any particular person having custody will be vigorously urged.
If I can make any submission sufficiently strongly, it is that this amendment should not be pressed. It is not really in the interests of the child that there should be an automatic sanction against any person having custody in all the infinite circumstances that can arise. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, while understanding and having sympathy with my noble friend Lord Ashbourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, I am worried about this amendment. I have great difficulty in understanding it completely. As drafted, I suggest that it would be difficult to administer. I also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
The amendment states that,
"it shall be an offence for a homosexual man or woman, other than the natural parent, to have the care or custody of a child".
Does a "homosexual woman" mean a lesbian? The amendment does not say so.
Those of us involved in the field of childcare find that many children, particularly very young children, do not do well in residential establishments. Therefore, we seek to place those children in foster homes. In my own authority we had a residential nursery for young babies and very young children, but we felt that those children were not receiving the bonding, nurturing and care that individuals could give to children. Therefore, we sought foster parents for those children. We found that almost the most satisfactory foster parents were two women living together. For 15 years I had three sets of two women living together who would foster children and care for them while they were waiting for adoption or long-term fostering. Those people were invaluable.
I cannot say whether or not those women were lesbians. How could I have asked them whether they were lesbians? What would they have told me if they were? What would they have thought if they were not? The fact remains that those women provided understanding, care and nurturing for the children. The amendment worries me in case such people would be cut out and would not be able to look after children and provide the service which those children demand.
As was rightly said by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, under the Children Act the welfare of the child is paramount. Therefore, as worded, I could not accept the amendment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, it would not do what my noble friend Lord Ashbourne wishes. Also, from the

1775
wider point of view, it might cut out foster parents able to do a very good job for children in need of the kind of help they could provide.
1 a.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, I should like to say that no responsible local authority or adoption agency would place a child for fostering or adoption with a homosexual couple, whether male or female, unless it was very sure that the home they provided was likely to be supportive, loving and stable. It would want to be even more assured of that than if it placed a child with a heterosexual couple. For some children such a home may be the best. In some cases it may be the only one available. As a general practitioner I have looked after several families with lesbian or gay parents who care very successfully for their foster or adopted children.
To go full circle, in 1988 at the time of the passing of the Local Government Bill, which included the notorious Clause 28 referring to the "pretended family", noble Lords will remember that I described my own happy childhood in which I was brought up by two lesbian women. I am not aware that that affected my sexuality or my adjustment to society generally. Much research has shown that there is no greater incidence of homosexuality or behavioural problems in the children of gay or lesbian couples and that there is less physical or sexual abuse than in the case of the children of heterosexual couples. I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the amendment is quite unnecessary. I hope very much that the House will reject it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was sad to see the amendment on the Marshalled List. I was, frankly, appalled by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne. He purported to give statistics about the fidelity of homosexual couples which appeared, so far as one could tell, to include teenage relationships. Those are, inevitably and quite frequently, short term both for homosexual and heterosexual people. The noble Lord lumped the statistics together and made it appear that the stable relationships which most homosexuals attain in adult life were somehow unusual. He even went so far as to say that most homosexual couples had promiscuous relationships during the time of their other adult relationships. If the noble Lord were to read his speech again, he would find that what he said was a gross slur on the morality and sense of responsibility of a large number of faithful adult homosexual couples. The tenor of his speech and the depth of prejudice shown appalled me.
There is evidence on the point that we debate. I look at a recent article from the British Medical Journal of 3rd August 1991 by a senior lecturer at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School, Michael King, and a practising solicitor. The first piece of evidence which ought to be brought to the attention of the House is that, despite the case which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, described, it is very unusual for homosexual people, either men or women, to be granted custody of
1776
children. The article concludes that solicitors ought sometimes in the interests of the children to urge homosexuals more frequently to put forward a case for custody because it could well be in the interests of the child for these matters to be dealt with by the courts more frequently than they are.
The article looks at the possible problems which could arise from such custody. The arguments are that homosexual couples provide inappropriate role models; that there might be sexual relationships between those with the custody and the children; and that the child or children might be stigmatised by others. In each of those cases the argument from developmental psychology and indeed from empirical evidence is that it is infrequent for such couples—they are very often devoted couples —to be poor role models; that the vast bulk of illegal and immoral sexual relationships between adults and children are heterosexual relationships, or sometimes homosexual relationships by heterosexuals rather than by homosexuals.
With regard to whether the child is stigmatised by others, I wish to move from the general to the particular. My noble friend Lord Rea has given his example. In my own family there is a very firm and loving example of two lesbians bringing up a young boy who is now 11. He is certainly not stigmatised by others; he certainly does not suffer from inadequate role models; and he is certainly not suffering from sexual relationships with adults. And yet the amendment in the way that it is phrased, and certainly in the thinking underlying it, would make such a situation a criminal offence. That would bring a member of my own family before the courts—a member whom I know to be a loving parent although she is a lesbian and not the natural parent. I find it appalling to think that that should be the case.
When we have young children, many of us make provision for what would happen if we were to be killed or to die early. We make provision for our children to be looked after, if necessary by our friends and relations. Are we to be denied the opportunity to ask for our relations or friends, who may themselves be homosexuals, to act as the guardians of our children after our death? I find the idea quite extraordinary. This amendment must be rejected.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is the International Year of the Family. I think that the amendment has raised serious and important questions which deserve further research and study, before we leap to the conclusion that adoption and fostering by homosexual couples is necessarily a good thing and one to be encouraged. The movers of the amendment should not be at all disheartened.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand and have great sympathy with the intentions behind this amendment. My noble friend Lord Ashbourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, start from the premise that ideally a child should always have the benefit of a father and a mother who are married to each other and enjoy a loving and stable home. This is the ideal—an ideal to which most parents aspire. Those of us who have benefited from that upbringing know that it is a

1777
marvellous foundation for later life. Only the perverse would want it otherwise. The Government are wholehearted in their support of this ideal.
But the clause as drafted is very wide. Any homosexual person, whether a man or a woman, with a child in their care, would commit the offence. This would apply to schools, children's homes—whether run by local authorities, voluntary organisations or the private sector —and any place in which children could be detained such as secure accommodation or the new training centres. The meaning of care is potentially extremely wide. It includes anything from babysitting to full parental responsibility until the child is 18. Nevertheless, your Lordships will be aware that any law or judgment affecting children starts from the premise that the child's needs are paramount, they must come first. But the passing of this amendment would to some children deny that basic premise and deny them a chance of some semblance of home life. I am sure your Lordships would not want to do that.
I believe that one of the important objectives of your Lordships' House with its revising responsibilities is to prevent bad law reaching the statute books. It is of concern that this amendment might prove to be unenforceable or simply unworkable. I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull that this amendment has both characteristics.
As my noble friend, who is such a nationally respected authority in this field, said, we have at the outset to define a homosexual. I know of no such definition. Nor is there a way acceptable in law of proving whether someone is or is not a homosexual. Homosexuality is not self-evident. Nor would a declaration of one's homosexuality necessarily have the effect of confirming the fact of homosexuality in the person making it.
I referred earlier to my doubt about the wisdom of this amendment. I would also question its sense of natural justice. The amendment pre-empts the judgment of the courts and makes homosexuality the absolute bar to caring for children, in whatever capacity. In every case the prospective carer would have to suffer the indignity of having to prove their own sexuality before being allowed to take responsibility for the care of children. Surely this cannot be right; it cannot be just.
The amendment is absolute in its effect, allowing for no exceptions. It presupposes the existence of a real and major distinction between the heterosexual and the homosexual. But your Lordships' House knows only too well that human nature is far too complex to be so easily categorised. In reality, there is a large area of ambivalence between the two.
We are fortunate in these islands to have men and women prepared to come forward and take on burdens and responsibilities which most of us shy away from, particularly where a lifetime's dedication and commitment is required. Some are unmarried through choice rather than circumstance or have lost a partner through death or divorce, but feel able to devote their energies for the benefit of others. Our nation's voluntary sector, the envy of so many countries, is ample proof of that.
Many committed men and women have been prepared in the past to use their experience and skills to
1778
meet the diverse needs of children damaged early in their young lives, often through suffering a variety of traumatic experiences. Social workers tell me that there; can never be enough suitable substitute parents to meet the numbers of all these children. Because of the current dearth of suitable substitute parents, many, particularly older children, will never be able to experience the stability of a real home or enjoy the pleasures of a loving family, the delight of having a birthday celebrated, or the joy of Christmas with an extended family— occasions which many of us took for granted when growing up.
There are other circumstances when the experiences of a child have been so profoundly traumatic, particularly in cases of sexual abuse, that he child cannot tolerate being in the presence of a [person of the same sex as his or her abuser. In those cases it is not uncommon for social services to decide to place a child with a person of the same sex, and it may be that that person is known to have homosexual leanings. Such cases are very few, but where they have taken place the progress of the child has been favourable, as has been stated this evening.
There are also very exceptional and rare cases where a young person expresses the wish to be placed with a man or woman because of that young person's own sexual orientation. Where a judge has been convinced by the young person's preference and the reasons for it, an order has been made which has allowed an adult homosexual male or lesbian to have responsibility for that young person. These instances are very, very rare. But the courts have exercised their responsibility to ensure that the interest of the child, or indeed teenager, is placed before all other considerations and have made their decision in the light of those interests. My recommendation to the House to resist the amendment is partly based on my belief that the courts should be allowed to continue exercising their judgment in such cases. In my experience—and I have served on an adoption panel in my capacity as the chairman of a social services committee and as a magistrate—it is dangerous to say never, never, ever where these complex relationships are concerned.
Again, I can think of a case where a family may be orphaned and the older child, now a young adult, is ready and able to take charge and keep the family together but happens to be a lesbian. Would your Lordships think it wrong that she should do so, even though all the children were in favour of staying together and did not want to be placed in an institution or children's home or otherwise separated from each other? To break up the family and ignore the wishes of the children would be to contravene the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the 1986 European Convention on Human Rights and the Children Act 1989.
I believe that the thrust of my noble friend's amendment is to prevent people from adopting or otherwise caring for children for the wrong reasons— either to abuse them or to use them to fulfil their own selfish needs. My noble friend's intention is to be

1779
applauded but we have already in place effective legislation to prevent that. The amendment would simply add confusion.
We are sympathetic to what my noble friend is trying to achieve. But the amendment is clearly not good law. Such a measure would work against the best interests of children by allowing no flexibility in the law. Something already exists and is used sparingly, but I believe wisely, by the courts in the interest of the children concerned. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who speak from a wealth of practical experience, for explaining the circumstances and the reasons for the recent and most unusual—"bizarre" I believe was the adjective used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—court case where a residence order was made in favour of a woman who was not the child's mother. I so agree with the noble and learned Lords that hard cases make bad law.
One of the marks of a civilised society is the quality of family life and the measures which that society is prepared to take in order to preserve and develop it. Children are our most valuable asset and deserve the best childhood which society is able to give them. The United Kingdom has come a long way in the development and preservation of the family and the right of children to be brought up by a mother and a father. It would, however, be a retrograde step for this nation to pass so restrictive a law that children unable to remain with their own parents were denied the love and care of a substitute single parent.
While having sympathy with my noble friend and other Members of the House who have spoken for the amendment, I would advise great caution and ask your Lordships to reconsider very carefully the many implications of what at first glance could appear an attractive amendment but which is neither practical nor desirable. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate on this amendment, which tries to safeguard children and is not intended as an attack on those with homosexual tendencies. The reason that I and my supporters take this view is that the Bible makes it very clear that it is unrighteous for a so-called homosexual couple to be given the care and custody of a child.
I give notice that I shall not let this matter rest. I shall certainly return to it at a later date. At this stage I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153AA not moved.]
Clause 145 [Extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 153B:
Page 117, leave out line 30 and insert:
("—

(a) subsection (5) (homosexual acts in the armed forces) shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (7)—

1780

(i) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the word "or"; and

(ii) paragraph (d) (homosexual acts on merchant ships) and the word "; or" immediately preceding that paragraph shall cease to have effect; and

(c) subsection (8) (interpretation) shall cease to have effect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 153C, 198A, 213A and 215.
Amendments Nos. 213A and 215 amend the extent provisions of Clause 159 to ensure that Clause 145 is properly applied for Scotland. As such, they are purely technical, as is Amendment No. 198A to the repeals schedule.
Amendments Nos. 153B and 153C are a little more than technical, as they alter the effect of Clause 145 as it relates to Scotland. The alteration, however, is one which I hope your Lordships will support once I have explained it. At the moment, Section 80(7) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 provides that a homosexual act is an offence if it is committed without consent, or in public, or with a man younger than the prescribed age, or on board a United Kingdom merchant ship. The fourth of those triggers would be removed by subsection (5) of Clause 145 of the Bill. However, subsection (5) would also have another effect: it would make the remaining three elements conjunctive rather than alternative. In other words, a homosexual act would be an offence only if it were committed without consent and in public and with a man younger than the prescribed age. Unless all three of those elements were present, there would be no offence.
That effect appears to be the accidental result of the drafting of Clause 145 and not the deliberate intention of those who sponsored it. In any event, it is not something that the Government can accept. We believe that it should continue to be the case that a homosexual act should be an offence if it is committed either without consent or in public or with a person younger than the prescribed age. That is what Amendments Nos. 153B and 153C will achieve.
I reiterate that the amendments are of a purely technical nature and only tidy up the Bill or correct technical drafting errors. They have no bearing whatsoever on the amendments that the Ministry of Defence would seek to introduce at Third Reading. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 153C:
Page 117, line 33, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment.
I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 117, leave out line 41.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 156, 183, 193, 201, 206, 207, 208, 212 and 217. This group of amendments is purely technical. With one exception, the amendments follow on from the carrying

1781
of Clauses 145 and 146, decriminalising homosexual acts by members of the Armed Forces and homosexual acts on board merchant ships. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 155:
Transpose Clause 145 to after Clause 136.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 153 and 157 seek to bring together, in a separate part of the Bill, the clauses dealing with sexual offences which will be located between Part X and Part XI of the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 146 [Homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 118, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 157:
Transpose Clause 146 to after Clause 136.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 153 and 155 seek to bring together the clauses dealing with sexual offences which will be located between Part X and Part XI of the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 147 [Increase of fines for certain offences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 158 to 160:
Page 118, line 23, at end insert:
("(2A) For the maximum term of imprisonment specified in column 3 of Part III of Schedule 8 to this Act that may be imposed under the enactments specified in column 2 of that Part of that Schedule on conviction on indictment, or on conviction on indictment or summary conviction, of the offences mentioned (and broadly described) in column 1 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the maximum term of imprisonment specified in column 4 of that Part of that Schedule.").
Page 118, line 27, at end insert:
("(3A) Any reference in column 2 of Part HI of Schedule 8 to this Act—

(a) to a numbered column of Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968 is a reference to the column of that number construed with section 51(2) (b) of that Act; or

(b) to a numbered column of Schedule 2 to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 is a reference to the column of that number construed with Article 52(2) (b) of that Order.").

Page 119, line 11, leave out ("and (2)") and insert (", (2) and (2A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 158 to 160 en bloc and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 162 and 176A. This fairly formidable list of amendments increases the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed on conviction for a number of serious firearms offences. The full details of what we propose are set out in Amendment No. 162 which introduces a new Part III to Schedule 8 to the Bill.
I would not wish to overstate the problem of guns in crime. In comparison with some other places the use of firearms by criminals in this country remains, mercifully, quite rare. But crime involving guns, though rare, is very serious and it is important that the courts
1782
should have power to deal more severely than they can at present with illegal possession of firearms by criminals and their associates.
During the discussion of the Bill in another place we introduced an amendment which would increase the maximum penalty on indictment for the unauthorised possession of a prohibited weapon to 10 years' imprisonment. These amendments subsume that. They also provide heavier maximum penalties for those people who are in illegal possession of firearms which are not prohibited.
It is also necessary to ensure that the references in this part of the Bill to years and months are construed as references to terms of imprisonment of that duration. That is achieved by Amendment No. 159. Amendment No. 160 ensures that the provisions of the Bill which increase penalties for offences under the Firearms Acts will not apply to offences which are committed before those provisions come into force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 161:
After Clause 147, insert the following new clause:
("Unauthorised parking of vehicles on private land in England and Wales
Parking on private land:
The Secretary of State may make an order to control the use of immobilisation devices on private land with special regard to the safety of persons parked temporarily on such land whether with authority or not.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee on an amendment similar to this I suggested that it would be helpful to the Government to produce an amendment of this nature which is intended to enable them to make an order suitable for exercising control over wheel-clamping as soon as they are ready to do so without waiting for the next primary legislation opportunity.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that in writing to the Magistrates' Association on 4th March this year the Home Office official concerned said:
"Although the consultation period formally ended last May [1993] as you know the Government is still considering what action it might be appropriate to take in relation to this problem. As you will appreciate the consultation did not produce a consensus of opinion on the six options canvassed. The aim is to ensure that any measure to prevent or deter irresponsible or heavy-handed wheel-clamping on private land does not prevent land owners from taking sensible measures to control genuine parking problems".
One sees the problem the Home Office faces in advising my noble friend on how the problem should be tackled. But it is important that the Government have the facility to introduce necessary regulation, because lack of regulation means that in England and Wales some car-clamping firms are turning parking prevention into a lucrative business, often clamping vehicles indiscriminately and charging exorbitant fines— sometimes as high as £240—before releasing a vehicle.
Offenders clamped in recent months by over-zealous contractors, usually working on a commission basis, included a doctor's car, a police car, a car parked by a motorist helping at the scene of an accident and a car with the engine still running and the owner sitting in it. It sounds absurd, but those things happen and they

1783
should not be allowed to. In some cases the people concerned feel their safety is threatened by these aggressive measures on any land, private or otherwise.
A recent case involved a woman who was driving her husband to a hospital for brain surgery. She had her car clamped while she stopped to ask directions. On another occasion a taxi driver was clamped on land as he left his car to collect a disabled passenger from a library. On another occasion a mother-to-be went into labour after her car was clamped outside a coach station. The clampers refused to release it until the full fee, which she did not have, was paid. She had to be taken to hospital in an ambulance.
Such incidents could lead to all kinds of trouble for government—whatever government—and they will be made to look frightfully silly and most incompetent if they do not have handy some legislation to stop it when a serious case arises where someone is raped or attacked or a clamped car catches fire and the driver does not want to get out because he or she is frightened of the aggressive people around them. One can imagine all kinds of situations. It would help my noble friend if it were possible for the necessary regulations to be introduced.
I do not hold any brief for the wording I have used. I have put particular accent on safety because that is what matters. People may be unsafe either because they feel unsafe or because there is real danger around them. We could do with a suitable clause such as the one I have suggested. I hope that at the next stage of the Bill my noble friend the Minister will come forward with a suitable amendment to give himself the protection from the danger that will occur in the future. The legislation can then be brought in as soon as people have made up their minds as to what they can say and do in order to achieve their intended aims. I beg to move.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has said. This has become a major racket. Some action has been taken in Scotland as a result of a judicial decision, but I find it very disappointing that we have still had no action to deal with this problem. The people who are involved in this extremely lucrative business are preying 0n the elderly and on people with disabilities, and often they direct their activities against women on their own. We cannot afford to allow this truly scandalous situation to continue. I very much hope that we shall have a clear indication that if this amendment is not acceptable there will be a government amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment, as it was to my noble friend's amendment at Committee stage. I should very much like to endorse what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, have said. It is indeed a lucrative business—estimated at around £150 million a year. It is also an extremely easy business to get into. All one needs is a mobile phone and a bit of muscle. There is no bureaucratic procedure to follow and operators can and do charge whatever they like for
1784
this so-called service. No experience is needed and it is therefore little wonder that there are so many cowboy clampers.
The RAC has prepared a dossier on some of these cases. My noble friend has quoted some examples. I shall quote a few more, although not too many at this late hour. Clampers in Doncaster threatened to hold a mother's three year-old daughter ransom until she collected £60 in cash from the bank. Clampers demanded a female motorist's gold tooth as payment on scrap land in Sheffield. A hearse was clamped outside a church—one should not laugh at that as it is a true case. Clampers insisted on taking a wedding ring from the wife of a motorist before releasing the clamp. An RAC patrol van was clamped while going to the assistance of a member in Birmingham. The clamp was not released until six hours after the £70 fee was paid and therefore priority assistance to other members was delayed as a result. In England and Wales the police are often summoned by clamped motorists. However, until there has been a breach of the peace, the police are usually unable to act as clamping on private land is a civil matter. Therefore, we have the ridiculous situation where thousands of hours of police time are wasted because cases are rarely clear cut.
A recent court case illustrates the need for urgent action. Roadrunner Security, which operated in the Slough-High Wycombe area, were recently found guilty of obtaining money by deception. The two owners of Roadrunner Security were found guilty of immobilising 23 cars parked on waste land in High Wycombe without the landowner's permission. The magistrates fined one of them £2,240 and another £1,400, and they were ordered to pay £1,399 compensation to their victims and £75 in costs. This case begs the question: How many other clamping firms are clamping on land without the owner's permission to do so? That is a matter which should be dealt with.
There are a number of things which I should like to see included in any code of practice or licence which might be issued to wheelclampers in future. A warning notice should be clearly displayed and be capable of being illuminated during the hours of darkness. They should certainly say that parking without permission is not allowed and that vehicles parked without permission are liable to be clamped. The fee for removing the wheel clamp and the name, address and telephone number of the clamping agent should be given.
The fee for the removal of the clamp should not exceed the service and administration costs of the clamping service and must not exceed the maximum clamping fee payable for illegal parking on the public road which, as your Lordships are aware, is strictly controlled whether carried out by the police or local authorities. The clamp must be removed within a reasonable length of time—I suggest one hour. Any clamp not removed within three hours of contacting the clamping people should be removed free of charge.
A notice should be affixed to the vehicle in such a manner as to cause no damage thereto, indicating that a wheel clamp has been applied and giving clear instructions as to the means of securing the release of the vehicle. Last but by no means least, and as I referred

1785
to the matter when it was dealt with at Committee stage, there should be an exemption for orange badge holders as there is in police and local authority clamping areas on the public highway.
I suggest that the wheel clamp should not be affixed —and my noble friend gave an example —where the whereabouts of the driver can easily and quickly be ascertained. Last time at Committee stage I referred to the promises made by the Government during the past two years. I remind my noble friend that it was in July 1992, which is two years ago now. The Minister of State at the Home Office said,
"I too am aware of the considerable concerns on the subject".
He went on to say,
"I give him [his honourable friend] the assurance that we will look at the matter with all urgency".
I hope that my noble friend will consider this amendment with a great deal of attention. I am also interested in the question which my noble friend posed. If the Government come up with proposals, is legislation required? If it is, would not the type of amendment which my noble friend has put forward be the ideal solution to at least getting something in preparation for when my noble and learned friend is ready to make his regulations?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being here when the amendment was called. I should like to put forward the case for where we live in Westminster Gardens, Marsham Street. The residents have bought the freehold and we own the property. We have car parking space. We have notices out saying "Private property, no parking. Wheel clamping in operation. Fine £50". We are unable to use our wheel clamp because we do not think that the law is on our side, yet the parking is free to residents and no one else. Will my noble and learned friend enlighten me as to what we should do?
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, this is a theme which has arisen on a number of occasions, and of course it arose in Committee. I feel sometimes that there is something to be said for the clarity of the common law of Scotland, which resolved this matter some two years ago, and which has lain behind some of the questions on this matter that have been asked. The law of Scotland has settled the matter in one direction, but it is not necessarily one which would appeal to all those concerned because what the speeches of noble Lords—in particular that of my noble friend Lord Brabazon—have shown is that this matter is one of some complexity.
My noble friend put forward a number of considerations which he thought would be appropriate to be included in any code of practice in this area. The concerns that he put forward have been reflected in the consultation which has taken place over the years, and have been considered recently by officials in the Home Office. Whatever noble Lords may think—I well understand that they think that this has taken a considerable time—the matter has been, and is, under consideration by the Home Office.
I cannot say when that consideration will bear fruit, but the matter has not been forgotten or overlooked.
1786
Your Lordships' obvious concern provides a spur to those in the office who are considering it. Despite what was said about his amendment by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I do not believe that your Lordships will think that this is the appropriate way to lake the matter forward.
Your Lordships are always concerned about the scope of primary and secondary legislation, and might think that this would be much too wide a power to give to the Secretary of State, because the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Brabazon are the kinds of issue upon which your Lordships would wish to take a view. If what is envisaged is a system whereby certain kinds of wheel clamping in certain conditions were to be legalised and others not, your Lordships would wish to consider that. The criteria for legal and illegal clamping is a matter upon which Parliament should have a say in the full sense of legislation.
As I say, I cannot say when legislation on this matter will come forward. Legislation will be required to put the matter on the clear footing that your Lordships desire. I can assure your Lordships, as I fear I have done previously, and perhaps without particular effect, that the matter is under consideration. It has not been forgotten, and your Lordships' concerns are borne: in mind.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, will he advise the House whether the department will be able to take a decision quicker than it did on Sunday trading, which took nearly 10 years?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I hope that it will be sooner than that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most disappointed that my noble and learned friend does not take advantage of something along the lines of my amendment, because there is a disaster waiting to happen. Sooner or later someone will be killed by mistake. The Government will then look very silly. I might find myself drawing attention to the fact that they did not take an opportunity to have a regulation waiting.
Although on this occasion and earlier my noble and learned friend has said that the matter is being actively considered, and the fact that we have discussed it helps, if there is no impetus it naturally is pushed into the waiting tray rather than into the take-action-tomorrow tray. The great advantage of having handy the power to make an order is that it will encourage people to work faster.
However, the Government will be the loser when the disaster occurs and, on that rather gloomy note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.45 a.m.
Schedule 8 [Increase of Fines]:
Lord Rodger of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 158, line 25, at end insert

("Part III Increase of penalties for certain firearms offences

(1)
Enactment creating offence

(2)
Penalty enactment

(3)
Old maximum term
of imprisonment

(4)
New maximum term
of imprisonment

FIREARMS ACT 1968 (c.27).

Offences under section 1(1) committed in an aggravated form

Schedule 6,

5 years.

7 years.

within the meaning of section 4(4) (possessing etc. shortened

column 4.

shot gun or converted firearm without firearm certificate).

Offences under section 1(1) in any other case (possessing etc.

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

firearms or ammunition without firearm certificate).

column 4.

Offences under section 2(1) (possessing etc. shot gun without

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

shot gun certificate).

column 4.

Offences under section 3(1) (trading in firearms without being

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

registered as a firearms dealer).

column 4.

Offences under section 3(2) (selling firearms to persons without a

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

certificate).

column 4.

Offences under section 3(3) (repairing, testing etc. firearm for

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

person without a certificate).

column 4.

Offences under section 3(5) (falsifying certificate, etc., with view

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

to acquisition of firearm).

column 4.

Offences under section 4(1) (shortening a shot gun).

Schedule 6,

5 years.

7 years.

column 4.

Offences under section 4(3) (conversion of firearms).

Schedule 6,

5 years.

7 years.

column 4.

Offences under section 5(1) (possessing or distributing prohibited

Schedule 6,

5 years.

10 years.

weapons or ammunition).

column 4.

Offences under section 5(1A) (possessing or distributing other

Schedule 6,

(a) On summary

(a) On summary

prohibited weapons).

column 4.

conviction,

conviction,

3 months.

6 months.

(b) On conviction

(b) On conviction

on indictment,

on indictment,

2 years.

10 years.

Offences under section 19 (carrying loaded firearm other than air

Schedule 6,

5 years.

7 years.

weapon in public place).

column 4.

Offences under section 20(1) (trespassing with firearm other than

Schedule 6,

5 years.

7 years.

air weapon in a building).

column 4.

Offences under section 21(4) (contravention of provisions

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

denying firearms to ex-prisoners and the like).

column 4.

Offences under section 21(5) (supplying firearms to person

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

denied them under section 21).

column 4.

Offences under section 42 (failure to comply with instructions in

Schedule 6,

3 years.

5 years.

firearm certificate when transferring firearm to person other

column 4.

than registered dealer; failure to report transaction to police).

FIREARMS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1981 (SI 1981/155 (NI 2))

Offences under Article 3(1) (possessing etc. firearms or

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years.

ammunition without firearm certificate).

column 4.

Offences under Article 4(1) (trading in firearms without being

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years.

registered as a firearms dealer).

column 4.

Offences under Article 4(2) (selling firearms to persons without a

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years.

certificate).

column 4.

Offences under Article 4(3) (repairing, testing etc. firearm for

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years.

person without a certificate).

column 4.

Offences under Article 4(4) (falsifying certificate, etc., with view

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years.

to acquisition of firearm).

column 4.

Offences under Article 5(1) (shortening a shot gun).

Schedule 2,

5 years.

7 years.

column 4.

Offences under Article 5(3) (conversion of firearms).

Schedule 2,

5 years.

7 years.

column 4.

Offences under Article 6(1) (possessing or distribution prohibited

Schedule 2,

5 years.

10 years.

weapons or ammunition).

column 4.

Offences under Article 6(1A) (possessing or distributing other

Schedule 2,

(a) On summary

(a) On summary

prohibited weapons).

column 4.

conviction,

conviction

3 months.

6 months.

(b) On conviction

(b) On conviction

on indictment,

on indictment,

2 years.

10 years.

Offences under Article 22(5) (contravention of provisions

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years.

denying firearms to ex-prisoners and the like).

column 4.

Offences under Article 22(7) (supplying firearms to person

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years.

denied them under Article 22).

column 4.

Offences under Article 43 (failure to comply with instructions in

Schedule 2,

3 years.

5 years")

firearm certificate when transferring firearm to person other

column 4.

than registered dealer; failure to report transaction to police).

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 148 [Extraditionprocedures]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 168:
Page 119, line 15, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsection (5)").
Page 120, line 3, after first ("powers") insert (", as nearly as may be").
Page 120, line 7, after ("him"") insert ("; and section 16(1) (c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (costs on dismissal) shall apply accordingly reading the reference to the dismissal of the information as a reference to the discharge of the person arrested.";").
Page 120, line 7, leave out ("and") and insert:
("( ) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) If a court of committal in England and Wales exercises its power to adjourn the case it shall on so doing remand the person arrested in custody or on bail.";
( ) in subsection (4), for the words from "warrant the trial" to the end there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by the arrested person if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him; and"). Page 120, line 11, at end insert:
"( ) In section 22 (International Convention cases), in subsection (5), for the words from "warrant his trial" to the end, there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by that person if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him".
( ) In section 35 (interpretation), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3) For the purposes of the application of this Act by virtue of any Order in Council in force under it or section 2 of the Extradition Act: 1870, any reference in this Act to evidence making a case requiring an answer by an accused person shall be taken to indicate a determination of the same question as is indicated by a reference (however expressed) in any such Order (or arrangements embodied or recited in it) to evidence warranting or justifying the committal for trial of an accused person."."). Page 120, line 21, leave out second ("and") and insert: ("( ) after paragraph 6(1) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(1A) If the metropolitan magistrate exercises his power to adjourn the case he shall on so doing remand the prisoner either in custody or on bail."; and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a series of small, technical amendments relating to the transfer procedures and in particular the effect of their changes on extradition procedures. I beg to move. On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 169:
After Clause 150, insert the following new clause:
("British transport police powers
Powers of British transport police; emergencies and requests for assistance

. —(1) Section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (transport police) shall—

(a) in its application to England and Wales, have effect subject to subsections (2) and (3) below; and

(b) in its application to Scotland, have effect subject to subsections (4) and (5) below.

(2) Notwithstanding the restrictions in subsection (1A) of that section on the powers of a constable appointed under subsection (1) of that section, such a constable may exercise his powers as a constable in any place—

(a) if he reasonably believes that it is appropriate for him to do so—

(i) to prevent or in consequence of the commission of an arrestable offence,

1790

(ii) to prevent injury to any person,

(iii) to safeguard property,

(iv) to secure, or prevent the destruction of, evidence which is relevant to proceedings for a criminal offence, or

(v) in any other emergency; or

(b) if any person has requested him to do so in order to assist him.

(3) Where any constable is acting as such only by virtue of subsection (2) (b) above and the person there mentioned is a constable who is a member of another police force, the police authority who are responsible for that constable shall also be responsible for the first-mentioned constable's acts and defaults as if he were a member of their force.

(4) Notwithstanding the restrictions in subsection (4) (b) of that section on the powers of a constable appointed under subsection (2) of that section, such a constable may exercise his; powers as a constable elsewhere than in the places mentioned in subsection (4) (a) of that section—

(a) if he reasonably believes that it is appropriate for him to do so—

(i) to prevent or in consequence of the commission of an offence for the commission of which a person may be apprehended without warrant,

(ii) to prevent injury to any person,

(iii) to safeguard property,

(iv) to secure, or prevent the destruction of, evidence which is relevant to proceedings for a criminal offence, or

(v) in any other emergency; or

(b) if any person has requested him to do so in order to assist him.

(5) Where any constable is acting as such only by virtue of subsection (4) (b) above and the person there mentioned is; a constable who is a member of another police force, the police authority who are responsible for that constable shall also be responsible for the first-mentioned constable's acts and defaults as if he were a member of their force.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with two issues. The first is that the existing area of jurisdiction of the British Transport Police does not enable its officers to act with constabulary powers in the event of emergencies away from the railways. The second issue is that, following privatisation, some parts of the railway network under franchise—for instance, stabling yards—will not be included within their area of jurisdiction.
The first of those issues was raised during our debate on the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill, which the House will recall had to be put through in a single day following an error in the drafting of the rail privatisation legislation. On that occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"I know that the British Transport Police provided the Department of Transport with detailed and indeed quantified information about the matter. The Department of Transport is, in turn, taking it up with my department to see if and how the issue can be addressed. Clearly this is a matter which relates to wider police powers in general. I shall certainly see that the matter is looked at".—[Official Report, 24/3/94; col. 823.]
In reply to a point which I made, he later said:
"I will also see that I am adequately and suitably briefed to answer the noble Lord's amendment if he intends to put it down"—
that is to this Bill—
"which perhaps he may not".—[col. 824.]
As the House will realise, the noble Lord has indeed decided to put this amendment down because it is most important that the issues involved should now be clarified as much as possible.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the extension of British Transport Police powers off the railways. It is generally conceded that there are occasions when

1791
British Transport Police are required to act as constables away from the railways; for example, when they are called upon to assist a member of the public beyond the confines of British Rail property, or in an emergency, or when they are called upon to assist a police officer in a Home Department police force. At present, when constables act in that emergency situation, they are confronted with a number of quite substantial problems. First, it is unlawful if they exercise any power above that of a private citizen. Secondly, they are acting without the powers of a constable, despite the fact that they are acting in precisely that capacity. Of course, in those circumstances, they would not be subject to legislation relating to complaints against the police.
That situation should be clarified by defining the jurisdiction of British transport police officers so that they can deal with situations in which they find themselves on a routine basis; for example, when they respond to requests for assistance from another police constable or a member of the public or where, in the course of the emergency situation, it is clearly desirable that they should take some form of action as constables.
With regard to the jurisdiction in relation to property when one is dealing with the post-privatisation situation, as I indicated earlier, most railway franchise operators, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, are required to have a licence issued by Railtrack. In most cases, to obtain such a licence, they must enter into a policing agreement with the British transport police. That in turn gives the officers concerned jurisdiction.
However, some franchise holders—for example, those companies which will operate freight and stabling yards—will not have to have a licence. By definition, they will not have to enter into an agreement with the British transport police. That would mean that British transport police officers might see a crime being committed in a freight yard but they would be unable to act within their powers to prevent it and they would have to call for support from a Home Department police force. That makes no sense at all. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to indicate what action the Government are to take to deal with the situation, which is, as I believe the noble and learned Lord will have been informed, causing a substantial amount of disquiet. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has, in short compass, raised matters of considerable interest and importance to your Lordships.
As he said, constables of the British transport police are confined in their jurisdiction to railway premises and the surrounding vicinity or to the pursuit of crimes committed on railway premises. That is a perfectly logical position. Those constables do not come under the authority of the chief constable of the local force and the day-to-day policing of the locality is not their professional concern.
The two points which the noble Lord raised were, first, the matter of the jurisdiction of those officers when they move away from the railways and are requested to assist other police officers or members of the public.
1792
The noble Lord has tabled an amendment which tries to define that jurisdiction. But I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to recognise that there is a fundamental constitutional problem in relation to the fact that the British transport police are, in one sense, a national force, and therefore it is important—and I know that the noble Lord takes a view as to the importance of the local nature of the police force—to get right the jurisdictional aspect.
I can say to the noble Lord—as was said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers when the matter was raised previously—that the Home Office and the Department of Transport are looking into the problems which the noble Lord has raised. As I said, we are discussing difficult issues which involve legal and constitutional matters. The noble Lord has moved an amendment which gives certain powers to the British transport police. Although the noble Lord has included certain restrictions, those powers are, by their very nature, quite wide. In some sense at least, they would give the British transport police constables a roving national jurisdiction to intervene in certain circumstances. That fact raises certain issues and is under active consideration.
The noble Lord's further point arises out of the privatisation. As he said, the vast majority of those who hold licences have licences which require the British transport police to use them for core police activities such as safety, anti-terrorism, and so on. But, as the noble Lord said, there is a small number of exempt operators who will not be required to use the police. As the noble Lord knows, that is a very small proportion.
Nonetheless, the noble Lord has raised a matter of considerable interest. I can undertake to draw it to the attention of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Home Secretary so that it can also be fed into their discussions. I cannot give a timescale for the matter. It is clearly a matter which requires consideration. But, as I said, it is a delicate matter. The Government recognise and are addressing the matter of the jurisdiction. As I believe the noble Lord knows, it is not a new or an easy question. However, we shall do our best to bring forward an acceptable answer.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He will not be astonished to learn that I do not propose to continue the debate as it is nearly two o'clock in the morning. However, I can say that I welcome the noble and learned Lord's response to the second leg of my argument, if I may so describe it. Although it is a limited issue, as the noble and learned Lord rightly said, it needs to be addressed with some degree of urgency. The wider question dealing with the extension of police powers in emergency situations is, again, a matter of considerable importance. I hope that we shall see some progress in the matter with a reasonable degree of despatch. Nevertheless, I have made my point and I intend to follow up the matter both with the Home Office and the Department of Transport in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 169ZA:
Before Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
Procuring disclosure of computer-held personal information

. —(l) In section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1984 (prohibitions in relation to personal data, including its disclosure), after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(6) A person who procures the disclosure to him of personal data the disclosure of which to him is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above knowing or having reason to believe that the disclosure constitutes such a contravention shall be guilty of an offence."

(2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1) above—

(a) in subsection (5) of that section, after the word "other" there shall be inserted the word "foregoing"; and

(b) in section 28 (exemptions: crime and taxation), in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "contravening" there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of section 5(2) (d) procuring the contravention of; and

(ii) after the words "to make" there shall be inserted the words "or (in the case of section 5(2) (d)) to procure".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 169ZB:
After Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
("Closed-circuit television by local authorities
Local authority powers to provide closed-circuit television

.—(1) Without prejudice to any power which they may exercise for those purposes under any other enactment, a local authority may take such of the following steps as they consider will, in relation to their area, promote the prevention of crime or the welfare of the victims of crime—

(a) providing apparatus for recording visual images of events occurring on any land in their area;

(b) providing within their area a telecommunications system which, under Part II of the Telecommunications Act 1984, may be run without a licence;

(c) arranging for the provision of any other description of telecommunications system within their area or between any land in their area and any building occupied by a public authority.

(2) Any power to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, any apparatus includes power to maintain, or operate, or, as the case may be, to arrange for the maintenance or operation of, that apparatus.

(3) Before taking such a step under this section, a local authority shall consult the chief officer of police for the police area in which the step is to be taken.

(4) In this section—

"chief officer of police", in relation to a police area in Scotland, means the chief constable of a police force maintained for that area;

"local authority"—

(a) in England and Wales, means a county council or district council; and

(b) in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 235(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973; and

"telecommunications system" has the meaning given in section 4 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and "licence" means a licence under section 7 of that Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee there was a rather brief debate on an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Flather to give local authorities specific powers to enable them to incur expenditure on installing closed circuit television surveillance systems in towns and cities. My noble friend said that the existing powers of local councils in that area were unclear and that they needed to be clarified.
At that time, the Government were sympathetic to the aims of the amendment and it was said that they would consider the matter further. The amendment was then withdrawn. The proposed new clause is a result of the consideration that was given to the points made in Committee. The purpose of the clause is simply to remove the doubt which exists about the powers that are available to local councils outside London to enable them to spend money on such closed circuit televisions in town centres and other areas which are not council property. In that sense, it is essentially a technical amendment. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that the local authority associations will be grateful to the Government for this new clause which is one they have been pressing the Government to adopt.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 169A:
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
("Copyright and illicit recordings: enforcement of offences
Enforcement of certain offences relating to copyright and illicit recordings

.—(1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

(2) After section 107 (offences relating to copyright) there shall be inserted the following section—

"Enforcement by local weights and measures authority.
107A.—(1) It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority to enforce within their area the provisions of section 107.
(2) The following provisions of the Trade Description!; Act 1968 apply in relation to the enforcement of that section by such an authority as in relation to the enforcement of that Act—

section 27 (power to make test purchases),

section 28 (power to enter premises and inspect and seize goods and documents),

section 29 (obstruction of authorised officers), and

section 33 (compensation for loss, &c. of goods seized).

(3) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to the enforcement of section 10'' in Northern Ireland, but it is the duty of the Department of Economic Development to enforce that section in Northern Ireland.
For that purpose the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 specified in subsection (2) apply as if for the references to a local weights and measures authority and any officer of such an authority there were substituted references to that Department and any of its officers.
(4) Any enactment which authorises, the disclosure of information for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 shall apply as if section 107 were contained in that Act and as if the functions of any person in relation to the enforcement of that section were functions under that Act.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising a local weights and measures authority to bring proceedings in Scotland for an offence.".
(3) After section 198 (offences relating to illicit recordings) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Enforcement by local weights and measures authority.
198A.—(1) It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority to enforce within their area the provisions of section 198.
(2) The following provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 apply in relation to the enforcement of that section by such an authority as in relation to the enforcement of that Act—

section 27(power to make test purchases),

1795

section 28 (power to enter premises and inspect and seize goods and documents),

section 29 (obstruction of authorised officers), and

section 33 (compensation for loss, &c. of goods seized).

(3) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to the enforcement of section 198 in Northern Ireland, but it is the duty of the Department of Economic Development to enforce that section in Northern Ireland.
For that purpose the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 specified in subsection (2) apply as if for the references to a local weights and measures authority and any officer of such an authority there were substituted references to that Department and any of its officers.
(4) Any enactment which authorises the disclosure of information for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 shall apply as if section 198 were contained in that Act and as if the functions of any person in relation to the enforcement of that section were functions under that Act.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising a local weights and measures authority to bring proceedings in Scotland for an offence.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 169A, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 214A. This amendment arises out of an amendment which was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. As I indicated on that occasion, the Government were sympathetic to the aims of that amendment and I undertook to take this away and consider the matter. I am accordingly happy to bring an amendment forward on this occasion.
I know that copyright owners are active in pursuing pirates, and where appropriate the police also take action. However, there are many links between copyright piracy and counterfeiting of trade marks. As trading standards officers are already actively involved in enforcing trade mark offences, it is logical to empower them also to take action against copyright piracy. If this new clause is enacted, I am sure that the different enforcement agencies—that is, the police and trading standards officers—will be able to co-operate to avoid duplication of effort. I trust that copyright owners will continue to play an active part in enforcement activities.
This amendment also empowers trading standards officers to enforce the offences relating to illicit recordings of performances—so-called bootleg copies. As these copies are closely linked to pirate copies, it is sensible to take this opportunity additionally to allow trading standards officers to enforce those offences. The Government are aware that local authorities may view this amendment as imposing an additional burden on them. I am also aware of course that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that no additional resources would be required, and this may indeed prove to be the case. However, in order to allow for proper consultations to take place with the local authority associations, this amendment will not come into immediate effect. Nonetheless, the amendment to Clause 159 will allow this amendment to have effect throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, there is a tradition with this amendment to speak to it at about two o'clock in the
1796
morning. When I first spoke to it, it was at just about this time. I am most grateful to the Minister for acceding to the suggestion that I made at the Committee stage at a similar hour of the morning. Indeed, he has been generous in going beyond the scope of the amendment that I first proposed. I am quite sure that all those people who are involved in this area of copyright and illicit recordings will be pleased that the Government have taken the opportunity to bring this amendment forward. Clearly, this is a matter which is important to the industry; and I am sure, as I say, that it will be most grateful. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 153 [Sale of tickets for designated football matches by unauthorised persons]:
[Amendments Nos. 170 to 174 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 193A and 197A had been with-drawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 154 [Touting for hire car services]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 125, line 27, after ("154") insert ("of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. When the Bill was reprinted after the Committee stage, the words, "of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994" were not inserted in Clause 154 as they should have been. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 155 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 125, line 36, after ("repealed") insert ("or revoked").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 176A:
Page 162, leave out lines 1 to 29
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 158. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Amendment No. 177A has been marshalled in the wrong place on the Marshalled List and should be called after Amendment No. 176A and before Amendment No. 177.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 162, line 34, at end insert:
( "Treatment of mental condition of offenders placed on probation

. —(1) Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (requirement in probation order for treatment of offender's mental condition) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) after the words "such part" there shall be inserted the words "or parts"; and

1797

(b) after the words "medical practitioner" there shall be inserted the words "or a chartered psychologist (or both, for different parts)".

(3) In sub-paragraph (3) (c), after the words "medical practitioner" there shall be inserted the words "or chartered psychologist (or both)".

(4) In sub-paragraphs (6) and (8), after the words "medical practitioner" (wherever they occur) there shall be inserted the words "or chartered psychologist".

(5) In sub-paragraph (10), after the words "In this paragraph" there shall be inserted the words "—

"chartered psychologist" means a person for the time being listed in the British Psychological Society's Register of Chartered Psychologists; and".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a very similar amendment at Committee stage on 16th June. The purpose of that amendment was to allow conditions of treatment for a medical condition in a probation order to be carried out by a clinical psychologist. The present law appears to restrict such treatment conditions to treatment carried out by or under the direction of a duly qualified medical practitioner. But multi-disciplinary treatment in psychiatric services has ensured that clinical psychologists have developed expertise in providing treatment to offender patients. In some cases that is the most appropriate form of treatment.
Ways have been found to get round the present law, but it seemed better to change the law and clarify and regularise the position. That was the reason for the amendment that I moved.
The noble Earl said in responding that he sympathised with the amendment and if I was willing to withdraw it he would look at it and perhaps come forward with an amendment at Report stage which would get over the technical difficulties with my amendment. Amendment No. 177A is that amendment. I am most grateful to the Minister for producing it.
In his letter to me explaining the position, he said:
"we recognise that, in practice, clinical psychologists already regularly take on the responsibility for the supervision of offenders who are on probation and who are required to undergo treatment for a mental condition. This is considered to be quite effective in treating their offending behaviour.
The amendment provides the opportunity to specify that only a chartered psychologist, who is a person who is listed on the British Psychological Society's Register of Chartered Psychologists, may direct or carry out this treatment. The advantage of this formulation is that it does not confine to clinical psychologists the ability to treat offenders on probation. Forensic psychologists and counselling psychologists, for example, can also have a valuable role in the treatment.
The wording of the amendment also ensures that any psychologist who undertakes treatment will be properly qualified since it is quite possible for a person to complete a course of psychology and take up practice, but only chartered psychologists are recognised by the profession and are bound by the profession's code of ethics".
I hope that that is sufficient explanation to make the matter clear. I have great pleasure in moving the amendment and again thanking the noble Earl for supplying it. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness would confirm what is already being done. The amendment specifies that only a chartered psychologist may direct or carry out treatment for a mental condition under a probation order with a requirement. This wording of the amendment does not confine to clinical psychologists the ability to treat
1798
offenders on probation. Forensic psychologists and counselling psychologists can also have a valuable role in the treatment.
The amendment requires that any psychologist who is undertaking treatment must be properly qualified. It is quite possible for a person to complete a course in psychology and then to take up a practice, but it would be only chartered psychologists who are recognised by the profession and who are bound by the profession's code of ethics who would be allowed under this amendment to treat offenders with a mental condition.
I welcome and support the noble Baroness's amendment, which I advise your Lordships to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 165, line 24, at end insert:
("Transfers of proceedings
.In section 62(10) of the Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984 (power of court to draw inferences from failure of accused to consent to provide intimate sample), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(aa) a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under—

(i) section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (application for dismissal of charge of serious fraud in respect of which notice of transfer has been given under section 4 of that Act); or

(ii) paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (application for dismissal of charge of violent or sexual offence involving child in respect of which notice of transfer has been given under section 53 of that Act); and".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 177, which was taken with Amendment No. 56.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 168, line 39, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords;, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 180 and 181.
The amendments stipulate that courts may dispense with pre-sentence reports only if their sentence would be the same whatever the content of any such report. Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 suites that a court must consider a pre-sentence report prepared by a probation officer or social worker before passing a custodial sentence on an offender. The only exception is where the offence is triable only on indictment—that is, murder, manslaughter, rape, causing grievous bodily harm or robbery—and the court considers such a report to be unnecessary.
Section 6 of the 1991 Act required courts also to obtain pre-sentence reports before passing certain community sentences such as community service orders and probation orders with certain additional conditions. This was based on the assumption that before passing such a sentence it made sense to obtain a report containing an assessment of the offender's suitability for it and for alternative non-custodial sentences made by the agency which would be responsible for supervising the sentence.
However, the Bill empowers courts to dispense with reports before passing these sentences if they consider that obtaining a report is unnecessary. These amendments would retain the mandatory requirement to obtain a pre-sentence report in these cases unless the court is satisfied that its sentence will be the same whatever the content of a pre-sentence report. The circumstances in which a court might reach the latter conclusion could include: first, where the offender is already serving a prison sentence and the court's intended sentence would not increase the overall length of time which he would have to spend in prison; secondly, where the envisaged sentence falls at the lower end of the range of sentences which are possible for the offence within Court of Appeal guidelines, for example in a drugs case; and, thirdly, where the offender has been remanded in custody and the short custodial sentence which the court considers appropriate would result in his immediate release because of the time spent on remand. In other cases, however, the court would be required to obtain a pre-sentence report.
Those who have been involved with sentencing know the immense value of having a really up-to-date pre-sentence report. There are a great many reasons why that is important. The reasons have been discussed previously and at this time of night I shall not enlarge on them. However, I believe that the report is of extreme importance except in those cases where the sentence would be the same whatever the content of the report. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, at this hour of the morning I certainly do not propose to extend the length of the debate. In passing, I have to say—I have said it once or twice before—that this is a classic example of how we should not be legislating. It is nearly 12 hours since this House met yesterday afternoon. This is a major issue. There are eight Members of your Lordships' House present. If there were a Division on the issue, the Government would be extremely lucky to find that they had a quorum. That is not an indication that I propose to put the matter to a vote but that I hope that serious consideration will be given to the way in which business is conducted in this House. It is absolutely absurd that important issues of this kind are being handled in this fashion. Last week we did not sit on a Friday. We could have had a useful debate on a number of the issues which have taken so much of our time today.
Having made that complaint—I propose to repeat it on many occasions in the future if we continue to organise our business in this extremely incompetent fashion—I simply say that I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. I very much hope that the remarks I have made will be heard by the Government. If this process continues serious difficulties will arise for them from many quarters of the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hear the bleat of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I would not say that I do not have some sympathy with him. He blames the Government for the situation. Of course, the Government are not entirely to blame for these matters.
1800
The business is very much a matter for your Lordships. If your Lordships decide to spend a long time talking about various subjects—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have put down more amendments than all the rest of the House put together today and yesterday.
2.15 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what on earth has that to do with it? We have not spent a long time discussing the amendments, we have been trying to consider the amendments which your Lordships have put down. They have been most unsatisfactory and that is why they need so much discussing. I am actually trying to be quite helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, always has a way of sidetracking us from what we were really trying to discuss, which in this case is the noble Baroness's amendment. Perhaps we may revert to it. Her amendments attempt to define the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report might be waived, and this will, of course, limit the court's discretion.
The amendments allow the court to dispense with a pre-sentence report only if it is of the opinion that the sentence which it will pass will be the same whatever the pre-sentence report says. This will mean that, in practice, it will rarely be possible to dispense with a pre-sentence report.
The amendments suggest that the court would be able to decide that the sentence which it would pass would be the same, whatever the content of the pre-sentence report. I am bound to say that I thought this seemed an absurdity because a court cannot possibly know in advance what sentence it might have passed if it had seen a pre-sentence report. How could it know that the sentence would not be any different from the sentence which it would have passed if it had not seen the pre-sentence report?
The definition in the amendment, far from adding a helpful explanation, is positively unhelpful. In any individual case, where a report is waived, it is impossible for the court to know whether the final outcome, in terms of the sentence, its length or its type, would have been different.
The present wording is clear and simple. It allows sentencers to decide, in the individual circumstances of a case, whether a pre-sentence report is necessary. The Appeal Court will, of course, in time provide further guidance. I suggest that further definition in the Bill is not necessary.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think that everything the noble Earl has said convinces me that an up-to-date pre-sentence report is essential. That is exactly what we tried to secure earlier on, but again it was at an unfortunate time of night or morning.
I do not waver at all in my opinion that it is essential to have pre-sentence reports which are up-to-date. This was just a way of trying to achieve that in a slightly different manner. I hope we shall come back to the matter at Third Reading. It is extremely important, if we are to get proper sentencing which will help the offender. So I give warning that I am quite certain we

1801
shall revert to this, and I reinforce the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to conducting business of this importance at this time of the morning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 179 to 182 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 171, line 28, leave out from ("than") to ("an") in line 32.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 172, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 173.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 184 and speak to Amendments Nos. 202 and 204 at the same time. These are technical amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 173, line 33, at end insert:
("(2) For the purposes of section 69 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (temporary provisions) the amendment made in that Act by this paragraph shall be treated, as from the time when this paragraph comes into force, as having been continued in force by the order made under subsection (3) of that section which has effect at that time.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this too is a purely technical amendment to ensure that an amendment to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 will fall to be renewed by Parliament each year. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Consequential Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 174, line 28, at end insert:
("Responsibility for fine for breach of requirements of secure training order
. In section 55(1A) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (power of court to order parent or guardian to pay fine imposed on child or young person), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(c) a court would impose a fine on a child or young person under section 4(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (breach of require-ments of supervision under secure training order),".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to make clear what happens when a juvenile who is subject to a secure training order is found to have been in breach of supervision and made subject to a fine.
As your Lordships know, the second half of a secure training order is served under supervision in the community. Under Clause 4, where an offender is in breach of that supervision, the court may either return the offender to the secure training centre for up to three months or impose a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
At Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Elton asked whether it would be the parents or the child who should pay the fine. We have considered the matter since then and have decided that the same arrangements should apply which apply in respect of fines imposed on
1802
youngsters of this age who fail to comply with requirements of a supervision order. This means in effect that where the juvenile is under 16 it is the duty of the court to order that the fine is to be paid not by the: juvenile but by the parent or guardian unless the court is; satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found or that it would be unreasonable to make an order for payment having regard to the circumstances of the case.
In the case of juveniles over the age of 16—there may be a small number of juveniles of that age who fail to comply with secure training order supervision—the court is not under a duty to make the parents pay but it will have a power to do so. I hope that noble Lords will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 186A to 186D:
Page 178, line 17, at end insert:
("Sexual offences: male rape
. In section 9(2) of the Theft Act 1968 (offences which if intended by a trespasser constitute burglar), for the words "raping any woman" there shall be substituted the words "raping any person".").
Page 179, line 14, at end insert:
("Sexual offences: male rape

.—(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 1(2) (reasonable grounds for belief in consent to intercourse), after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or man".

(3) In section 2(3) (restrictions on evidence at trials for rape etc.), after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or man".

(4) In section 7(2) (interpretation of terms used in the Act)—

(a) the words from "references" to "only);" shall be omitted; and

(b) for the words "and section 46 of that Act" there shall be substituted the words "section 46 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956".").

Page 179, line 14, at end insert:
("Sexual offences: male rape

.—(1) Section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a)—

(i) after the word "woman" in both places where it occurs there shall be inserted the words "or man";

(ii) for the words "woman's name nor her address" there shall be substituted the words "name nor the address of the woman or man";

(iii) after the words "of her" there shall be inserted the words "or him";

(iv) for the words "her lifetime" there shall be substituted the words "that person's lifetime"; and

(v) for the words "identify her" there shall be substituted the words "identify that person"; and

(b) in paragraph (b)—

(i) after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or man"; and

(ii) for the words "her lifetime" there shall be substituted the words "that person's lifetime".

(3) In subsection (5A), after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or man".

(4) In subsection (5B), for the words "woman's peace or comfort" there shall be substituted the words "peace or comfort of the woman or man".

(5) In subsection (6), in the definition of "complainant", after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or man".".

Page 183, line 22, at end insert:
("Sexual offences: male rape and buggery
. In Part I of Schedule 5 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (serious arrestable offences mentioned in section 116(2) (a) of that Act), for item 7 (buggery) there shall be substituted— "7.
Buggery with a person under the age of 16.".").
The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede when he moved Amendment No. 126B, which the House agreed to. With the leave of the House I should like to move all four amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 183, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In Article 3(1) (a), after the word "questioned" there shall be inserted the words "under caution".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was taken with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 188, line 14 at end insert:
(". For Schedule 5 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (supplementary provisions about the Parole Board) there shall be substituted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 5
THE PAROLE BOARD: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Status and capacity
1.—(1) The Board shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Board's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(2) It shall be within the capacity of the Board as a statutory corporation to do such things and enter into such transactions as are incidental to or conductive to the discharge of its functions under Part II of this Act.
Membership
2.—(1) The Board shall consist of a chairman and not less than four other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Board shall include among its members—

(a) a person who holds or has held judicial office.

(b) a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist;

(c) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of the supervision or after-care of discharged prisoners; and

(d) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders.

(3) A member of the Board—

(a) shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment;

(b) may resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State;

and a person who ceases to hold office as a member of the Board shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Payments to members
3.—(1) The Board may pay to each member such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) The Board may pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of any member such sums by way of pension, allowances or gratuities as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) If a person ceases to be a member otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances that make it right that he should receive compensation, the Secretary of State may direct the Board to make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.
(4)A determination or direction of the Secretary of State under this paragraph requires the approval of the Treasury.
Proceedings
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of section 32(5) of this Act, the arrangements relating to meetings of the Board shall be such as the Board may determine.
(2) The arrangements may provide for the discharge, under the general direction of the Board, of any of the Board's functions by a committee or by one or more of the members or employees of the Board.
(3) The validity of the proceedings of the Board shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member.
Staff
5.—(1) The Board may appoint such number of employees as it may determine.
(2) The remuneration and other conditions of service of the persons appointed under this paragraph shall be determined by the Board.
(3) Any determination under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall require the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury.
(4) The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 shall not require insurance to be effected by the Board.
6.—(1) Employment with the Board shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) at the end of the list of Other Bodies there shall be inserted—
"Parole Board.".
(2) The Board shall pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to this paragraph in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
Financial provisions
7.—(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Board—

(a) any expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Board by virtue of paragraph 3 or 5; and

(b) with the consent of the Treasury, such sums as he thinks fit for enabling the Board to meet other expenses.

(2) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under sub-paragraph (1) shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
Authentication of Board's seal
8. The application of the seal of the Board shall be authenticated by the signature of the Chairman or some other person authorised for the purpose.
Presumption of authenticity of documents issued by Board
9. Any document purporting to be an instrument issued by the Board and to be duly executed under the seal of the Board or to be signed on behalf of the Board shall be received in evidence and shall be deemed to be such an instrument unless the contrary is shown.
Accounts and audit
10.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Board—

(a) to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts;

(b) to prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct with the approval of the Treasury; and

(c) to send copies of each such statement to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General not later than 31st August next following the end of the financial year to which the statement relates.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts sent to him by the Board and shall lay a copy of every such statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(3) In this paragraph, "financial year" means the period beginning with the date on which the Board is incorporated and ending with the next following 31st March, and each successive period of twelve months.
Reports
11. The Board shall as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year make to the Secretary of State a report on the performance of its functions during the year; and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 142. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 189 and 190:
Page 189, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 43(1) (a), the words "trial or".").

Page 189, line 13, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 43(2) (b) and (c), the words "trial or".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment Nos. 191 and 192:
Page 189, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert:
("In section 2(1), the word "unlawful".") .
Page 189, line 14, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 3(1), the word "unlawful".") .
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving these amendments I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 197. These are purely technical amendments. They are consequential upon your Lordships' decision to accept at Committee stage an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which clarifies that it is an offence for a man to rape his wife. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 189, line 30, at end insert:

("1967 c.60.

Sexual Offences Act 1967.

In section 1(1), the words "but subject to the provisions of the next following sec- tion". Section 1(5). Section 2.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193A not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 194 and 195:
Page 189, line 40, column 3, leave out from ("from") to end of line 42 and insert:

(""section 13(3)" to "but"").

Page 190, line 18, at end insert:

("1973 c. 62.

Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

In section 32(1) (b), the words "tried or".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these two amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 190, line 18, at end insert:

("1974 c.23.

Juries Act 1974.

In section 10, the words "physical disa-bility or".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential to the new clause on disabled persons and jury service which was accepted by the House on 7th July. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 190, line 25, at end insert:
("1976 c. 82. Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, Section 1(1).")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was; spoken to with Amendment No. 191. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 190, line 25, at end insert:

("1976 c. 82.

Sexual Offence (Amendment) Act 1976.

In section 7(2), the words from "referen-ces" to "only);".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 126B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 190, line 27, at end insert:

("1978 c. 30.

Interpretation Act 1978.

In Schedule 1, para-graph (a) of the defini-tion of "Committed for trial".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 190, line 53, at end insert:

("1980 c. 62.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

In section 80, subsec-tion (5); in subsection (7), paragraph (d) and the word "; or" im-mediately preceding that paragraph; and subsection (8).").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 153B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos 199 and 200:
Page 190, line 53, at end insert:

("1981 c. 47.

Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

In section 2(2) (g), the words "or committed for trial".").

Page 190, line 54, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 1(2), the words "trial or".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 were spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 191, line 3, at end insert:

("S.I. 1982/1536 (N.I. 19)

Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.

In Article 3, in para-graph (1), the words "and Article 5 (merch-ant seamen)" and para-graph (4). Article 5").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 191, column 3, leave out line 33.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 184. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 192, line 13, column 3, at end insert ("section 50(4)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 192, line 13, column 3, at end insert: ("Section 52(2).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 184. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 192, line 17, at end insert:
("S.I. 1992/1829. Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1992. In Article 3, the words from "and 39" to "licence)" and the words "and (4)".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 192, line 21, after second ("the") insert (", Sexual Offences Act 1967, the").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 192, line 21, after ("1968") insert (", the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 126B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 207 and 208:
Page 192, line 21, leave out ("and").
Page 192, line 22, at end insert (", the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 159 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 126, line 33, after ("section") insert ("75 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 124A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 126, line 44, leave out ("75") and insert ("74").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that this amendment goes with an amendment which was accepted earlier. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 209B:
Page 126, line 45, after ("VIII,") insert ("(Rape of women and men), (Sexual offences: revised penalties),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 126B. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 126, line 45, after ("VIII") insert ("(offence of selling confidential financial information)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 146B, when the House accepted the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 126, line 45, before ("144") insert ("Powers to recall prisoners released on licence),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 126, line 45, after ("144,") insert ("145, 146,")
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 212ZA not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 212A:
Page 126, line 46, at end insert:
("(4A) Section 75 shall come into force in relation to the area of any local authority on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, provided that the day appointed shall not be before 1st July 1999.
(4B) No order under subsection (4A) above shall be made unless it has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 124A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 127, line 10, leave out from ("56") to ("65") in line 11 and insert ("to 62, ').
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 127, line 11, after ("77,") insert ("145(6),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 153B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 213B:
Page 127, line 11, after ("147(1),") insert ("(2A) and (3A), (Local authority powers to provide closed-circuit television)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 169ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 214A:
Page 127, line 15, after ("152,") insert ("(Enforcement of certain offences relating to copyright and illicit recordings),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 169A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 127, line 26, after ("144(2),") insert ("145(3),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 153B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 127, line 31, after ("81(2)") insert (",144(3), 146")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
In the Title:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 218A:
Line 1, leave out from first ("to") to end of title and insert ("make further provision in relation to criminal justice (including employment in the prison service); to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984; and for purposes connected with those purposes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should be delighted to be able to tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—if he were here—that Amendment No. 218A is being moved because, if not necessarily inspired by the noble and learned Lord's own amendment brought forward at Committee stage, it certainly reflects the spirit of that amendment. I am sure that it would have the approval of the noble and learned Lord and also that of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham who is always keen on brevity, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who takes every opportunity of pillorying the Government over anything. The length of the Long Title did not escape the lash of the noble Lord's tongue, even if the tongue is not at present in the Chamber.
The amendment considerably shortens the Long Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise in defence of my noble friend and also to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is always hen; in spirit whether or not he is here in person. He will no doubt be grateful to the Minister for making this; amendment to the Long Title.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would wish to inform the House that Amendment No. 219 is pre-empted by Amendment No. 218A.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, while my noble and learned friend is considering that important procedural matter perhaps I can say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his gracious comments. The noble: Lord, Lord Harris, said that we were making the Long Title very long and we accepted the spirit of what both, he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said; that is, to make the Long Title shorter. In fact, if we had made the Long Title shorter in the beginning it would have enabled more things to be added to the Bill than having a longer Long Title at the beginning. Now that we have come to the end of the Bill it is appropriate to make the Long Title shorter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before three o'clock.

  RWANDA
  RWANDA
  FARMED GAME BIRDS
  FARMED GAME BIRDS
  GLENOCHIL PRISON: HIV POSITIVE INMATES
  GLENOCHIL PRISON: HIV POSITIVE INMATES