Sitting of 16 June 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    COMMONS REGISTRATION (EAST SUSSEX) BILL [Lords]
    Considered; to be read the Third time.

    FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNIONS (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Anglo-Irish Conference
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations led to the decision to publish the agendas of meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference but not the result of exchanges.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The intergovernmental conference follows normal practice in these matters. The substance of discussions between Governments is confidential, no agenda being published, but after meetings a joint statement is issued.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the Secretary of State would agree that the communiqué which is issued amounts to an agenda to be discussed at the meetings? The people of Northern Ireland are concerned whenever they see, over a period, the vast range of subjects that are discussed, which, in the eyes of many folk, amount to a joint authority. A full minute would allay the fears and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, so why should it not be published?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that the existing practice is the right one. There is a joint statement as to the character of matters that have been discussed and I think that that is the right way to go about it. I believe that the practice is sustained by experience as being wise.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the warm tributes paid by the Dublin Government in memory of the men who died in the tragic helicopter disaster in Scotland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly, I accept her invitation to express my warm appreciation of the message that was received from Mr. Spring and, I think, from leaders of all the political parties
    738
    represented in the House. It was a tragic accident, but its operational effects are being remedied by all four services involved and the work of those fine people is continuing, as they would wish.
    Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the functions of the intergovernmental conference is to protect the human rights and civil rights of everyone on the island of Ireland. Is he aware of the thuggish behaviour of many firms in the north of Ireland, including the recently taken over Ulster Farmers Bacon Factory and the recently privatised Northern Ireland Electricity Retail Co. which are offering their employees employment only on the condition that they accept a drop in salary of about £5,000, with no severance pay and redundancy provisions? Can he ensure that, in future meetings of the intergovernmental conference, that element of human rights and civil rights is protected by both Governments?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is an ingenious vehicle by which to bring that concern to Question Time. I do not think that it is a matter of human rights; it is a matter—although I am not aware of the individual circumstances—of businesses striving to keep people in employment, but having to have regard to market circumstances in deciding whether they can pay people to remain in employment.

    Broadcasting
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans to meet representatives of BBC Northern Ireland, Ulster Television, Downtown Radio and other commercial radio stations to discuss broadcasting in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I have no plans at present for such a meeting.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am rather disappointed about that. Is my right hon. Friend aware how difficult it is for journalists to maintain impartiality, often in difficult and tragic situations? Does he agree that the current position in Northern Ireland is both difficult and tragic? May I ask him to see representatives of the BBC and others, such as Downtown Radio and Ulster Television, and to congratulate them on the impartial and unbiased coverage that they have given in Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: I know that my hon. Friend takes an informed interest in the work of the BBC. Of course, all journalistic reporting from whatever source—when it is fair, accurate and objective—contributes greatly to the community and to the security situation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends meet members of the journalistic community in Northern Ireland almost on a daily basis, when often we find a microphone underneath our faces from people seeking comment. We have a very good and warm relationship with them.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)? There is a need for consultation, especially as it is thought that cable television will soon be introduced in Northern Ireland. It is important for the Minister to impress on any organisation that wishes to introduce cable television that it should consult local authorities and local

    739
    people fully. Will he think about approaching the BBC about being more generous and being equal with concessionary television licences throughout Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: Some of the hon. Gentleman's points properly fall within the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. In so far as my colleagues in Northern Ireland or I have any responsibility, we are always available to meet representatives of the media industry to discuss any of their concerns that fall within our jurisdiction.

    Anglo-Irish Talks
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards securing a resumption of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland and on discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning a constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current political situation in Northern Ireland; and what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the political parties in Northern Ireland concerning a constitutional settlement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Bilateral discussions are continuing with three of the main Northern Ireland parties. The Government are also consulting closely with the Irish Government on the preparation of a framework document, which would facilitate a comprehensive political settlement. Our aim remains to return to multilateral talks at the earliest appropriate time.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that there can be no purely internal settlement of the Northern Ireland question and, therefore, that there is a need for a formal, institutionalised Irish convention?
    Mr. Ancram: The Government's position has been clear for some time. Any settlement must address the three relationships—relationships within Northern Ireland, those between the north and the south of Ireland and those between the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government here. The formula of 26 March 1991, under which talks are currently conducted, made that clear and that remains the Government's clear position.
    Mrs. Prentice: Can the Minister give us any idea when the joint framework document will be presented to the Northern Ireland parties? When does he think that the document will be published?
    Mr. Ancram: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, work is going on between the two Governments on the framework document, which is intended to set out a shared understanding of the elements of a settlement within strands 2 and 3 that have the best prospects of achieving widespread acceptance and support. It is also likely to include constitutional issues. At this stage, it is not possible for me to say when that process will be completed. Some time after it is completed, we shall wish to discuss the understandings with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: I should like to press the Minister a little further on the same subject. I wonder whether he has seen The Irish Times this morning, which contains a quotation from Mr. Dermot Ahern, co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body. He says that the Taoiseach hopes to finalise the document before he meets the Prime Minister in mid-July. Presuming that Mr. Reynolds finalises the document and it is rubber-stamped by the Government, is it to be issued to the public, so that the people of Northern Ireland may see it, or is it to be given to the constitutional parties or all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Who exactly will receive it?
    Mr. Ancram: First, I should like totally to knock on the head the idea that the British Government are going to rubber-stamp anything. The process that is taking place between the Irish and British Governments is to see where we can find a shared understanding on the elements of a settlement that is likely to receive widespread acceptance by the people of Northern Ireland. That process is carried out intensively at this moment and it is not possible to set a time scale for it, but in due course we hope that it will form part of the process of dialogue that will, in the end, lead to a settlement in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend discusses constitutional change with the parties in Northern Ireland, will he bear in mind the interests of the Unionist party —particularly in Scotland—on constitutional change? As a former Scottish Office Minister, my hon. Friend will realise what I mean when I say that the interesting election results in Scotland have recently given us cause to have concern about the Union.
    Mr. Ancram: I always watch with nostalgia political developments north of the border, but my responsibilities at this time are for political developments within Northern Ireland. There are great dangers in trying to draw analogies between the situation in Northern Ireland and that which exists in Scotland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Having confirmed that talks with some political parties have been on-going since last September, can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government's position that the constitutional settlement is within the constitution of the United Kingdom, despite the comments of Mr. Reynolds, who may now be having some midsummer madness after his recent Christmas mislongings?
    Mr. Ancram: I can make clear to the hon. Gentleman what has been clear all along: there can be no change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I can go further and say that there can be no settlement under the present dialogue which does not achieve the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland. There is no question of coercion or imposition, and that is recognised as much by the Government in Dublin as it is by us.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government of the Republic do not exercise any kind of veto over the progress of the inter-party talks?
    Mr. Ancram: We have made it clear that no one exercises a veto and the important talks will proceed on the basis that no single participant can prevent the talks progressing by simply refusing to come to the table. It is

    741
    absolutely clear that if we are to achieve agreement, it must be on the basis of widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.

    Downing Street Declaration
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has received from Sinn Fein-IRA following their request for clarification of the Downing Street declaration.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: None. The people of Northern Ireland demand that they desist, permanently, from violence within our democracy; yet, to the revulsion of the people, they continue to murder people and to condone and justify such murder.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the biggest single factor now impeding the peace process in Northern Ireland is the massive amount of money which is made by racketeers and godfathers working within paramilitary organisations? If Gerry Adams and the political leaders of Sinn Fein wanted to deliver a peace deal, there would remain a major task in rooting out those who have a clear and vested interest in continuing the violence in Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we must renew and redouble our energies and efforts in stopping those mafia-style activities?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree that there is a great deal of racketeering to be found on both sides of the paramilitary spectrum. I do not agree that it is the biggest obstacle to the establishment of peace. The biggest obstacle is the refusal of those who resort to violence for political purposes to give it up in this democracy. We take the greatest pains to counter paramilitary racketeering, but I do not agree that our efforts need to be redoubled. We are at the moment doing all that we consider practicable, and we keep that very much under review.
    Mr. Bellingham: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, after the clarification which has taken place, there will be no further dealings at all with Sinn Fein and the IRA? Surely they now have a chance and an opportunity, and surely now the process must go on without them.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The process will certainly go on, with or without them. It will only go on with them if they make it plain that they have renounced violence permanently and that they are committed to democratic politics. There is no question of any dealings with Sinn Fein until that has been delivered—none at all. There has been widespread approval all around the world for the comments that the British Government made on the questions which were submitted by Sinn Fein a mere four and a half months from the signing of the declaration. It is now for it to answer a question—when will it give up violence?
    Mr. Hume: I express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for the written clarification which he gave in keeping with his wish to leave no stone unturned and to bring a total end to violence in our streets. May I repeat my view that the recent democratic expression of the people was a strong expression of support for the peace process, which is about a total cessation of violence followed by an
    742
    agreement among our divided people which threatens no section of our people? May I repeat my request and hope that the response of Sinn Fein and the IRA will respect the self-determination of the people of Ireland, north and south, on the methods used?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at both the beginning and the end of his question. The interpretation of election results in Northern Ireland is a specialist activity. It seems reasonable to remark that, in the recent election—to the extent that electors might have had the joint declaration in mind when electing people to the European Parliament—a margin of 20 per cent. more people voted for candidates supportive of, or acquiescent in, the joint declaration than for candidates opposed to it.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcomed the replies that he gave to Sinn Fein's questions? We particularly welcomed his recognition of its electoral mandate and the fact that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 should be on the table, that no party should have a veto over discussions and that the only condition for going to the conference table is a demonstrable total denunciation of violence. In view of the strong mandate given in the European election to those parties seeking peace in Northern Ireland, particularly that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), does the Secretary of State accept that there is every reason for Sinn Fein to heed the voice of the people of Northern Ireland and the whole island of Ireland, renounce violence and take its place at the negotiating table?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree that Sinn Fein should heed the voice of the people. In the south it got 3 per cent. of the vote, while in the north it got under 10 per cent. There is no excuse in this democracy for proceeding to use violence for any political purpose whatever. That message is well understood by the people of Northern Ireland, who demand that violence must end. For Sinn Fein to continue to use violence, claiming to act in some way in the name of the people of Ireland, is not only fanciful but fraudulent.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the current security situation in the Province.
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of terrorist activity since 15 December 1993.
    Sir John Wheeler: Thirty-four people have been murdered this year as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland, including five members of the security forces. In the period between 15 December and the end of last year, one soldier was murdered. Many attacks have been foiled

    743
    by the courage and expertise of the security forces. There will be no relaxation in the determination of the authorities to bring those responsible for terrorist crime to justice.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Now that national and international opinion is at long last aligned with democracy and not with Irish terrorism, will the Minister reflect on the views of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who, when Home Secretary, said:
    "There is no point in negotiating with the IRA. They just have to be extirpated"?
    Sir John Wheeler: There is no negotiation with the Provisional IRA. The joint declaration sets out a mechanism for those who wish to follow the path of peace. I hope that they will follow it.
    Mr. Spring: The western part of Suffolk may be a long way from Northern Ireland, but may I relay to my right hon. Friend the expressions of shock and sympathy addressed to me by many of my constituents following the tragic helicopter crash? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, despite that tragic setback, the fight against terrorism, from whatever quarter, will continue unabated?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who seeks to take an informed interest in the security problems of Northern Ireland. The tragedy of losing 29 experienced and valuable people who have contributed so much to saving life is a great disaster and the House will think particularly of their families at this time. I assure the House that, notwithstanding the extent of that disaster, every effort to continue the fight against terrorism will continue. Even now, the replacements are going into office to take up and continue the work of those whose lives have been so tragically lost.
    Mr. Taylor: In Belfast last week, the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church was held. That is the largest Protestant Church in Northern Ireland. Views were expressed by many laymen and clergy about the security situation on the ground. As the Minister will have taken them into account, how does he now respond to them?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am naturally concerned about all comment in Northern Ireland, but the House should know of the real and considerable successes that the security forces are having. So far this year, until 15 June, 220 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences, as against 172 in the same period last year, including 49 with murder or attempted murder, as against 38 in the same period last year. What matters is that people who commit those awful and evil crimes are caught, arrested and charged before the courts.
    Mr. Soley: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to Irish terrorism in his question. Is not this an appropriate time to remind ourselves that, for the past two years, Unionist terrorism has been claiming more lives than republican terrorism, and not for the first time in Northern Ireland's sad history? Is not it therefore all the more important that we now say to both the Unionist and the republican community in the north, which is where the violence originates, that there is no excuse for terrorism? There never has been any excuse, but there is no excuse in view of the bold and, if I may say so, visionary decision of the two Governments to go for the Downing Street declaration. It has given both sides democratic
    744
    safeguards and democratic opportunities, if they follow that agenda, and the British and Irish people expect no less from both communities.
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and agree whole-heartedly with his view. Terrorism from whatever source is unacceptable. There is no excuse of any kind. So far this year, 136 so-called loyalists and 83 republicans have been charged for terrorist-related offences.
    Sir James Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that there is growing alarm at the increase in criminality and hooliganism in the North Down area? The people of North Down are entitled to the same security as any other part of Northern Ireland. With regard to hooliganism, there are gangs of youths who travel around and harass, and in some cases terrorise, vulnerable old-age pensioners. Surely it is time to increase the number of police in the North Down area, the number of police vehicles and the number of police stations?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that I take a special interest in the progress of the fight against ordinary crime in Northern Ireland and especially in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting a short while ago, when I was able to speak to the police about their level of clear-up of ordinary crime, which is especially high—often, 40 to 50 per cent.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister understand that the people of Northern Ireland are deeply worried about the deteriorating security situation in the Province, bearing in mind the figures he gave to the House? Also, in a recent debate in the House, widespread anxiety was expressed by many hon. Members across the House that IRA Sinn Fein leader Martin McGuinness seemed to be above the law. In the light of the deteriorating security situation, is not it about time that Martin McGuinness was arrested forthwith and that the due process of law took place—or is he above the law because of negotiations with the Government?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: No one is above the law passed by the House of Commons. All those people who should be properly investigated for alleged crimes will be so investigated. There is no question of anyone being exempted from the criminal justice process as the hon. Gentleman implies.

    Anglo-Irish Talks
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what security matters were discussed when he last met Ministers of the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Such discussions at our meetings take place in confidence, but security co-operation remains a matter of high importance for both Governments.
    Mr. Enright: Has the abject failure of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in the recent elections —in spite of his vitriolic attacks on the Anglo-Irish declaration he gained less than one third of the votes—strengthened democratically the British Government's position vis-a-vis the Irish Government?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that the British Government's position can be viewed as one of antagonism towards the Irish Government, although a firm stance is being taken in the current important discussions. Our position is clear: it is based on the principle of democracy. The future of Northern Ireland must be determined only by democratic means. That also happens to be the position of the Irish Government, as is made clear in the joint declaration.
    Mr. Forman: In discussing security matters with his counterpart in the Irish Republic, has my right hon. and learned Friend had any cause for optimism about the role that the United States Administration could play in assisting the search for peace and security in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I should like to say that there is a close relationship between the security forces of the Crown and their counterparts in the United States. Indeed, I have nothing but gratitude for the across-the-board co-operation that we receive from the American authorities.
    Mr. McNamara: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the Irish Government to discuss security arrangements under the confidence-building measures of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will he discuss the proposals for the reform of the Police Authority in Northern Ireland, in particular the distinction between security and community policing and the accountability of the Chief Constable to the authority?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad to say that I had a most fruitful and successful meeting with the authority a couple of days ago, when very broad support was expressed for the consultative document. We both looked forward to co-operating in the translating of those broad-brush concepts into the appropriate legislative language. From time to time, the relationship of the public to the police and the police to the public is discussed in the intergovernmental conferences and I have no doubt that that will continue.

    Criminal Justice
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for extending to Northern Ireland the tape recording of interviews arid the right of access to a solicitor for suspects; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir John Wheeler: Interviews with suspects detained under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 are tape recorded. The Government believe that electronic recording of interviews with detained suspects in Northern Ireland under the Prevention of Terrorism Act would not at present be in the overall interests of justice. The policy will be kept under review.
    Access to legal advice is a statutory right for all suspects in police custody.
    Mr. Mullin: In the light of all that we know, is it not extraordinary that courts in Northern Ireland are still sending people away for life imprisonment on the basis of confessions which are not recorded, which were extracted at Castlereagh, and to which the interviewees' solicitors have been routinely denied access? Is it not about time that some of the lessons that we have learnt over here were applied in Northern Ireland—and who better to apply them
    746
    than a Secretary of State who, as Attorney-General, presided over many of the disasters in our own legal system a few years ago?
    Sir John Wheeler: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's last comments and I am sure that the House does not either. Access to solicitors may be delayed for up to 48 hours on strict security grounds. The criteria governing a delay are laid out in section 45. A similar power to delay is also available to the police in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
    The court system in Northern Ireland is impeccable. The judiciary is independent and makes its decisions accordingly. As to the use of technology, that matter is kept always under review.
    Mr. Trimble: Is it not inconsistent for the Government to allow criminal proceedings to be brought against terrorist suspects on the basis of tape recordings of conversations in the open air while, for the purpose of criminal proceedings, they refuse to allow tape recordings of telephone conversations by terrorist suspects?
    Sir John Wheeler: The use of material collected by intercept means and governed by warrant has to be carefully considered and is a matter for the prosecution authorities.
    Mr. Stott: The Minister will be aware that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the independent commissioner for the holding centres, has recognised the need for proper safeguards to be introduced into the system, and he said so in his recent report. The report from John Rowe QC also suggested that terrorist suspects should be recorded on audiotape. I am disappointed at the Minister's reply. If those measures were introduced in Northern Ireland, clearly in our judgment they would build confidence in the security forces and provide police officers with protection against false allegations of physical and verbal harassment. I am at a loss as to why the Government still refuse to bring into operation these particular measures, which were recommended by their own advisers.
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He raises very important and serious issues with which I have a good deal of sympathy. I am particularly grateful to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and others who carried out a review of the procedures and their recommendations and advice are treated seriously. Equally, however, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have to take into account the advice that we receive from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose chief duty is to prevent the killing and terrorism in Northern Ireland. We must heed his opinion when he raises the importance of maintaining the present structure, but we will keep the matter under review and explore the possibilities to see what may be done.

    Surface Links
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Commission of the European Union on surface links between Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): Apart from the correspondence on the electricity interconnector, there have been no discussions.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to ask about the electricity interconnector but about the decision by the Commission to include Stranraer and Larne in the trans-European network, which I hope that he will join me in welcoming. Has he seen the report in the Glasgow Herald suggesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland is resisting a European Union plan for multi-million pound improvements to the rail link from Stranraer through my constituency to the channel tunnel? Will he meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and try to persuade him to stop treating citizens of Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland as second-class citizens in Europe?
    Mr. Smith: I very much welcome the decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers to include the route in the trans-European network. Of course, the railway is important to traffic from Northern Ireland and I will certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the contract recently signed between Ayr hospital and health authorities in Antrim and Larne, which will bring mutual advantage to my constituents and to those of hon. Members representing Larne and Antrim? Does my hon. Friend approve of such links, and does he acknowledge that improved surface links between Stranraer and Lame will bring much further advantage?
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the benefits of that arrangement.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: If European funding becomes available, will the Minister bear in mind the new industries that he has welcomed to parts of Antrim which are close to Lane? We need not only facilities at the harbour, but facilities leading to the ports so that the traffic can travel that way. I join my colleagues in Scotland in supporting that development.
    Mr. Smith: I welcome the inward investment projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I recognise the importance of access to Larne port. We hope to upgrade part of the road in 1997–98.

    Integrated Schools
    Mr. Maginnis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what matters he takes into consideration when deciding to establish an integrated school at post-primary level.
    Mr. Ancram: We seek to satisfy ourselves about the potential viability of the proposed school; about its religious composition; and about whether suitable accommodation is being provided. We also examine carefully the overall circumstances of each proposal, including any representations received. Those procedures apply also to primary schools.
    Mr. Maginnis: Notwithstanding that we would all, in ideal circumstances, like to see integrated education in Northern Ireland, is it not absolutely profligate of the
    748
    Government to support integrated secondary schools in, for example, my constituency of Fermanagh for 1 per cent. of the secondary school population when there is already over-provision of between 10 and 15 per cent. in that sector? How does the Minister think that the 99 per cent. of people will feel when they see small schools facing the axe so that money can be given to the 1 per cent. who will be privileged with their own special school?
    Mr. Ancram: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I hope that he will read the paper that I put out yesterday, from which he will see that we are considering options to enhance the quality of education in small rural schools and not to axe them. As to integrated schools, and the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in particular, I fully respect his view. The representations that he made to me were given close consideration both by me and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, it is Government policy to encourage and facilitate integrated education where there is proven parental demand for it. It is also Government policy to give parents choice in education where that is possible. In the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, both criteria were met.
    Ms Hoey: I very much welcome the move towards integrated education in Northern Ireland, but what are the criteria for considering an integrated school? Half the children on the island of Rathlin, for example, are educated in a home tuition unit and the other half in a Church school. Does that situation not present an ideal opportunity to allow the home tuition unit on Rathlin island to become an integrated school?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady will have heard me set out the criteria for an integrated school. One is the viability of the proposed school. Obviously we carefully consider any representations made to us, where there is sufficient parental demand in that context.

    Peace Process
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be able to announce the commencement of detailed negotiations and discussions on the future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ancram: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial body of opinion in Northern Ireland, southern Ireland and the United Kingdom is for the recommencement of detailed discussions and negotiations? Will not the time arrive when, if Sinn Fein and the men of violence fail to say that they do not support a continuation of violence, those discussions and negotiations must go ahead?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend, who properly reflects feeling in both parts of the island of Ireland. However, agreement will not be achieved by artificially forcing the pace, by shouted slogans or blazing headlines. It will be achieved only by a careful and considered advance by all participants towards a common and widely acceptable position which meets the aspirations of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McGrady: As the Minister has declared that he is aware of the intense demand in Northern Ireland for the recommencement of inter-party talks, does he accept that their recommencement and the peace process are not mutually exclusive but could run in parallel? There is a feeling in Northern Ireland of procrastination surrounding the inter-party talks, which are the most meaningful Ray of establishing peace in the long run. Will the Minister also confirm that talks will be on the basis of the March 1991 inter-party agreement?
    Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am certain that he would agree that, while we all wish to see multilateral talks recommence at an appropriate moment, it would be premature to try to get everybody around a table until the elements for agreement are in place. For that reason, I wish to continue my discussions with three of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to try to explore further what common ground is available on which we can advance.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday's strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.
    Mrs. Beckett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday—that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now
    750
    withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?
    Mrs. Beckett: That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won't they? Just say yes.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.
    Mrs. Beckett: But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government's economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning—Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?
    The Prime Minister: That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors: The answer is that she cannot—and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.
    Mr. Butler: I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.
    Would my right hon. Friend consider such conduct on the part of his party to be consistent or stupid, had it taken place?
    The Prime Minister: The Opposition's position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week—not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban—his policies were rejected and Labour's were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic—carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people's lives at risk with his own reckless policies?
    The Prime Minister: Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend's view: our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question: because of his own personal responsibility and his Government's responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman's scaremongering.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers' money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?
    The Prime Minister: If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents' over-whelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?
    The Prime Minister: I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend's campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hill: If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?
    The Prime Minister: In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in

    753
    his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday's figures that it is down—and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas—"drastic reshuffle"—have not crossed my lips.
    Mr. Lamont: May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist
    754
    of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?
    The Prime Minister: At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post—Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House please state the forthcoming business of the House?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 JuNE—Opposition Day (13th allotted day) (1st part). Until Seven o'clock, there will be a debate on "Reform of Parliamentary Procedure" on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, followed by remaining stages of the Trade Marks Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations.
TUESDAY 21 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Sunday Trading Bill.
WEDNESDAY 22 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Failure of Her Majesty's Government on Overseas Aid and Development Policies" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 23 JUNE—Debate on "Opportunities for UK Exporters" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 24 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 27 JUNE—Until Seven o'clock, motions on the Ports (Northern Ireland) Order and the Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 22 June to consider European Community document No. 10635/93 relating to guarantees for consumer goods and after sales services.
[Wednesday 22 June:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 10635/93, Guarantees for Consumer Goods and After Sales Service. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-iv (1993–94) and HC 48-xxi (1993–94).]
Mr. Tony Banks: When is the summer recess?
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for the Opposition days. I appreciate that it will be possible for us to raise the question of Rwanda during the Opposition day debate, but it would be more appropriate if there were to be a debate on that in Government time. Is the Leader of the House able to tell us that, as things develop in Rwanda, he will be willing to allocate Government time to discuss that?
Is the Leader of the House yet able to give the House assurances about the two key economic debates that are required by the unified Budget process before the House rises for the summer recess? The House will need to know when we can expect the publication of the second set of Industry Act forecasts and we should like to know that we will have a one-day debate in Government time on those forecasts.
756
When will the Leader of the House be able to announce the date for the one-day debate on individual departmental expenditure plans? We have not had such a debate since 1991.
Finally, when will the Leader of the House be in a position to announce the date of the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: I saw some tension between the hon. Gentleman's opening question and the clearly heard sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who asked about the date of the recess. I also saw tension between all the demands for debates and the demands for, no doubt, an early announcement of an early date for the recess.
Although I acknowledge that there is a clear commitment to an economic debate arising from the understanding at the time of the unified Budget, the more that I respond to the requests for debates, the more difficult it will be for me to respond to the last of the hon. Gentleman's requests and the longer into July we will sit. Of course, I shall bear his requests in mind.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the powers and immunities of police officers when dealing with teenage criminals, because many of us believe that it would be far better if police officers had the same powers as parents to administer reasonable corporal punishment, rather than having to drag the young offender before a magistrates court, which hands him over to a probation officer or a social worker, who tells him not to be naughty and gives him a free holiday?
Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point and I am sure that, in doing so, he responds to quite a significant amount of public concern that one has heard expressed. However, I am sure that he will understand that I would not feel it appropriate to comment, as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, on the decision taken by the magistrates in the case that he has in mind.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there are one or two important outstanding obligations in our relationship with the European Union? Having regard to the recent Government performance in European elections, when will we have debates on the accession Bill, which is required, and the own resources Bill? It may be of some interest to hon. Members sitting behind him.
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position, I am afraid, to give a definite and specific response to that particular request at the moment, although I am aware of the interest in those matters. I shall merely observe in passing that, in view of the results of the elections on Thursday, revealed on Sunday, I am slightly astonished that that point is raised from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can confirm whether he, too, took a bet on the matter.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Instead of passing more legislation next week, which may be repealed or amended or scrapped by the EC Commission in five or 10 years' time, at great cost to the British taxpayer, will the Minister instead arrange a day's debate on early-day motion 1336?
[That this House, wishing to maintain its tradition of keeping its procedures up to date, and recognising the legal and consequential costs of European Court judgements which oblige the United

757
Kingdom to amend or effectively to scrap legislation passed years ago, and accepting the implications of the fact that loosely worded European legislation does not achieve real clarity until the European Commission invites the Court to determine us precise meaning, believes that it would be in the public and the taxpayers' interest to submit all new Parliamentary legislation before the House of Lords stage to the officials of the Commission of the European Union to establish whether they consider that its contents are in keeping with the various treaties approved by Parliament.]
It suggests that, to save a great deal of money for the taxpayer and trouble and inconvenience, every piece of legislation passed through the House should be sent to the officials in Brussels, to receive their stamp of approval, in order to avoid such ridiculous and costly burdens on the taxpayer as a consequence of the treaties, to which we have foolishly agreed.
Mr. Newton: I always listen with close attentiveness to my hon. Friend, a fellow Member for the county of Essex. However, if he has in mind the accession treaty, I must say that it is a virtually universal desire of hon. Members to see the European Union enlarged in the way allowed for by the treaty.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will the Lord President accept that there will be great disappointment among my constituents that the order implementing the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Cleveland does not feature in next week's business? Will he give an undertaking that, when the matter has cleared its judicial review, which I hope will be very soon, the Government will use all their best endeavours to bring the order before the House so that the matter may be resolved and proceeded with before the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: I certainly undertake to bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's representations and, indeed, no doubt, those of others as well. However, I can give no commitment on an exact date at the moment. In a sense, he half-answered his own question by referring to judicial review. It would clearly be inappropriate to proceed while that is going on.
Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on early-day motion 1330?
[That this House congratulates the staff and management of the Chiltern Line for maintaining rail services to passengers during the RMT strike on Wednesday 15th June.]
It stands in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). A debate would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to salute the dedication and professionalism of the railwaymen who, yesterday, kept the Chiltern line open to travellers, allowing myself and hundreds of my constituents to go about their normal business and meant that, encouraged by their professionalism, many more people used the trains, rather than took their cars to the roads, which would be the unfortunate consequence of the strike-happy attitude of so many Opposition Members.
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I recognise the efforts of the staff on his railway line to whom he referred and also of those who ensured that trains were also running on a number of other lines, including, I understand, those affecting Southend, Barking, Oxford and Worcester.
Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement about one of the most well-known British companies—Wedgwood—which is embarking on the expansion of its production facilities in another country? Does not such action fly in the face of the Government's claim that the climate in this country now favours investment? Does not he realise that it is also a savage blow to the economy of north Staffordshire?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be here to answer questions next Wednesday; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his point then. For the moment, I can say only that, although the climate for investment in this country—including investment from overseas—has undoubtedly been greatly improved over the past 15 years, it is also important that our firms should be in a position to do business overseas.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will the terms of the motion for Monday's business be sufficiently widely drawn to enable us to discuss the farce of Prime Minister's Question Time which, after all, only started as recently as the regime of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx?
Mr. Newton: Clearly, I cannot tell my hon. Friend what the terms of the motion will be, because that is in the hands of the Opposition. However, he will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on these matters and that it appeared to win considerable approval from all parties. I also believe that the Procedure Committee gave some consideration to these issues yesterday and has decided to seek evidence from me and my opposite numbers in the House.
Mr. George Galloway: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 1276, which is entitled "Atrocity in Kuwait City"?
[That this House welcomes the forthcoming visit to Parliament of U.S. citizen Naim Farhat, whose father and younger brother were brutally murdered in Kuwait City on 2nd March 1991, six days after the allied Liberation of Kuwait, and whose sister Naimat was raped, shot in the head and left for dead; notes that after intense U.S. congressional pressure the Kuwaiti Emirate eventually tried a Kuwaiti police officer, finding him guilty of the double murder and Naimat's attempted murder but insisting that the young woman 'invented' the rape accusation to 'whip up anti-Kuwaiti feelings'; and joins U.S. and international womens and human rights activists in calling for the withdrawal of the smear of false rape allegations against Naimat, the prosecution of the still unpunished accomplices, some of whom are connected to high Kuwaiti personages, full compensation to the family for their horrific ordeal, the disinternment of the dead victims and their re-burial in their home country of Lebanon.]
It concerns the murder of the father and brother, and her attempted murder and rape, of Naim Farhat, who is in the House this afternoon. She is now living with a brother in the United States. Given that the family have alleged that the son of the Foreign Minister of Kuwait, Nasser Sabah al-Ahmed, and the crown prince of Kuwait, Saad Abdullah al-Sabah—both members of a Government returned to power at the point of British guns—are personally involved in the commission and cover-up of the crime, would not it be appropriate for the House to debate next week Britain's close and cordial relations with Kuwait so that justice may be won for this tragically afflicted family?
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the appropriate response is for me to say that the investigation of any such alleged crime is the responsibility of the Kuwaiti authorities, but we have certainly encouraged them in their efforts to bring those responsible to justice.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on education in Kent, in view of the fact that, earlier this week, the Labour and Liberal parties voted to remove representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church from the education resources sub-committee, thus denying the major spiritual influences in Kent access to influence the economic activity of the education authority?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to make time for a debate on precisely that matter next week, but I hope that my hon. Friend's words will be considered by those at whom they are directed.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We are to have a debate on Tuesday on one fairly contentious aspect of social security legislation, but would it be possible to extend it to reconsider benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds in light of the Prime Minister's disgraceful comments about young people begging in our streets, which lie made during the European election campaign? Could it also be extended to cover civil rights for disabled people? Both topics emerged as major issues in the run-up to the election, and there is surely a need for the House to debate them.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady well knows that, despite the ingenious way in which she has managed to ask her questions without incurring your displeasure, Madam Speaker, there is no scope for enlarging consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill to include such issues.
As for the first part of the hon. Lady's question, it would be interesting to get some answers from elsewhere as to whether Opposition parties intend to return to a regime that would discourage youngsters of 16 and 17 from either staying at school or taking training that is offered to them.
Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the conduct of Scottish local government? He will be aware that, under the unusual procedure used to move the writ for the Monklands, East by-election, it will not be possible to raise matters relating to Monklands in the normal course of events because of the way in which we carry out our business.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can undertake to provide time for an early debate in view of the amount of time that has already been spent on debating local government in Scotland; no doubt there may be further opportunities in due course. I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's concern that the matters about which he is concerned should be further exposed in the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House agree that there is not a great deal of business left for next week and the remaining weeks in the run-up to the recess? In view of that, would it be a good idea to allocate a day or two for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, especially in view of the fact that when the House was in recess the Government, the Prime Minister and other Ministers went to Normandy and praised the disabled
760
people who hobbled along the beaches at Normandy and Arromanches? Could there be a more sickening, hypocritical sight than that of a Government praising the veterans of D-day and at the same time kicking their crutches away?
Mr. Newton: I have made comments, as have many others, about the allocation of time and the fact that the House decided the allocation of time for private Members' Bills many months ago, and I do not propose to add to that this afternoon.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given the huge importance that the presidency of the Commission now has in the national lives of all the EC member states, and given the declaration at the end of the Maastricht treaty committing our partners to a bigger role for national Parliaments, what role will this Parliament have in the appointment of the President of the Commission?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is perhaps implying a view; a view was also expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) during Prime Minister's questions. I think that my hon. Friends are capable of finding ways of expressing their view—and, indeed, have done so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Lord President a question of which I gave his office notice this morning? Is there any chance of a statement next week either from the Foreign Office or—better still—the Crown Office about the statements in the court in Beirut of Youseff Shaban to the effect that he put the bomb on Pan-Am flight 103 which blew up over Lockerbie? Can he ask what the Government's response is to that statement, which some of us take with a pinch of salt? Can he also take into account the fact that distinguished Scottish lawyers have said that the whole Crown Office approach to Lockerbie is much too simplistic?
Mr. Newton: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the evidence available supports the charges against the two Libyan suspects. He has not seen any evidence relating to involvement in the Lockerbie disaster by Youseff Shaban. We understand from the Lebanese judicial authorities that Mr. Shaban made no confession of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing prior to his reported outburst in court. Therefore, the situation is—I say this straightforwardly to the hon. Gentleman, acknowledging, if I may, his courtesy—that we are seeking further details of that report. If it proves to be relevant, it will of course be investigated. But it will be for the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police to determine what investigation is necessary.
Mr. Oliver Heald: In considering the earlier request for a debate on industrial relations, will my right hon. Friend see whether it is possible to have wording that is wide enough to deal with not only the unnecessary rail strike but unemployment? This week, we had the good news of another fall in unemployment and the report from Manpower that we have the best employment prospects for four years. All the comments that are constantly being made by Labour Members about full employment suggest that bringing in the social chapter and a minimum statutory wage would be some sort of helpful approach.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. It is certainly very striking that, of all the subjects that the Opposition could have chosen for debate on their day next Wednesday, they chose the one that they did. Perhaps it demonstrates even more clearly than before their reluctance to discuss unemployment simply because it is falling and—perhaps even more strikingly—the unwillingness of anyone whose name has been mentioned in connection with the Labour leadership election to utter a word of condemnation, or almost a word of any kind, about the present rail strike.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on election law in the light of the fact that the election was abused in the west country when a Literal Democrat candidate stood? Does not that have implications for the Liberal Democrats on this occasion, but also for other political parties? Surely the matter should be sorted out.
Mr. Skinner: It got the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) £2,500.
Mr. Newton: It is fairly rare that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is helpful to me, but I shall express my gratitude, take his good will and sit down again.
Mr. Simon Burns: Given that it is a well-known fact that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all people, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate on Monday will be a very wide-ranging one on parliamentary procedures? Will it include the procedures for being elected to Parliament, so that we can look into the problems when someone such as Mr. Alec Kellaway changes party on the eve of a poll? Perhaps it could also give members of the Liberal Democrat party the opportunity to explain their position to the House, as there are rumours that one of them is possibly considering joining Mr. Kellaway in the Labour party.
Mr. Newton: I am beginning to think that there might be a range of interesting issues to be discussed, were I able to make time available. Perhaps that will be of some comfort to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), whose question I did not mean to be quite so dismissive with. It was just that I was left virtually open-mouthed by the friendliness from below the Gangway.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The business that the House wishes to discuss and complete before the recess more than any other is the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Time after time, the House has made its opinion clear through a number of different avenues. If Members cannot decide that we will control our business through this House, where are we at? What is stopping us from doing what we want? The Leader of the House should respond to the feeling expressed by masses of hon. Members and should give us the chance to vote through the matter, one way or the other.
Mr. Newton: As I have said on a number of occasions, the House controls the time available for proceedings in such matters and did so through the Sessional Orders that it passed last autumn, at the beginning of the Session. For my part, the appropriate course is for the Government to concentrate, as they are doing very firmly, on introducing what they believe to be practical and workable proposals
762
—unlike those in the Bill—to achieve the aim that we all share, which is to advance further the rights of disabled people.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the RMT strike last Wednesday and the possibility of another next Wednesday and more to follow, bearing in mind the intense suffering that the strike meant for my constituents, including children who needed to travel by train to take public examinations, whose future depended on their performance that day and about whom the Labour party and others do not seem to care at all?
Mr. Newton: While I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate, I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the inconvenience, indeed hardship, caused to many people. In my judgment, like that of all Conservative Members and, probably, privately of many Opposition Members, it is extremely irresponsible of the unions to undertake a series of strikes about an 11 per cent. pay claim.
Mr. David Winnick: Reverting to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier regarding the summer recess, is he aware that Opposition Members are increasingly concerned that we are drifting almost to a part-time House of Commons, with more recesses—not holidays—than are really necessary? We believe that Parliament, or the House of Commons certainly, should remain a full-time place and I would deplore a three-month break. If the right hon. Gentleman is a victim of the reshuffle, will he pass the message on to his successor?
Mr. Newton: I will readily receive the message directed to myself. If what I said earlier was not clear, I shall say that some of the suggestions that I have seen in newspapers about the early date of the recess are far-fetched indeed, and I hope that nobody has booked tickets on the basis of them.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a wide-ranging debate on the economy so that the three contenders in the Opposition's jumble sale can tell the House what minimum wage rate is consistent with their concepts of full employment?
Mr. Newton: I should be happy to see whether I could find time for such a debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is urging me to find time for a wide-ranging debate on the economy, which we will certainly seek to do. There are a number of questions, alongside the one that my hon. Friend has asked, which we should like to see answered—not least, which of the Government's trade union reforms they would reverse, whether they would ever oppose any strike and what they have to say about the current rail strike.
Mr. Peter Hain: In view of the briefing from 10 Downing street at the weekend, contradicting the President of the Board of Trade's statement to the House on the Post Office privatisation, could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the matter so that we can clarify the Government's policy? We could also take the opportunity to condemn the statements and the behaviour of the chief executive of the Post Office, a public servant who has openly adopted a political stance favouring the privatisation of the Post Office in conspiracy with the President of the Board of Trade, possibly against the Prime Minister.
Mr. Newton: We shall be publishing the Green Paper as soon as we can, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to hold his fire until then.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the important subject of literal democracy? During that debate, we could consider the personal impact made on the people of Devon and East Plymouth in the European elections by the Liberal Democrat candidate, Mr.—[Interruption.]— he obviously did not make an impact on Liberal Democrat Members here either. We are told by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that if people in that European constituency wished to identify the Liberal Democrat candidate, they had to crawl all over the small print on the ballot paper.
Mr. Newton: I shall take that as another interesting suggestion for the debate sought by the hon. Member for Workington.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Could the Leader of the House arrange next week for the Prime Minister to respond to early-day motion 1287?
[That this House applauds the efforts of the Rail and Marine Workers Union and the International Transport Workers Federation for financing and undertaking a marine search for the MV 'Derbyshire' that sank in the China Sea with the loss of all her crew; and wishes them every success in their endeavours that will be welcomed by seafarers worldwide, and in particular the bereaved families of the MV 'Derbyshire's crew who have waited for far too long for a reopening of the inquiry into the tragic loss of the 'Derbyshire' that casts serious doubts on the safety and seaworthiness of this type of bulk carrier.]
That motion and early-day motions 1310 and 1317 refer to the MV Derbyshire and the recent events concerning the sinking of the vessel. They propose that the House address the question not only of the Derbyshire, but of bulk carriers in general.
Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to state next week that he supports the view that the Derbyshire families are entitled at this stage to an inquiry and to demand that the Government should now take responsibility for furthering the investigation to establish the cause of the loss of that vessel and its 44 crew?
Mr. Newton: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, the Government share the sympathy which he has expressed to the families of those lost on the Derbyshire, and we understand the renewed concern following the discovery of the wreck. The chief inspector of marine accidents will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in due course whether there is any justification to reopen the investigation.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on Members' interests so that the practice of Liberal Democrat Members of using private polls for personal gain can be thoroughly examined? Would not that also give us an opportunity to recall that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke for three hours one Friday morning, thus talking out Enoch Powell's abortion Bill?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on the Register of Members' Interests, as shown in today's Votes and Proceedings, has agreed a report. I cannot yet be sure whether that will require a debate, but I will bear it in mind.
Mr. John McAllion: According to news reports this morning, President Clinton has praised the city of Houston in Texas for its recent record in reducing crime. That city has encouraged householders to arm themselves and shoot strangers who approach their houses, and an innocent British citizen, Andrew de Vries, was recently gunned down by a householder in Houston. May we, therefore, have an early statement from the Foreign Office about the advice that it is issuing to British citizens who go to Houston and, more important, about the assistance that it will provide to British citizens who, tragically, fall foul of a gun law under which people shoot first and ask questions later?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Michael Bates: Has the Labour party approached my right hon. Friend to use one of its Opposition supply days to debate early-day motion 457?
[That this House, noting the grossly unfair distribution of wealth in Britain under capitalism and the widening gap between rich and poor that has taken place over the last 15 years and recalling that the present Budget deficit is entirely attributable to tax reductions given to the richest taxpayers, and the cost of unemployment that was deliberately created, is convinced that the burden of military expenditure is far higher than can be justified and that other Government policies have been wasteful and inefficient; believes that the imposition of higher levels of VAT and its extension to fuel imposes a heavy burden on those least able to pay, as do other increases in taxation imposed in the recent Budget; rejects arguments that all reductions in taxation are necessarily desirable regardless of the purpose for which the tax is raised and the social consequences that would follow; affirms that the recovery of full employment, planned defence diversification, the rebuilding of our infrastructure, the extension of essential public services and the regeneration of British industry will require massive public investment, the harnessing of the nation's savings and taxation fairly shared and assessed on the ability to pay; and calls for a clear socialist commitment to be made now, about future economic, fiscal, industrial and social policies to secure these objectives.]
The motion calls for a clear socialist commitment to massive public spending and has been signed by 50 Labour Members. Should that debate take place, may an opportunity be given to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether he agrees with that sizeable chunk of Labour's electoral college?
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that I have had no such request for a debate; nor do I expect one. Indeed, on the form of the last few days, even if I were to find time for such a debate, I doubt whether we would get any answers from Opposition Front-Bench Members.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on football in this country, not simply because I should like to have a whinge on how Chelsea was robbed blind in the cup final by a strutting pedant from a public school who was purporting to be a referee but so that we could discuss the allocation of cup final tickets, the activity of touts outside Wembley stadium on the day, and the Football Association's decision to impose some horrendous penalties on Tottenham Hotspur? Those matters need to be discussed in the House because our constituents are discussing them outside.
Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness about the outcome of the cup final. There may be one or two hon. Members from Manchester here. I had better not express my view—[Interruption.] I shall be

765
cautious about getting involved in the matter between Chelsea and Manchester. It was an interesting game. The hon. Gentleman's last point is a matter for the Football Association and, again, the Government would not wish to get involved in it.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: May we have a debate on the serious issue of the import of Brazilian mahogany into Britain, given the serious damage done to both the ecology and the lives of indigenous people by the extraction of that mahogany? Although most of the imports of mahogany are illegal, the authorities here have failed to investigate the matter or take legal action.
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman is alleging a failure properly to enforce the law on imports into this country—in this case, of certain forms of timber—my right course is to draw the matter to the attention of the relevant enforcement authorities.

Points of Order
4.2 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider helping the Scots. As you know, every third Monday, the Attorney-General answers questions in the House. Alas, the Lord Advocate representing the Crown Office has no opportunity to do so.
I understand that the Chair is involved in discussions about how the Lord Advocate can report directly to the House of Commons. This afternoon, we had an example of that when I asked the Leader of the House a question about Lockerbie, which, after all, was the biggest crime against civilians in the western world since 1945. The Lord Advocate has been making dismissive statements about a proper investigation of extraordinary statements that have been made in middle east courts. I do not know whether those statements are valid, but some of us want to know what the Government intend to do to ascertain whether what is going on in the Beirut courts, with individuals claiming responsibility for the crime, will be properly investigated. The only way in which we could do that is to ask the Lord Advocate questions either upstairs in some Scottish Grand Committee procedure or if he could come to some other Committee established by Parliament.
As I understand it, there are discussions taking place, but they have been going on for some time on that matter and I wondered whether they were going to be brought to a head.
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about this matter, but it is not a question at this stage for the Chair. It is something that the House itself must deal with. As he will know, the Leader of the House is on the Government Front Bench and will no doubt have heard his comments. Perhaps he can make some inquiries into those matters on behalf of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you whether you consider, in your role as the protector of the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament and protector of the rights of the House, that you might inquire into the matter of a question that I asked the Secretary of State for Wales,
766
who is in his place? I received an answer on 12 May concerning irregular payments made by the Welsh Development Agency to its staff throughout the 1980s.
A report appeared in a newspaper this morning that went into details about those irregular payments, and the new management of the WDA claimed the credit for initiating that investigation. I have had no answer from the Secretary of State. I wonder whether you could approach the office of the Secretary of State and ask him to put right that matter and make some type of statement to the House.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. That is disturbing to the Welsh affairs shadow Front Bench as well, because, in spite of the long period of notice that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) in writing to the Secretary of State six weeks ago and the thundering silence from the Welsh Office, it appears now that the device of the quango concerned itself issuing the information in the Daily Post for publication this morning is being used to throw Members of Parliament off the scent, and that Secretaries of State, who are responsible to the House even for the acts of their predecessors, are simply not prepared to abide by that accountability of which I believe that you, Madam Speaker, are the protector.
Madam Speaker: I obviously cannot concern myself with newspaper reports, but I am concerned if the hon. Gentleman has not had a response to the question that he has placed on the Order Paper. I place prime importance on the procedures whereby individual Members receive proper responses when they place questions, and that statements are made in the House before they are given to newspapers.
The Secretary of State for Wales is on the Front Bench and no doubt he will now deal directly with the matter as far as he is free and able to do so.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood)indicated assent.
Ms Liz Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to a parliamentary written reply that I received from the Secretary of State for the Environment, have you had any indication that he wishes to come to the House to make a statement about his reply to me to say that he, along with the Secretary of State for Social Security, instructed parliamentary counsel to draft amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and for those amendments to be given to private Members? Have you had any indication that he will be coming to the House to make a statement about that disgraceful business?
Madam Speaker: I have had no such indication. I understand that the hon. Lady has written to me, but I have not as yet even seen her letter. Perhaps I can deal with it when I have seen her letter.

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 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15 June] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), That the clause (Financing of local government in Wales) be read a Second time—
  '.—The Secretary of State, after consulting the Treasury, shall within six months of this Act coming into force present a report to Parliament on methods to restructure the financing of local government in Wales; such report shall include consideration of—

  (a) the feasibility of local government raising a local income tax, or receiving a proportion of the VAT and corporation tax arising from businesses within their area;

  (b) a tax placed upon second homes in Wales, the proceeds of which shall accrue to local government; and

  (c) the abolition of council tax and the uniform business rate.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

  Question again proposed.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I was somewhat put out last night on two accounts. First, I was put out by the way in which the debate was brought to a conclusion without any consultation with Members of Plaid Cymru, when we were fairly close to the end of a short debate, which we are now continuing, and which will no doubt take longer than it would have taken last night. I was even more put out by the response that I received from the Minister to the substance of the debate. The guts of the new clause was the question of how we make more resources available to local government and how we enable local government to have greater flexibility and discretion in the use of those resources, rather than its having to follow the diktats laid down by the Welsh Office and by central Government in London.
  Goodness only knows, given the social and environmental conditions and the challenges of education and creating jobs in all our communities in Wales—especially in the run-down, old industrial areas, be it the slate quarrying areas in my constituency or the old coal mining and steel making areas—local government needs resources. It certainly needs more than it is getting and it also needs a greater discretion and flexibility to use resources to meet requirements in the various areas.
  The Minister gave the impression that the council tax system is working perfectly. I do not doubt that it works better than the poll tax—it would be difficult not to be better. However, he must be aware, as I am, of countless constituents who feel that they have been the recipients of very rough justice under the banding system. He must also be aware of the strong feeling about the business rate. For many small businesses, that sort of overhead, in addition to the cost of water—which itself is often a heavy burden —could pull them down. There is a need to consider a more flexible system so that those who have difficulty paying could have lower bills while those who are doing well take on a little more of the burden. There is also the question of local government's use of the capital resources gained from selling council houses. There is a need to build new property for the thousands of people in Wales who are on housing waiting lists. All those matters need to be reviewed.

  769
  What disappoints me in particular is that the Government do not acknowledge the need to consider finance together with functions and structure. In the 1970s reorganisation—that was, after all, the baby of a Conservative Government—the opportunity was lost to look at finance, functions and structure together. That mistake is now being made again and I very much regret it.
  I appreciate that we will not get much further on these issues this afternoon and that there is a wish to make progress on the Bill. However, I want to put to the Minister the fact that we must soon review the way in which the finances of local government work. There is also a need to give local government greater freedom and responsibility. By doing so, we will have a more meaningful form of democracy in local government in Wales.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 12

  RIGHT TO NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
  ?.—The rights of employees of local authorities in Wales to notice of termination of employment and payment in lieu of notice, whether under contract or under sections 49 and 50 of and Schedule 3 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, whichever shall be the greater, shall be preserved.'.—[Mr. Morgan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 30, in clause 42, page 33, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 46.
  No. 31, in clause 43, page 34, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.
  Government amendment No. 62.
  No. 34, in clause 44, page 34, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 35.
  No. 12, in page 34, line 44, after 'treated', insert either'.
  No. 13, in page 35, line 3, at end insert
  'or to be entitled after 1st April 1996 to receive equivalent redundancy payments from the new principal council.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 63 to 65.
  No. 33, in clause 45, page 35, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.
  Government amendment No. 66.
  Mr. Morgan: This is one of the most important groups of amendments that we shall discuss, for two reasons. First, 130,000 people work in local government in Wales and the Welsh Members who represent them here must be aware of the need to give them some reasonable protection of their accumulated rights—or acquired rights, to use the European phrase that has come to the fore in the last week following the historic judgment of the European Court of Justice.
  The second reason is important procedurally—I know you will take a particular interest in that, Madam Speaker —and relates to events after Second Reading on 15 March. The point was raised in Committee, but this is the first opportunity that the Secretary of State will have had directly to deal with the matter since Second Reading, although apologies were made on his behalf in Committee.
  770
  On Second Reading on 15 March, the Secretary of State recognised that clause 44 did not give adequate protection to workers in local government who might be affected directly by the Bill in terms of loss of status, loss of earnings or, ultimately, loss of jobs. He said that clause 44 would be redrafted by the time the Bill reached Committee stage. Unfortunately, although that pledge was repeated in the wind-up speech on Second Reading by the Under-Secretary of State, who I am glad to see in his place, there were no amendments to clause 44.
  4.15 pm
  An apology was made by the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the Secretary of State, who was not a member of the Committee, but we have been told by people who have an extremely detailed knowledge of the proceedings of the House that the parliamentary draftsmen deputed to prepare the amendment to clause 44, as per the pledge given by the Secretary of State, were taken off it to follow instructions given to them by a non-Cabinet Minister, the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People, who was in his place five minutes ago, who issued instructions to the parliamentary draftsmen—I understand that it was the same parliamentary draftsmen—to stop preparing the amendments to clause 44 and instead to prepare the dilatory amendments to help the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) spike the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
  We have been given two unsigned letters to that effect by people whose understanding of the proceedings of the House in preparation of legislation is extremely detailed. In attempting to pursue the matter and get the full facts, I asked the Secretary of State for Wales on 23 May on what date the instructions were given to the parliamentary draftsmen to prepare the amendments to clause 44 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, as had been promised.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: And by whom.
  Mr. Morgan: I received no answer from the Secretary of State. He blocked it by saying that it is not the practice to provide details of internal decisions of that kind—a totally absurd answer as I asked the question only because, just five days previously on 18 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) had received an answer from a more junior Minister, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, to his question:
  "on what date the Minister for Disabled People authorised his Department to instruct Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the amendments tabled to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill".— [Official Report, 18 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 525.]
  If the Minister of State can answer that on 20 April 1994 he authorised his officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to draft the said amendments that caused such interest at the time, particularly from you, Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for Wales cannot tell me, the people of Wales and the 130,000 people who work in local government in Wales on what date the Secretary of State sent his instructions to Parliamentary Counsel. I was told it was before; I am now told that it was after.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he has said this afternoon is highly disturbing in relation to the Government's tactics on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. He is arguing that higher priority

  771
  was given to drafting the 80 amendments for Conservative Members to wreck the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill than was given to the keeping of a pledge to the House of Commons about the drafting of amendments to this Bill. That must be a very disturbing revelation for people on both sides of the House. I understand that what my hon. Friend has said is very well founded. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will now respond. He did not respond to the request for a written answer; I hope he will respond now. It is a very important House of Commons matter.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his further elucidation, and for confirmation of the importance of this issue by the person whose private Member's Bill was affected. It may not be proper for me to ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you could command the Secretary of State for Wales to answer the question.
  Madam Speaker: Order. It would not be in order for me to enter the debate.
  Mr. Morgan: But to stay within the rules of order of the House and to protect the public right of access to information—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on that matter and I responded—the House did not know that. That is why the hon. Gentleman is able to raise the issue again today. It is for the Minister to respond—and if the hon. Gentleman will bring his remarks to a conclusion, the Minister may do so.
  Mr. Morgan: I will not bring my remarks to a conclusion just yet. The Secretary of State does not seem anxious to answer, but the Minister is rising in his place, so I will give way to him.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his reply to the hon. Gentleman, it is not usual for the Government to announce the dates on which instructions were given to counsel. However, I am prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman that the date when final instructions regarding this particular matter were given to parliamentary draftsmen was 25 May.
  I apologise to the House for the delay that occurred and for the fact that we were unable to produce amendments for the Committee stage as promised on Second Reading. The reason was that there had to be consultations within Government, and in particular with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment, because similar provisions have to apply in Scotland and England, in respect of local government reorganisation, as in Wales.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he did, even though it would have been preferable for the Secretary of State to have answered, because he was not a member of the Committee and this is his first opportunity to apologise to the House for breaching the principle that if a Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet, makes a promise at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading to produce amendments in time for the Committee stage, it is kept. Such a promise is not meant to be like shortcrust pastry and easily broken, but is supposed to be of a cast-iron character.
  772
  I noticed that the Minister's answer was heavily qualified, for he used the words "final instructions". He said that they were given after the Committee had finished dealing with clause 44 on 17 May. Perhaps the Secretary of State can say when parliamentary draftsmen were first instructed to produce amendments to clause 44.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I unreservedly apologise for not meeting the commitment that I gave. I agree with all right hon. and hon. Members that one's duties to the House are most important and that one should always endeavour to meet one's undertakings. I did my best. It is not always possible to get busy colleagues together as rapidly as necessary to secure collective agreement on important matters. I tried, I failed and I am extremely sorry. My right hon. Friend the Minister gave the truthful reason why we were unable to meet quickly enough to obtain the agreement needed, but we did so as soon as we could.
  Ms Liz Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like the Secretary of State for Wales to confirm—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The point of order should be to me, not to the Secretary of State. It must concern a breach of the Standing Orders of the House or our rules of procedure.
  Ms Lynne: Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that what I am about to say in respect of the Minister's reply—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot give a ruling on anything that the hon. Lady is about to say. If the hon. Lady seeks to intervene, she can enter the debate—but she must not involve me in the debate.
  Ms Lynne: I feel that the House may have been misled this afternoon, so I thought it would be more appropriate to raise a point of order.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not use a point of order in that way. Obviously she has something to say, and she is perfectly entitled to intervene. If she wishes to do so, she must seek the consent of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
  Mr. Morgan: I will first make the point that the Secretary of State has still not answered my question. Given the qualification in the Minister's response that "final instructions" were given on 24 May—which I am happy to accept—may the House be told whether earlier instructions were given, pertaining to the drafting of amendments to clause 44, as appears to be the case according to information that I received? If not, why did the Minister qualify his reply with the words "final instructions"?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The simple point is that one assumes that the draftsman reads Second Reading debates, and he would have seen from what was said on Second Reading that there would be changes.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I hope that before we finish this debate the Minister of State will rethink that answer, because it is totally inadequate. Is he saying that there was no contact other than that passive one, with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel being expected to read Second Reading debates and then request the draft amendments from the Minister? Is that the way in which

  773
  the Welsh Office works in respect of drafting amendments? If it is, it is not surprising that a more junior Minister than the Secretary of State for Wales was able to get priority in the queue.
  Ms Lynne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I received an answer from the Secretary of State for Wales on 25 May in response to a written parliamentary question, in which I asked:
  "on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have (a) requested Parliamentary Counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members."
  The Secretary of State for Wales replied:
  "I am advised there have been no such requests or instructions since April 1992."—[Official Report, 25 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 176–177.]
  I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would comment on what he feels about the timing of that answer.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for supplying that information, which I will have to digest. Clearly, she has asked similar questions of many other Ministers. What is astonishing is that on Second Reading the Secretary of State gave an undertaking, which was breached, and that there was a procedure—I am informed —which meant that the Secretary of State for Wales appeared to be in the slow lane and the Minister of State for the Disabled, in tabling the dilatory amendments—which, of course, do not assist the legislation, which is why the taxpayer pays the salaries of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel—was put in the fast lane and given priority over the preparation of genuine and constructive improvements to legislation which were promised at the Dispatch Box.
  That is an extremely unsatisfactory procedure when the futures of 140,000 people in local government are at stake on the one hand and the interests of 6 million disabled people are at stake on the other. Both have been shafted by a very shabby bit of dirty tricks at the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Morgan: I give way to one of the authors.
  Mr. Redwood: That is a most unfair allegation. I have apologised to the House for the delay. I have given an honest explanation of the delay. It was a question of getting colleagues together and getting agreement on a general policy that would be relevant in Scotland and England, as well as Wales, to ensure that what we were doing was sensible or compatible, one with the other. My right hon. Friend gave a sensibly cautious reply about contacts with Parliamentary Counsel because neither he nor I usually undertake those contacts; they are undertaken by officials on our behalf, and we do not have the detailed knowledge of every contact that they have. But I now have advice to say that there was contact throughout April and May with Parliamentary Counsel, as one would expect, and they discussed options, but they were not able to give final instructions, because Ministers had not settled the policy. It is nothing to do with fast and slow lanes, or disagreements between ourselves and another Bill and another Minister. It is to do with settling our policy for this Bill to get it right.
  Mr. Morgan: I do not think that we want to spend hours and hours on this issue, but on a like-for-like basis the Secretary of State has still not given the answer that is
  774
  comparable to that given by the Minister for the Disabled. He is talking about continuous contacts, as though it were impossible for any Minister to specify a single date on which instructions are issued. Yet a more junior Minister —the Minister of State for the Disabled—was able to do that, albeit under enormous pressure, which was exerted by you, Madam Speaker, by other hon. Members and by people outside, in relation to the disgust that people generally felt about the way in which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was shafted, at taxpayer's expense and in an extremely illegitimate procedure. It was an abuse of the purposes to which the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is constitutionally put, and an unconstitutional method was used to shaft that Bill. What made matters much worse was the displacement of the proper use of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to produce the amendments that had been promised.
  I consider Government amendment No. 62 inadequate. Any member of the 140,000 staff who work in local government in Wales will still encounter difficulties in the event of redundancy or any other detriment arising from the Bill. The amendment does not appear to give local government staff any right to sue a new authority through an industrial tribunal, claiming unfair or constructive dismissal or other detriment. Although they could sue the old authority, that authority will not be able to pay up if it no longer exists, and there appears to be no guarantee that the new authority would carry the obligation to meet any claim for damages if a tribunal found in favour of a staff member whose case was not considered until after 1 April 1996.
  4.30 pm
  It seems that there is to be no transfer to the new authority of the full legal liability in regard to such cases. It takes some time for constructive dismissal cases to be dealt with by tribunals. Would staff be able to sue the new authority? If it is the old authority that they must sue, how would they get that authority to pay up?
  There is another reason why the Government amendment is not as good as our new clause 17. The right to consult and the right to proper collective representation appeared to be at the heart of last week's ruling by the European Court of Justice, which conferred the continuation of rights acquired in previous employment when there is a legal transfer to a new employer. The amendment, however, does not seem to cover that.
  It could be said that, until that ruling by the European Court, the Government could not have known that such a provision would have to be incorporated into the Bill. However, the matter has been in progress since the Government introduced their 1981 legislation, and they have had a fair bit of time to consider the implications of the acquired rights directive.
  The Welsh Office, and many Welsh local authorities, have been at the heart of many of the most interesting test cases involving the directive and the continuation of workers' rights after their transfer of employment. We need only think of the Dyfed school cleaners test case, and a case that directly involved the Welsh Office's own lawyers—the South Glamorgan health authority case, in which the Welsh Office was involved as a party. That case concerned the potential privatisation of cleaning and catering services at four of the authority's hospitals; the authority was responsible to the Welsh Office.

  775
  I should have expected those test cases to have taught the Welsh Office lawyers a lesson—that they must cover the point arising from the acquired rights directive, particularly the right to consultation and collective representation, in legislation that will transfer 140,000 people. As far as we can tell, our new clause complies with both the spirit and the letter of the directive; more important, it will leave local government staff no worse off than they are now in terms of rights acquired through length of service, employment contracts and so forth.
  It would save us a good deal of time and trouble if the Government were willing to accept today that their amendment may not be as up to date as they would like, although it has taken them three months—since Second Reading—to produce it. As the Government are already on the back foot on this issue, it would be helpful if, before the Bill goes to another place, they would further improve it, after taking on board some of the points that have been made since the path-breaking judgment of the European Court of Justice last week and after perusing new clause 17 and some of the other amendments.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I must confess that, due possibly to my ignorance and despite the Secretary of State's genuine promises on Second Reading, I found it difficult in Committee to understand where the staff stood in terms of the law and the way in which Government would handle the problems. As Opposition Members represent so many constituents who serve in local government, we should not allow the Bill to be enacted without a most thorough examination of how the Government intend to safeguard staff interests after the changes, which are beyond the control and responsibility of the staff. Reorganisation will be imposed on many people.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as recently as 14 June, a letter was sent dealing with regulations on redundancy? There is great consternation among local government staff in Wales, who believe that, at this late stage, redundancy terms are far worse than Welsh Office officials led them to believe during negotiations. The percentage of staff who will be redundant will find themselves in a terrible position. It will be difficult for them to find commensurate employment and they will have little compensation.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly brings that serious issue to the attention of the House. I did not realise that such a letter existed. It adds to my preamble in which I said that we owe it to the staff to consider the matter carefully. We shall debate the issue until we find out what the position will be for local government staff, who will be seriously affected by the legislation. Whatever happens, many staff will experience a disturbing and anxious time.
  The only way of handling the issue is to note what we have been told in the House, and particularly in Committee, in order to understand the ramifications of amendment No. 62. In Committee, two significant statements were made by the Under-Secretary. He said:
  "The Government accept that TUPE may apply to transfers in the public sector, including local government reorganisation, but the way in which it does so would depend on circumstances in each case. The Government do not accept that in the context of reorganisation all staff would necessarily have a right of transfer under TUPE. No doubt, we may want to return to that later."
  That statement on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection
  776
  of Employment) Regulations 1981 applied to a considerable number of staff who were affected by reorganisation.
  Later in the debate, the Under-Secretary clarified his argument. He referred to the advice of Patrick Elias QC, which had been received by the Local Government Management Board. He said that the advice
  "suggests that senior and central administrative staff in split authorities, such as counties, are less likely to be protected than similar staff in merged authorities, such as most district councils. If that advice is correct, it emphasises the importance of devising staff transfer arrangements that, as far as possible, provide equality of treatment for all staff."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 May 1994; c. 524–40.]
  That statement lifted the veil on the first statement that some staff were covered by TUPE and some were not. He clarified and redefined his first statement. That is how matters stood. At least TUPE could apply to a large number of staff.
  Perhaps I am not reading the legislation correctly or perhaps words do not mean what they seem to mean. I want to draw the House's attention to the words of amendment No. 62. It is a Government amendment and has not yet been moved or spoken to. Inevitably, the initial part of our debate will be interrogative—asking questions, rather than making statements. The amendment says:
  "in relation to a person whose contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act"—
  so the responsibility is fully that of Government legislation—
  "it shall be assumed that he was dismissed by the old authority concerned by reason of redundancy immediately before 1st April 1996 and that his dismissal was proposed by the authority."
  What do those words mean and what effect will they have on people's rights under TUPE? I have a lawyer sitting not far from me. Am I right in saying that it is an attempt to frustrate contract? If so, is that the intention? If that is the intention and we accept the amendment, does it remove people's rights under TUPE? I am a layman wandering around in this world and I am trying to use the correct language. If people have been dismissed and re-employed, does it mean that a transfer has not taken place? Therefore, am I right in saying that TUPE will not apply?
  If I am right, it is very serious and I find it hard to believe. It rubs against every assurance and all the good words that we had from Ministers in Committee and on Second Reading to the effect that there was no such intention. Do the words of that amendment in any way jeopardise the rights under TUPE which were accepted by Ministers and by counsel's opinion to the Welsh Local Government Management Board?
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: This is the core point of the debate. It was raised by me on Second Reading and an assurance was given. It was raised again in Committee on 17 May and again an assurance was given. To this day, we do not know the answer. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to refer to frustration of contract. It is nothing short of that and, in my respectful submission, it is a disgrace. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am getting some confirmation about my interpretation from those who know more about this than I do. If my interpretation is correct, we should be deeply disturbed and there should be a tremendous row. I am half hoping that somehow Ministers will show that this is not the way to interpret the words and that there is no intention to remove the rights of staff who are to be

  777
  transferred. We will look later at the view of Mr. Elias and the Local Government Management Board. Ministers accepted in Committee that TUPE applied to a significant proportion of staff, although not to all. I fear that amendment No. 62 could be interpreted as an attempt to remove people's rights, because they are not being transferred but are being dismissed and reappointed. I do not want to build great edifices on a weak foundation. However, if I am right, we will feel a sense of betrayal, as will an enormous number of staff in local government.
  Ministers have been very helpful in this regard. After Mr. Patrick Elias's opinion was referred to in Committee, we were quickly circulated with copies of his opinion. I suspect that it has been subsumed into the Local Government Management Board document "Reorganisation in Wales Human Resource Timetable". I am old-fashioned and I think that this sort of language—the language of modern industrial relations—should be outlawed by the Secretary of State. In fairness, it is not his document. I do not want to weary the House with the document, but it analyses in considerable detail the application of TUPE. It states that the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice believes that the directive applies to the public sector and covers transfers of undertaking such as those affected by local government reorganisation. It concludes by stating in paragraph 31:
  "Although it seems certain that as a result of this change TUPE will apply to local government reorganisation, the government has so far not formally accepted this, and the point is yet to be tested in the courts."
  4.45 pm
  I thought that in Committee the Government had accepted that certain groups of staff would be covered by TUPE. I accept that they qualified that by saying that it did not apply to all staff. That is shown by the second of the two references I made to our debates in Committee on clause 44. If nothing else, before the House proceeds much further, we must obtain confirmation from the Minister that TUPE does and will apply.
  If any doubt is left, are we going to drive local government representatives and organisations to the enormously expensive business of applying for a judicial review? That is potentially very expensive and would use a great deal of council tax payers' money. Also, imagine the enormous cost of having to go to the European Court. We should not pass amendments which we do not understand and which would leave enormous challenges to be pursued and enormous costs incurred. We need a full explanation. In the spirit in which I introduced my remarks, I ask the Minister to clear this matter up.
  My next point deals with who is covered by the amendment. Local government employs a fantastic number of people in different ways. The Minister was kind enough to provide me in a written answer with some figures on the employees in local authorities. Mid Glamorgan has 12,000 full-time employees and 9,000 part-time employees. Would just the administrative staff be covered or would everybody who works for the authority? How many employees, as opposed to administrative staff, would be affected and have their contract deemed to be terminated under amendment No. 62? How extensive is the process described in amendment No. 62?
  I should like the Minister to clarify the position of direct labour organisations and direct service organisations. As a result of various Government changes during the 1980s,
  778
  they are semi-detached from Government and have to apply for contracts. That is a good layman's way of describing them. What happens to those employed by direct labour organisations and direct service organisations as a result of the reorganisation and what are their rights?
  I hope that I have indicated—nothing more than that —that those are very important and serious questions to be answered. I am not willing to condemn the Government and I shall not say that they are doing anything nasty, dirty or reprehensible at the moment, but I want to know and try to understand exactly what they are asking us to accept in amendment No. 62. I find the whole world of local government staffing and its language fairly difficult to understand. I should be grateful if the Minister, who perhaps understands such things, would tell me what this marvellous quote from the report by the Local Government Management Board means:
  "The drawing up of staff structures will be a major task for the HAPS".
  Who are the HAPS? The report continues:
  "and the management team, (and any other senior staff, including HR specialists".
  Paragraph 41 says:
  "Current estimates are that some 90–95 per cent. of existing staff will transfer by order."
  Is that the percentage that will be transferred if we accept amendment No. 62, or will anybody be transferred if it appears that a person was dismissed first and then reappointed?
  Those are important issues and I hope that the Minister will explain it to hon. Members and, more importantly, to the thousands of people whose livelihood, jobs and security are threatened—perhaps that is a strong word. Anxiety has descended on them as a result of a piece of legislation which we shall probably pass by the end of the evening.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I wonder whether the Minister can help us in relation to the redundancy and severance terms and compensation arrangements for those employees of existing local authorities who are affected by reorganisation. I refer in particular to a letter dated 14 June, which reached its listed recipients only yesterday and, therefore, was made available to hon. Members after the debate had started. In my case, it was made available today. It is addressed, among others, to the Welsh Office, so I assume that the Secretary of State has received his copy by now. It is also addressed to the Shadow Staff Committee for Wales, as well as to district and county councils in England and Wales. I realise, of course, that it is a consultation document and that responses will be sought to it and that it may be amended in due course. However, one is bound to wonder why the document has not appeared with the draft regulations until now, bearing in mind the expressions of concern in Committee several weeks ago.
  Mr. Morgan: And on Second Reading.
  Mr. Carlile: And, indeed, on Second Reading, as the hon. Gentleman says. Will Ministers explain to the House why such an important matter, affecting so many of our constituents, appears not to have been resolved until this very late stage?
  Paragraph 2 of the letter is headed:
  "The Local Government (Compensation For Redundancy) Regulations 1994".
  Was the Welsh Office consulted on the matter; if so, what representations did it make on behalf of those loyal

  779
  servants of local government in Wales, many of whom, if they are in the 5 per cent. or so—a minimum estimate of those who will lose their jobs—will find it difficult to obtain jobs elsewhere, at least without a disturbing and upsetting uprooting of themselves and their families? Paragraph 2 states:
  "A maximum ceiling on payments is now proposed, based on a tariff which takes account of age and service."
  When was the change decided which leads to the word "now" being included in the sentence? What is the reasoning behind the introduction of that maximum, which was obviously based on a change of mind by the Departments concerned? The paragraph continues:
  "Employees, aged 50 or over, who qualify for immediate payment of pension under the local government superannuation regulations will not now be able to benefit from these regulations."
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has shown a great grasp of these issues, which is much better than that of many lawyers, who still find employment regulations a little strange and difficult to deal with and are a little perplexed by it all, apart from one or two experts, like the wife of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Why has it been decided, at least at the proposal stage, that employees who are entitled to benefit from the local government superannuation regulations should no longer be allowed so to do? How is it considered to be fair that that should be brought on employees of 50 or over, who will find it especially difficult to find at least commensurate new employment?
  Part 3 of the draft regulations deals with the authorities affected by local government reorganisation and provides that, for a defined period of reorganisation, there will be a mandatory floor between the statutory minimum under employment protection legislation and the discretionary statutory maximum. That means that a limit is placed on the compensation arrangements available to those who are made redundant as a result of local government reorganisation.
  We must examine what level of compensation is proposed for those who are made redundant as a result of reorganisation. We are told that those mandatory payments will accrue at the rate of 1.5 weeks' pay for each year of service between the ages of 23 and 41 and 2.5 weeks' pay for those between 42 and 49, but up to a maximum of 45 weeks' pay plus a generous extra half-week for 45 to 49-year-olds. As I understand it, that means that a 22-year-old clerk or housing officer working in a local authority affected by reorganisation will receive six weeks' pay if he has worked there for four years. As an estimate of loss, that is not merely stingy, but borders on being absurd, especially for local government officers working in rural Wales. I hope that my understanding of what is proposed is wrong, but that understanding is shared by local government officers who have received notice of the proposals in the past 24 hours.
  Let us take another example at the extreme end: a 53-year-old chief planning officer, who has very little prospect of obtaining a job elsewhere, will receive a maximum of 45 weeks' pay as compensation. How does that compare with the compensation arrangements available in the private sector? It does not compare even with the limited compensation arrangements available to Members of the House who lose their seats.
  780
  Surely, at the very least, we should be able to give loyal and experienced local government officers compensation arrangements commensurate with what they would be able to obtain in a comparable area. I suggest to Ministers that one comparison would be what employees would obtain if they went to an ordinary court for breach of a similar contract of employment. Someone in as one-off a type of employment as the example I have given should be able to claim a year's notice at the least, yet under the proposals he would be given just over three quarters of a year's notice. It is not good enough for the Government to set such low standards in the public service compared with the private sector. There are examples of people who have been brought into the public service from the private sector and of enormous compensation payments being made.
  The draft regulations provide:
  "during the period of reorganisation, local authorities are obliged to compensate employees below the level of the mandatory floor but … they retain discretion to pay up to the prescribed maximum".
  There is great uncertainty among local government officers about what they will be able to recover in compensation for loss of office and consternation and genuine concern in Wales as a result of the draft regulations and the letter, not least because the information has been provided at such a late stage.
  5 pm
  Will Ministers at least confirm that they will adopt a flexible attitude during the consultation period and that they will examine seriously the "comparables" that can be found elsewhere so that we can ensure that fair compensation arrangements are available to some good officers who, unfortunately, are bound to lose their jobs? That is a matter of particular concern, as many of the 5 per cent. will be at a senior level. They will be in the older age group and are likely to be the people most affected by heavy family and mortgage commitments, which they may become unable to meet.
  Mr. Llwyd: I have three specific questions to ask. First, amendment No. 62 refers to "any other enactment". What does that mean? Am I right in thinking that it is a reference to TUPE regulations; or is it a reference to another enactment? It is important that the meaning of those words is made clear today.
  Secondly, will there be an entitlement to receive notice of termination of employment? The Minister will no doubt realise why I ask that, and it is important that we receive an answer.
  Thirdly, in connection with the "enactment" to which I have already referred, I draw the Minister's attention to section 5 of the TUPE regulations. Am I right in thinking that any contract which would otherwise terminate shall be transferred to the new authority by virtue of those regulations? Those three core questions deserve to be answered, not only for our sake but for that of the tens of thousands of people in Wales who have, alas, been considering the passage of the Bill with a less than enthusiastic gaze in the past few months.
  Part of the reason for their lack of enthusiasm has been that matters so vital to them have had to be raised time and time again. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), on Second Reading I mentioned TUPE and the frustration of contract and was told that the issues would be dealt with. Not having been satisfied in any shape or form, I raised

  781
  them again in Committee on 17 May, when assurances were again given. If Government assurances are to mean anything, they must be fulfilled. That is a painfully obvious point. I believe that these issues, at the very least, should be cleared up today so that we can give accurate reports to the people of Wales.
  As a first principle, I do not accept that the provisions now being discussed by the English Staff Commission should apply to Wales. Clearly, we are seeking the most appropriate arrangements for employees in Wales, and local government in Wales will of course differ from that in England in two key respects. First, reorganisation in Wales, unlike reorganisation in England, will not be phased but is to take place on one specific date. Therefore, the opportunity for staff to seek other employment in local government is diminished. Secondly, and just as important, local authorities are the major employers in many parts of Wales and, given the economic circumstances of the region —or the country—it might be difficult for staff who lose their jobs as a result of reorganisation to obtain further employment.
  I note that the Local. Government (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1993 give authorities the power to pay at their discretion up to 66 weeks' severance pay—less, of course, any redundancy payment to which the employee would be entitled under existing statutory and local government legislation. Those regulations were made in the wake of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v. Allsop. They were not drawn up as a response to local government reorganisation, and I believe that they would be inappropriate in this instance.
  Like many other hon. Members, I am especially concerned about employees aged between 40 and 49 or 50 who may be casualties of this reorganisation and who will doubtless find it very difficult to obtain commensurate jobs elsewhere. Compensation arrangements for reorganisation should not apply only in respect of redundancies which take place on 31 March 1996. I believe that they should operate for a period of, say, a year or 18 months before and after reorganisation. That would provide an incentive for staff who wish to take early retirement and make way for employees who would otherwise be made redundant on vesting day. It would be only right and fair if that were to happen. Of course, reorganisation compensation should be paid only if redundancy is due specifically to the creation of the new authorities. In the case of other redundancies or early retirements, I believe that the usual arrangements should apply.
  I have already asked questions about TUPE—questions which were also eloquently posed this evening by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Ministers are no doubt aware of last week's landmark decision in the European Court of Justice, and I sincerely trust that the Government will not have to be hauled again by their hair through the courts because of their stubbornness and disrespect for the rights of ordinary working people. I am sure that their mandarins are now considering their obligations in the light of that decision, and I respectfully suggest that TUPE will most definitely apply to everyone involved in this transfer. Indeed, I would go further and say that, fortunately for me, that was also my opinion on 17 May—an opinion I still hold—when I declared that the Government were intent on acting illegally and that EC directive 75/129 on employment provisions, which was later amended by another directive, came into force under
  782
  the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. As Ministers are aware, the method proposed under that Act for calculating redundancy payments is abundantly clear.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on some information that I have just received? I have just been told by a senior local government officer that it is now understood that older officers—those over 49 years of age —will not receive the compensation that I outlined. By reason of their age, they will be given less. I understand that in my example a 53-year-old local government officer in Wales will be able to recover only 26 weeks pay under the proposed regulations.
  Mr. Llwyd: I agree that that is an appalling scenario, and I trust that it will prove to be faulty in due course. I am sure that the interpretation is right, but it is absolutely unfair and we must examine it carefully.
  The 1993 Act details some ways of avoiding dismissals, reducing the number of employees to be dismissed and mitigating the consequences of dismissals. Those matters are important. I have already referred to the TUPE regulations. Once again, I invite the Secretary of State and Ministers to respond to that point. As for the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), if that is the correct interpretation, it is an appalling situation.
  There is, I regret to say, continued uncertainty and there are no hard facts about the Secretary of State's commitment to a 95 per cent. staff transfer level. We have heard references to the opinion of Mr. Elias QC. I am still in the dark about that; what is worse—and more important —many thousands of people in local government in Wales are also in the dark. May I ask the Minister how that staff transfer level was initially derived, measured or compiled? How will that level of transfer be achieved if all the staff seeking continued local government employment are not transferred by order on 31 March 1996? The Government need to be precise and clear at this stage or they will face the continuing accusation of window dressing for political and pressure effect, rather than dealing with the substance of this vital issue.
  I have already referred to the TUPE regulations. The European acquired rights directive was applied in the European court case. However much Ministers may seek to bury their heads in the sand, we are part of the European Union and, accordingly, we are bound by that directive and the court's decision. I hope, therefore, that in the next few days—not months, as we have seen with the tabling of amendments—we might have some pertinent references to that case and possibly some early and urgent amendments to the way in which the Government are thinking about the matter.
  I respectfully remind Ministers that the objective of the European acquired rights directive is twofold: first, there is a need to secure appropriate posts in the new councils for all staff who wish to continue in local government employment; secondly, there is a need to protect both the global level and the important position of local government employment in the socioeconomic life of Wales.
  I shall ask the Minister some further questions. I hope —perhaps I am hoping against hope—that he will answer them because we need details; otherwise, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said yesterday, the process of scrutiny is a sham. If it is a sham, we are

  783
  letting the people of Wales down. I believe that we are letting them down anyway because the Bill is badly flawed. We need clear indications from the Government on staff transfer arrangements, TUPE and compensation arrangements for Welsh employees.
  Reference has been made to frustration of contract. We need details on that today. We also need the details of detriment packages for loss of earnings and so on. Undoubtedly, the Minister will refer to the letter that was sent out on 14 June. I make no apology for not having read it. It is my good fortune that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery handed me a copy a few moments ago. I have not evaluated the covering letter, and I make no apology for that. The letter should have been made available at a much earlier stage than the Report stage of such an important Bill.
  To say that the situation is disappointing is not strong enough; I am very disappointed—it is a shambolic way to run any Department. The Department of the Environment is writing letters when the Welsh Office is supposed to be dealing with the matter before the House. Why did the Welsh Office not request the information earlier? Why were hon. Members not made fully aware of the consultation process before now? If I am corrected by the Minister at any stage, I make no apology for that. I am in blissful ignorance of the provisions. It is unfortunate that those of us who spent six weeks in Committee were not even accorded the decency of being allowed to know what consultation was going on behind closed doors. This is supposed to be the Government of open government, but we have yet another example of anything but open government. It is a shambolic experience and I am disgusted by it all.
  5.15 pm
  There are compensation provisions. We are all being invited to take part in the process known as consultation, which may or may not turn out to be true consultation. In the past, I have been less than happy about the standard of comprehension by Ministers and, indeed, the extent to which they are prepared to listen during the consultation process. However, for what it is worth, I will throw my hat into the consultation ring. As the Welsh changes will happen on the same day, and as the average wage for local government employees in Wales is low, it is important that we are given firm indications of the direction in which we are travelling. I have referred to detriment and frustration of contract. Once again, I invite the Minister to respond fully to those points.
  I shall put forward one or two views which I hope will be taken into account in the so-called consultation process. I believe that there should be a statutory non-discretionary scheme, adopting the principles of the 1986 regulations but with improvement for employees over 50 and between 45 and 50. Employees aged 50 and over who are so entitled should receive an immediate pension with maximum added years and a maximum severance payment of at least 52 weeks' pay. A maximum of 82 weeks' pay should be made to those not entitled to an immediate pension. Those aged 45 should have their pension frozen and brought into payment at the age of 50 with maximum added years and a minimum severance payment of up to 82 weeks' pay. The calculation of redundancy payments should be based on an actual week's pay or any multiple of that.
  784
  Nothing short of a full reply to those detailed points will allay the fears that I have for my constituents and for all local government employees in Wales. They deserve to be told where they are going. They are energetic and they went into the service with the best possible intentions. Some of them went through the trauma of the 1972–74 changes and are now to be subjected to this reorganisation. People in Dolgellau who have young families, mortgages and so on are desperately worried about their future. I cannot stand idly by and tell them, "Yes, I raised it on Second Reading and I am to be given a reply" or "Yes, I raised it in Committee and I am to be given a reply." We are now on Report: for heaven's sake, will the Minister please reply?
  In conclusion, I refer briefly to the assurances given by the Under-Secretary of State at a conference in Llandudno on 7 January, to which reference has been made. He said then that he would urge that Welsh provision should be tailor made to meet the needs of organisations in Wales. I am asking him to deliver on that undertaking.
  Mr. Peter Hain: The Minister will be aware—he will contradict me if I am wrong—that Lliw Valley borough council is the only example of a borough authority that will be split after the change to the new unitary authorities. As such, it is distinct from a county which will—and does—supply services to a range of residents in different borough authorities. When staff are transferred from counties to new unitary authorities, therefore, they will be in a slightly different position from those in a borough authority.
  A number of questions were raised by the Under-Secretary of State's answer in Committee when he said, referring to advice received by the Local Government Management Board, that
  "senior and central administrative staff in split authorities, such as counties, are less likely to be protected than similar staff in merged authorities, such as most district councils."
  He continued:
  "If that advice is correct, it emphasises the importance of devising staff transfer arrangements that, as far as possible, provide equality of treatment for all staff."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 May 1994; c. 540.]
  It is significant that in that brief but highly potent statement the Under-Secretary of State referred only to a split county authority, not to the only example of a split district council that I can think of in the reorganization—Lliw Valley district council.
  Can the Minister reassure my constituents and those people working in Lliw valley—both that part served by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and the upper Lliw valley, which I represent? I imagine that a teacher working in a school in Godrergraig, which is to be transferred into the new Neath and Port Talbot unitary authority, will also be transferred to that authority, so there will be no problem. What about a park attendant employed in Pontardawe, let us say? He or she will also be transferred to the new unitary authority, which is Neath and Port Talbot.
  What will happen to members of staff in Lliw valley who straddle the divide? They may be housing officials—or work in leisure, recreation or some other council department—who do not have a location on either side of the border. Where would they be transferred and would their rights be fully protected?
  It is not clear whether all existing employment rights will be protected consequent upon transfer to the new

  785
  unitary authorities. That is a general point. Even though the Government are tidying up the arrangements through these amendments, they do not seem to guarantee that all existing employment rights will be protected as a general principle. But it is a particular problem in the schizophrenic situation that I have mentioned, where some employees of Lliw Valley are in the anomalous position of serving both sides of the border and it is not clear to which authority they will be transferred—Neath and Port Talbot or Swansea. Will their redundancy, contracts of employment, pay, salary and conditions all be protected?
  It is very important for the Minister to give some serious reassurance that the Bill protects the rights of those individuals who are caught between the two authorities. It is not clear to me that the Bill as drafted, or as it might be changed by these amendments, would give them that protection. They would value a positive response from the Minister in that respect.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: This is indeed an important batch of amendments. Let me assure the House at the outset that we do not expect the reorganisation to lead to a large reduction in the number of staff. We hope to secure the necessary reductions in staffing levels by voluntary redundancies. It should, therefore, be possible to avoid any compulsory redundancies on 31 March 1996, but the House will appreciate that I cannot give a guarantee on that matter, since a great deal depends on the decisions of the new authorities and members of staff.
  Volunteers for redundancy could be sought in the summer and autumn of 1995, but only from among those staff whose jobs are changing or disappearing as a result of the reorganisation. Staff whose jobs are not changing, such as teachers, care assistants and so forth, will be transferred, so the question of redundancies and compensation will not arise for them.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced on Tuesday the Government's proposals for the severance payments that authorities could make and hon. Members have referred to them. We are proposing that staff under the age of 50 could qualify for a redundancy payment of up to 66 weeks' pay, depending on age and length of service. It would be up to the authorities, if they wished, to make a payment at the highest permissible level, but we propose that they should not be allowed to go below a minimum floor, which will apply for reorganisation-related redundancies occurring in the calendar year 1996. That is what we are consulting on and not the document of November 1993, to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred.
  The proposed local government redundancy compensation payments do not cover people beyond the age of 50 because staff over that age can qualify for immediate payment of pension. Staff under the age of 50 cannot do so and it is appropriate, therefore, for the higher redundancy payments to be made to them. They are higher. I assure the House that both the floor of payment and the maximum payments will be considerably better than entitlement, in the form of the statutory minimum under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
  The transfer arrangements would be as follows. First, there would be a competition for chief executive and chief officer posts. I would expect that process to be completed by the end of summer 1995. Staff whose jobs were not changing would be identified and listed in draft transfer
  786
  orders, which would be published no later than the end of November 1995. Any other staff with the right of transfer, under TUPE, would be included in supplementary transfer orders.
  Volunteers for redundancy would be sought from the remaining staff. Those who did not volunteer presumably would wish to remain with local government and would be seeking a post in a new authority. The new authorities would have at least until the end of March to complete their procedures for recruiting staff to the new posts that they would be creating.
  We hope that sufficient volunteers for redundancy would come forward so as to avoid the need for any compulsory redundancies on 31 March 1996. But if that were not the case, some redundancy notices may need to be served before reorganisation. If such notices had not expired by 31 March 1996, it would be possible to transfer the staff concerned to serve out their notice in a new authority.
  Perhaps this is the point at which to emphasise that clause 53(4) provides for new authorities to take over the contractual responsibilities of the old authorities. The arrangements that I have described would maximise certainty for staff at the earliest possible stage in each case, and would ensure that the vast majority of staff from counties and districts transferred to the new authorities receive equal treatment.
  5.30 pm
  The Opposition amendments would do none of those things. Apart from the staff who have the right to transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, there would be no means to transfer staff from the old authorities to the new. The transfer orders in clause 42 would set out clearly to which authority an individual had been transferred, and I think that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). The amendments would leave industrial tribunals as the only means of securing certainty in cases of doubt, and of course I cannot commend them to the House.
  I want to deal with the Government amendments.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister is quite correct in saying that the emphasis of new clause 12 is on the preserved or acquired right to be able to take a case of unfair or constructive dismissal to an industrial tribunal. Is he then commending the Government's legislation? Is he also guaranteeing that there will be continued rights to sue in an industrial tribunal, regardless of whether one is suing an old or a new authority? Would that be correct even if the case eventually only gets to an industrial tribunal after 1 April 1996, when there will be no old authorities, even if it is one of those which is being sued?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I will come to precisely that point as I deal with Government amendments Nos. 62 to 64.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am just going to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). The hon. Gentleman, referring to clause 44, said that it shall be assumed that a person was dismissed "by reason of redundancy" and that his dismissal was proposed by the authority. Those words bring with them the requirement to consult representatives of staff, to give notice and so on.

  787
  In that case, we are talking about people who are not transferred by order and who are in the employment of existing authorities. I shall have more to say about the points made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in a few moments;
  Government amendments Nos. 62 to 65 give effect to the undertaking which my right hon. Friend made to the House on Second Reading to reassure staff that they will have full rights under employment protection legislation, including rights to consultation with representatives of staff and trade unions about prospective redundancies and notice of redundancy.
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am dealing with this set of amendments so the House can understand their full scope. Clause 44 applies only to staff who lose their jobs at the point of reorganisation. We hope to secure the necessary reductions in staffing levels by voluntary redundancies, so it would be possible to avoid compulsory redundancies on 31 March. It is not possible to give an assurance on that point.
  Government amendment No. 62 was somehow misunderstood by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. It mentions the relevant employment protection provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. These are concerned primarily with redundancies, which is precisely the situation dealt with by clause 44.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing matters with the right of transfer which staff might have under the TUPE regulations. Such staff are implicitly recognised in the wording of subsection (IA)(b) of the amendment, which states that
  "a contract of employment is transferred—(i) to a new principal council, if it is treated by any provision made by this Act, or by or under any other enactment, as continued in force with that council".
  In other words, staff transferred under TUPE will not be covered by clause 44 because they will be transferred. The provisions of the Bill cannot override the requirement of European legislation, such as the TUPE regulations, which implement the acquired rights directive.
  Mr. Rowlands: I feel out of my depth and I am willing to accept the ministerial word on the matter. Is it the ministerial word that nothing in the amendment undermines the rights of staff under TUPE in the event of reorganisation? I would appreciate it if the Minister could give that categoric assurance.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: TUPE can apply, but it depends on the circumstances of the individual case and I am happy to reaffirm that now. There is no attempt to undermine that directive in any sense.
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Government amendment No. 66 plugs a gap which we have identified in clause 45.
  Mr. Morgan: One matter needs to be cleared up. If I understood correctly what the Minister said before the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, he was referring to the emphasis
  788
  which the Government were placing on facilitating the transfer of staff with all their acquired rights under TUPE from the old authorities to the new. He said that this was in the form of a guarantee that the staff will be transferred. The problem is that people can lose rights while they are being transferred. For instance, they may find that they were moving from full-time to part-time work, which would normally give them the right to compensation for detriment. That could take place under TUPE or under old-fashioned UK employment law.
  The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned not only the right to sue for compensation and to be entitled to a redundancy package because a person has lost his job, but the substantial deterioration in terms and conditions, such as a loss of hours. Is he covering that point of detriment as well?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I have covered the transfer of staff from one authority to another. I shall again remind the hon. Gentleman of clause 53(4), which states:
  "Anything done by or in relation to an old authority before 1st April 1996 … shall … have effect as if done by or in relation to the successor authority."
  In other words, the liabilities of old authorities transfer under clause 54 to the appropriate new authorities. Clause 44(2) already recognises that such liabilities will be transferred to new authorities. There will not, therefore, be the change which the hon. Gentleman anticipates. If a change resulting in detriment to an individual occurs, the new authority will be as responsible as the old authority might have been.
  Mr. Morgan: I am finding some comfort in what the Minister is saying, except for one point—he is overselling the matter to the House. Is he implying that clause 44, as amended by Government amendment No. 62, confers rights to transfer, without loss of acquired rights under employment law? We understand that it is neutral on that point, permitting that to occur without debarring it. It does not confer it as a matter of right. The Minister is leaving the clause in a form whereby staff would have to find out how the right to transfer without losing their acquired rights will be enforced. The right is not conferred by clauses 42 to 45, which pertain to the transfer of staff from the old authorities. It would be misleading to the House and the 140,000 staff who could, in theory, be affected if he tried to imply that he is conferring something on them when, in reality, he is permitting, in a neutral manner, another form of regulation, which will have to come back to the House in another form, to confer that right. Is not the clause simply neutral on that point?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is leading us down the wrong garden path. He forgets that all the other employment legislation, for example on redundancies and transfers, comes into play. The clause relates only to local government reorganisation in Wales and the specific transfers of staff that will be needed between authorities. The hon. Gentleman should remember that other employment legislation is still effective.
  Government amendment No. 66 plugs a gap which we have identified in clause 45. For example, an individual on a fixed-term contract with an old authority could have already secured a job by competition in one of the new authorities, yet could have claimed damages for loss of office under his existing contract. The House will agree that that would not be an appropriate use of public funds.

  789
  Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are unnecessary.
  Mr. Morgan: Before the Minister leaves Government amendment No. 66, may I ask him when he expects to be able to produce the regulations? What areas are they intended to cover? What is the expected timing for producing the regulations, which appear to qualify the right conferred by the rest of the clause? Can he produce fairly soon a list of the headings which those regulations will cover, as it may take a year or so before the Minister produces the regulations themselves? It is a bare-bones explanation simply to say that those regulations will exclude the effect of the clause without saying how soon we may know the range of subjects to be covered under those headings? Can the Minister give us some information on that front?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not think that I can give information on the timing of the regulations at this stage. Obviously, they flow from the passage of the Bill and the events that will follow, with which the hon. Gentleman is, by now, as familiar—if not more so—than I am.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Llwyd rose—
  5.45 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure the House that anyone who is entitled to a redundancy payment as a result of the reorganisation should receive it. I appreciate the fact that some of the amendments have been probing, but I believe that the provisions in the Government amendments are far superior—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I want no sub-committees here, please.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government amendments are far superior to the amendments put forward by the Opposition, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendments and accept the Government amendments.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister of State began by saying that he hoped that the clause would be based on the principle of volunteers for redundancy, which would solve most of the problems. The heartfelt way in which he said it may have been based on the fact that he has volunteered for redundancy from his office. This may be his last evening at the Dispatch Box, as reshuffles gather pace.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should not concern himself with my future as much as that of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has nominated the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but will back the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). What on earth has the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) done to him?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that that will be regarded as a rhetorical question. It has nothing to do with the subject under consideration.
  Mr. Morgan: I am extremely pleased to have your diktat on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not cross swords with you.
  Later this evening, we shall be in a position to wish the Minister of State well in his retirement and return to angling, wangling and poetry.
  Mr. Llwyd: Before the hon. Gentleman says farewell to the Minister, does he share my concern that, of the five specific, extremely important points that I put to him at the beginning of the debate, not one has been answered? Does he agree that that is unacceptable and that something deceitful may be going on? Why are not we entitled to a reply?
  Mr. Morgan: That is the problem we are experiencing. These are complex matters. They are almost arcane when we try to put them into debating points, but they are life-and-death matters to the 140,000 people who work in local government. We are trying to bring the matter to life in the House as it will undoubtedly be brought home to the staff directly affected by it. That is why those of us who, unlike the Minister of State, intend to continue to represent Welsh communities where local government is an important source of employment are disappointed. I wish to take nothing away from the Minister's popularity in the House, which will doubtless be greatly enhanced by the identity of his successor once it is known.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend try to extract from the Minister answers to two questions regarding the position of direct labour organisations and direct service organisations? I put specific questions which, unfortunately, perhaps due to an oversight on his part, the Minister did not answer. That was why I wanted to intervene.
  Mr. Morgan: He is the Minister for oversight in the Welsh Office, so I am not sure whether I can persuade him to rise to the Dispatch Box once again to discuss DLOs and DSOs. Many of those 140,000 people are in DLOs and DSOs and their position is exceptional. Given the Minister's absence of comment on that issue in answer to specific questions, I am none the wiser on how DLOs' and DSOs' continued acquired rights will be covered. We do not want the Minister of State's successor to be hauled before the European Court for sins of omission because the Minister has failed to clarify the matter or give an undertaking that, by the time the Bill returns to the other place, it will be cleared up.
  After all—I return briefly to my opening remarks—this is a displaced debate. This is the debate that we should have had in Committee a month ago. The debate that may take place in 10 days' time in the other place should have taken place tonight on Report, with us having had the two bites at the cherry which issues that are so complex and of such life and death importance to the bread and butter earnings of the 140,000 staff in local government in Wales deserve. Those staff should have the benefit of the two bites at the cherry. They will want to know what is said. Ministers also need to be able to take on board the comments that are made tonight.
  If the Minister is stumped on the issue of the DSOs and DLOs, that is fair enough. We expect him to be stumped from time to time, as all Ministers are—and he no less and no more than other Ministers. If the debate had taken place in Committee, no doubt the matter would have been clarified by the time that it came to Report. However, on Report, the Minister may be stumped and when the Bill goes to the other place it will be the last opportunity for any clarification. Instead of there being a month between Committee and Report stages, we shall probably have only a week and a half before the Bill is finally dealt with in the other place.

  791
  We have to meet our constituents in our surgeries or deputations of local government officers. They have every right to expect answers from us. They will say, "We vote for you; damn well find out from those people in Westminster." The chances of our finding out the answers to their questions have been much reduced by the way in which the debate, which should have taken a place a month ago in Committee, has had to take place tonight. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  We still do not know to what extent the TUPE regulations will be incorporated and I do not think that we are any the wiser as to whether the Government have made any attempt to take on board last week's European Court of Justice ruling. Has that been incorporated into Government amendment No. 62, or is that a matter that they will now study, going back to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel—who no doubt will be extremely pleased to see them—and saying, "By the time the Bill goes to the other place, we must ensure that this amendment, covering these redundancies and transfer rights, will be incorporated", and further amendments will be made in the Bill's final stages in 10 days' time? That is not satisfactory.
  If the Minister will not say anything about DLOs and DSOs or any of the other matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I must say that there is no doubt that the interference by the Department of the Environment—and perhaps also the Treasury—in that issue has been exceedingly unhelpful. The Secretary of State admitted earlier—something that he obviously did not know when he made his promise at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading—that the Department of the Environment and the Treasury would interfere. He did not know it at the time he made his promise; otherwise, he probably would not have made that promise. He then found out that the Department of the Environment and the Treasury are the big boys in this issue and that he is only the tea boy, and that, unfortunately, he was prevented from doing something that he thought that he had the freedom to do when he promised that this matter would be clarified and sorted out in amendments that would be proposed in Committee in May. Unfortunately, he was prevented from doing that and now the Department of the Environment conditions in England, which are entirely different, will apply.
  Wales is a far more rural area than England. People who are displaced in local government in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy or of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) cannot obtain other jobs without moving house. That will not be the case in a more urbanised area such as England.
  At all times in England there will be a continual flow of different stages of reorganisation, which will not be the case in Wales. We are having the big bang in Wales. It will create an enormous amount of simultaneous confusion and changes in the supply and demand of local government staff, which is not a matter about which the Department of the Environment has to worry. As a result, I have to tell my colleagues that I intend to divide the House on that issue.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 160.

  Division No. 262]

  [5.53

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Lewis, Terry

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  McCartney, Ian

  Austin-Walker, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Madden, Max

  Barnes, Harry

  Mahon, Alice

  Bayley, Hugh

  Martlew, Eric

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Michael, Alun

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Betts, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W?kshire)

  Corbett, Robin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cousins, Jim

  Olner, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Patchett, Terry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Don

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Raynsford, Nick

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Rendel, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flynn, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fyfe, Maria

  Spellar, John

  Galloway, George

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Garrett, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Hain, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Harvey, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw?n W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Jowell, Tessa

  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

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

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bates, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gallie, Phil

  Brazier, Julian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hague, William

  Churchill, Mr

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clappison, James

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Congdon, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  793

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Horam, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sims, Roger

  Key, Robert

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stephen, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Stern, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sykes, John

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Luff, Peter

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tracey, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Trend, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Watts, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Wells, Bowen

  Merchant, Piers

  Whittingdale, John

  Mills, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wilkinson, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Page, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paice, James

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Patnick, Irvine

  Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 17

  GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING
  ?After section 29 of the planning Act insert—
  "29A.—(1) This section shall apply only to Wales.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Local Planning Authorities concerned, by order designate areas in respect of which the Local Planning Authorities, as and when directed by the Secretary of State, are jointly to prepare guidance for the planning of land-use, transport, economic development and the environment, within those areas.
  (3) The timescale for the preparation of such guidance shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State.".' —[Mr. Morgan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause relates to the absence of any guarantees in the Bill for the provision of what might be described as strategic planning, including any equivalent to the powers which we expect to be included in the English local government measure and which have already been included in the Scottish one.
  The planning subjects that we want the Secretary of State to instruct the incoming unitary authorities to cover jointly are land use, transportation, economic development and the environment. We understand that the new clause
  794
  meets with the approval of various lobbying bodies with a specialist interest in planning issues, in both rural and urban Wales. The Council for the Protection of Rural Wales is broadly in favour of its thrust because it understands the problems that might arise if we sub-divide the planning of all sorts of issues—including wind farms, which happen to be the burning issue of the moment in rural Wales.
  There are many other issues, including the way in which rural Wales—previously a Cinderella area but now rapidly expanding—handles the subject of land use and the change in the environment. Land consisting virtually entirely of national park or areas of outstanding natural beauty is also extremely attractive to the new society into which we are moving, in which people's choice of housing is not necessarily determined by economic activity. Many people now retire at 50 or decide to go for the good life by leaving London and their careers because they think that their children would be better off brought up in a country environment. Those sorts of conflicts need to be resolved.
  In urban Wales there is a desperate desire to resolve the question of where the major employment sites will be. A site may be in one unitary authority area, but it may primarily serve a labour market in an adjoining area. Such issues could be more easily resolved if there were a grouping of special subjects involving two, three or more unitary authorities. That would be for the Secretary of State of the day to decide, in consultation with the unitary authorities. They would then have instructions from the Secretary of State to prepare strategic plans on this, that or the other issue, such as the four listed in the new clause —land use, transportation, economic development and the environment.
  The Secretary of State will know that this is in no sense an attempt to reconstruct the counties in some sort of shadowy form over the next 20 years. It is very much in the spirit of the provision in the Scottish local government plans for covering strategic planning against the background of the sub-division of Scotland into smaller, single-tier, most-purpose authorities.
  We are going through the same process in Wales, but there is a major difference between Wales and Scotland, and the Secretary of State has never justified it. Why is it that his counterpart in Scotland thinks that there is a continuing need for strategic planning to be carried out in agreement between himself and the Scottish local authorities? We are looking for something similar in Wales. We have tabled new clause 17 in that spirit and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in support of the new clause and, in particular, of the part concerned with preparing guidance for the planning of land use.
  The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs conducted a detailed study of rural housing in Wales and considered the extent to which existing local authorities were or were not complying with existing local and structural plans.
  One of the great problems arises from the fact that the Government have decided to ensure that all district councils prepare new local plans—a process that is now well on course. I am delighted that, at last, after many years, the Government have insisted that those new development plans are drawn up. The great difficulty is that now new plans have to be drawn up by the new unitary authorities, so at the very time when local authorities

  795
  which have in the past resisted drawing up local plans are busy doing exactly that, the Government have introduced a Bill which will mean that they will have to draw up, on the basis of new boundaries, entirely different plans consisting of two parts—one a strategic plan and the other setting out the details of what is intended for public consultation.
  The difficulty that that poses for the Welsh Office and for the Government is very clear: to what extent will they intervene in the internal affairs of a local authority when that local authority plainly does not follow Government guidelines?
  When we examined the situation in rural Wales, we came across a few district councils that regarded Welsh Office interference in their affairs as extremely unwelcome and considered that the policy planning guidelines were not there to be acceded to. We questioned officials from the Welsh Office on this matter, particularly in relation to Dinefwr borough council. An answer given by Mr. Gregory in his evidence to the Select Committee on 16 June 1993 was extremely helpful in pointing out the Government's position when the draft plan is being prepared by the local authority—and, in view of the Government's proposals, the new unitary authorities.
  I am anxious to explore with the Minister the question that arises from Mr. Gregory's sentence. I realise that that gentleman has moved on to greener pastures and I congratulate him on his move to the Department of Health. At column 195 of the Select Committee report, he said in relation to the way in which draft local plans are being drawn up by district councils:
  "Our practice is to ask the authority to explain why it is appropriate in these circumstances, since it does not appear to be, and if the authority cannot explain it, and where personal canvassing is the only reason, it is very difficult for them to do so, then either the authority changes the boundary or we enforce a change.".
  6.15 pm
  What interests me in relation to the Government's proposal is that, when the chief planning officer for the borough of Dinefwr gave evidence in his letter of 6 July 1993, he identified 14 villages within that borough where the local planning committee had decided to overrule the officers' recommendations regarding significant parcels of land that would now be included in the draft local plan for housing development.
  Mr. Gregory said that, if the authority continued to proceed in a certain direction, the Welsh Office could be entitled to or could decide to enforce a change. I am interested in the relationship between the new unitary authorities with a new plan and the power of the Welsh Office to enforce that change.
  If the local unitary authority is to have the power to determine planning applications with no reference to the county structure plan, will the Welsh Office increase its intervention and its scrutiny of planning in Wales to ensure a consistency across the Principality that plainly did not exist in recent times, as the Select Committee inquiry demonstrated?
  The new clause represents an attempt to set up a system which replaces the council city structure plan—which will not exist because the counties will not exist—with a
  796
  system of checks and balances to ensure some consistency across wider parts of Wales rather than simply within the local authority area.
  A fundamental unfairness exists whereby some individuals can get planning permission within a local authority area, entirely against both the local plan and the structural plan, whereas other individuals are unable to get such permission. The clause seeks to address that fundamental issue by trying to establish a system that would help the Welsh Office to avoid the additional burden that any Government Department would attempt to avoid. The clause attempts to ensure that there is fairness within Wales—fairness which, as the Minister knows, did not exist in 1991 when the Select Committee considered the subject in detail.
  Is the Minister confident that, under the proposed changes, all the new unitary authorities will have deposited both parts of the new plan by the end of 1996— I refer not to the plans that they have been drawing up but to the new plans—so that there will be some consistency? Secondly, to what extent may we be sure that the Welsh Office will no longer need to watch carefully what each unitary authority is doing in planning terms because checks will exist within them?
  It is over-optimistic of the Welsh Office to assume that, if the new clause is rejected, sufficient powers will not only exist but will be used by the Welsh Office to ensure consistency throughout the Principality. We need a replacement for the county structure plan. To rely on the new plans drawn up by district councils without a county structure plan to ensure a fair system throughout Wales will be to create a major problem.
  Let me use the analogy of voluntary arrangements among Welsh district councils with regard to waste disposal. The Minister and I spent many happy hours in the Select Committee considering that vexed issue, which took us into consideration of leachate, methane gas and other environmental problems. We also spent many happy hours investigating those problems in situ in different parts of the Principality.
  In that instance, there was tremendous inconsistency in the regulation of waste disposal as between district councils. Finally, voluntary agreement was reached between three sets of Welsh district councils, to try to establish a degree of consistency. The difficulties were legendary. I will not describe all 286 landfill sites in Wales that existed in 1987. The majority of district councils were superb in the way that they performed their duties. But some were not. When the voluntary groups existed, certain district councils within them were reluctant to accept from an officer financed by them all instructions as to the action that they should take. I visited some landfill sites and saw leachate entering neighbouring streams; the prosecuting authorities took companies to court and those firms were fined for endangering the life forms in rivers polluted by leachate from tips.
  Plainly, the voluntary system did not work. That point applies equally to the provision before us. The Welsh Office needs to play a far more proactive role in carefully examining draft local plans and to use its powers to direct -local authorities not to permit development outside village boundaries contrary to planning guidelines.
  I cite the example of policy planning guidance note 7 and annexe E, in respect of bungalows and other homes for retirement farmers in Wales. At present, the Select

  797
  Committee is devising a questionnaire that will be sent to every Welsh district council asking for details of contraventions of that planning guidance.
  We already know that since January 1992, in Montgomery district council, three retired farmers have had new homes built on land that they owned. Will the Welsh Office force those farmers to demolish those properties because they are in direct contravention of the Welsh Office PPG? If so—and I appreciate that Montgomery might not survive—the new clause may not be necessary. If it is the Secretary of State's purpose, after the Bill receives Royal Assent, quickly to move in, enforce his powers and direct those few miscreants in Wales to demolish their properties, new clause 17 may be unnecessary. If, however, the Secretary of State allows his PPGs to be flouted as they occasionally are in different areas, the new clause will be necessary to protect people from renegade local planning committee members who give permission as a result of personal considerations being uppermost in their minds.
  I can do no better than to refer again to the clear message given in many of the local government commissioners' reports—that although only a small percentage of Welsh district councils are guilty of that practice, their actions bring the whole planning system into disrepute. The commissioners' 1991–92 report stated:
  "One council granted consent for some 48 per cent. of those applications, which were significant departures from the council's own approved policy."
  One report on a complaint against the council in question observed:
  "Such a situation can only reflect adversely on the council's credibility as a planning authority."
  The Minister has kindly addressed that issue, and I am sure that he will do so again. However, it is vital that the Welsh Office takes a far more interactive and active role in ensuring that planning policy guidance is followed consistently across Wales, so that when draft local plans are drawn up they are closely scrutinised and development approval for a local planning authority member's land contrary to the recommendations of the local authority's own officers will not be tolerated.
  The balance between local democracy and central Government is critical. I hope that the Government will either use their powers to ensure consistency or put in place a system to replace the county structure plan as a check, if it happens that the local development plan that the Bill proposes is ineffective. If the new clause is accepted, the Welsh Office will be let off the hook and local democracy will be able to remain paramount. But I am sure, as the Minister is aware, that the people of Wales are not happy with the situation whereby certain councils have been able to give planning permissions without close reference to the law, the statutes and policy planning guidelines. It gives me great pleasure to support the new clause.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Llwyd: I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. It has been a somewhat sobering experience over the past few months to undertake the research and investigation to which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred. There were quite shocking instances of breaches of planning regulations, which, apparently, were dealt with in a very unsatisfactory manner, and with no regard whatever for normal planning guidelines.
  798
  I moved a not dissimilar amendment in Committee, which was supported by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and other Welsh bodies that are actively involved in planning issues in Wales. The core point is that we must have some strategic view of planning in Wales, otherwise we could end up with 21, 22 or 23 different unitary development plans and a very queer patchwork throughout Wales. Another obvious point arising from the new clause is that environmental issues cross development boundaries, and are vitally important; they do not adhere to a particular boundary.
  The new clause is highly necessary. Those who are far more proficient than I am in planning matters feel strongly about it. They feel that the current safeguards in the Bill are not appropriate or strong enough and that we might well be left in a very haphazard position were the scenario referred to by the hon. Member for Gower to come about. I sincerely hope that the Government will give further thought to that important issue.
  Will the Minister give me an assurance regarding the amendment that I tabled in Committee about the role of community councils? Since tabling that amendment, I have received upwards of 170 responses from community and town councils in Wales, all of them, bar two, supporting it. The Minister may recall that I said that there should be better consultation with community councils and that, if a community or town council wants to meet planning officers, that meeting should take place before any decision is made. I recall the Minister's words. He told me that either a similar amendment would be tabled on Report—which is today—or those words would be incorporated in guidelines issued to the new unitary authorities in their consultation process with the community councils. I trust that the Minister can give me some assurance on that. I fully support the purport of new clause 17.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I thank the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for his concise and thoughtful speech. I well recall the much longer debates that we had on the subject in Committee, and his speeches then. I want to give him the assurance that he seeks about the relationship between the new local planning authorities and community councils. I am confident that the arrangements that we have in mind, particularly the guidelines that we intend to issue, will produce exactly the right form of consultations, and that we will see a better arrangement to ensure that the important views of community councils can be heard by the local planning authorities.
  I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. His Committee's inquiries into planning have resulted in a useful working together for the Welsh Office, drawing on the work of the Select Committee. We are taking forward a process of monitoring departure applications, and I am sure that that is exactly the additional monitoring that the Committee wanted us to do. I am grateful for its assistance in that matter.
  I am confident that the concept of unitary development plans will be a much better arrangement. It draws together the differences between what is now being done by the county councils and the district councils under one arrangement. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am

  799
  confident that there will be timely progress in taking forward the unitary development plans, building on the work that has already been done by the existing councils.
  Each local planning authority will be required to address strategic issues during the preparation and adoption of its unitary development plan. Policies related to the urban and rural economy, transport, planning, environment and conservation are among the topics that will be included in part 1 of the plan. Land use proposals will figure in part 2.
  Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, authorities will be required to consult adjoining authorities on strategic and other cross-boundary issues. Two or more neighbouring authorities may wish to prepare jointly their unitary development plans. That will be a matter for them. The quality of planning, however, will not be improved by mandatory groupings of authorities. Nor do I feel that they will be helped by having to issue guidance to themselves, because the new clause is very narrow, and the only object that would be achieved by that would be the preparation of joint guidance. Accordingly, I urge the House not to accept the new clause.
  Mr. Morgan: That was a disappointing reply, but given the firmness with which it was delivered, it would be pointless to press the matter to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS
  Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 18, leave out Parts I and II' and insert Part I'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments:
  No. 11, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'areas' to end of line 23 and insert
  'shall be as set out in Part I of Schedule 4 and shall be counties, save that a county may become a county borough under the provisions of section 245A of this Act.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 41 to 47.
  No. 16, in schedule 1, page 52, line 5, leave out 'Part I' and insert 'Parts I and II'.
  No. 17, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 19.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to have the opportunity to move on to the question of the Government's persistence in their erroneous ways of attempting to divide the new world of unitary local government in Wales into two classes. The Government are, perhaps, wedded to two-tierism. We are a two-tier society. We have a two-tier health service and now we are to have two-tier local government in Wales—on the one hand through an attempt to rationalise Wales by having unitary local government and, on the other, the absurd attempt, which, in spite of all our attempts, so far has been resisted by the Government, to break up local government and make it class conscious almost before it comes into existence under the new unitary scheme.
  As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will see, with reference to amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which come at the end of this
  800
  group of amendments, the schedules on pages 52 to 55 of the Bill lay out the names of the new authorities as though they were two cricket teams to be played against each other—as though they were gentlemen and players or, in some way, a class A and class B of new local authorities.
  There is no purpose to that at all. It is purely related to status, not to function. I should have thought that the whole spirit of the Bill would follow the principle that we are trying to persuade those new local authorities to think about their functions as being 100 per cent. of the job in front of them, not their status. To make local authorities status conscious from day one and to discriminate between two groups of local authorities so that they have different status is patently absurd and absolutely not what the Government should be doing. Any casual glance at parts I and II of the schedules makes that quite clear. That is why in amendments Nos. 16 and 17 we abolish the distinction between part I and part II. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which we are initially discussing, are the ways of bringing that into the text of the main part of the Bill.
  Government amendments Nos. 41 to 47 are minor technical amendments, relating to the freedom of authorities to drop such words as "county" and "shire" from their titles. We need not spend much time on them; our time should be spent asking the Government yet again to reconsider the grouping of authorities into two classes.
  A particularly absurd aspect of the proposals is the fact that, although class A is clearly meant to be more important than class B, authorities can ask to move from class A to class B—in other words, they can ask to downgrade themselves to the second division—but cannot do the reverse. Authorities currently listed in schedule 1 are, in effect, being told, "You are the important ones, but if you decide that you want a mayor"—or, in the case of the cities of Wales, Cardiff and Swansea, a lord mayor; that is their historic right—"you must move into the second division."
  That is patently absurd. The fact that authorities should be placed on a pedestal and then asked to lower themselves from the first to the second division if they want the status involved in having a lord mayor beggars belief. It would be much simpler to recognise cities' historic rights—and those of county boroughs, which, being already in the second division, automatically have mayors. The fact that Cardiff and Swansea are being required to ask the Secretary of State's permission to move into part II and, as it were, downgrade themselves because of the discriminatory nature of the legislation makes me wonder what the Government thought that they were doing in dividing the schedule into two parts, listing about 22 areas.
  The Government should try to simplify and rationalise the Bill. The Secretary of State should employ the intellectual incisiveness for which he was famed as a university student. He should consider whether the Bill would be neater if it concentrated more on the functions of local government and less on the difference between the first and second divisions.
  It would be better to create a single class of unitary authorities. The cities could then have their lord mayors, areas whose historical or geographical orientation makes them counties could have their chairmen and chairwomen, and historic boroughs could have their mayors: no authority would have to jump from one class to another.
  It is not necessary to draw up two classes. All that is necessary is a schedule listing all the local authorities in

  801
  Wales, so that none is distinguished on the basis of status, but the title of each clearly implies whether it is an historic shire, an historic city or an historic borough.
  The present "division 1" contains both present cities and present shires; it is not as though different types of authority area are being described. Division 1 contains shires and cities, while division 2 contains boroughs. If a city wants a lord mayor, however, it must jump from the county list to the borough list. That underlines the absurdity of the Government's obsession with creating two classes. They originate from a class-ridden society, and they are now creating another.
  The list of local authority titles should be simple and rational. There is absolutely no purpose in dividing the schedule into two parts, comprising two apparently counterposed lists of local authorities which will be set aside from day one as though they differed in status—as opposed to powers. We do not want status-conscious local authorities; we want function-conscious authorities, anxious to do a job and orientated towards providing services for their citizens. The schedule starts the Bill off on the wrong foot, and will have the same effect on local authorities. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Hain: I wish to press the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on a specific issue—the title of the new Neath and Port Talbot unitary authority. That title excludes a significant part of the new authority: upper Lliw, the upper Swansea valley and the lower Amman valley.
  Schedule 15 states:
  "The name of a Welsh principal area shall not be changed under this section before 1st October 1996 except with the consent of the Secretary of State."
  Let us suppose that, having been elected—even with "shadow" status—a new unitary authority decides that, in order better to reflect its composition, it wishes to change its name. I see the Secretary of State nodding appreciatively: that is an unusual experience for me, and it may harm his reputation, but I hope that he will consider this matter sympathetically. Such action would be well received, and would provide certain reassurances. The right hon. Gentleman nods again; this is becoming dangerously repetitive.
  As the Minister will appreciate, there is a proud tradition in the upper Swansea valley—which contains such towns as Ystalyfera, Pontardawe and Cwmllynfell —and the lower Amman valley, which contains Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Those towns—and even the little village of Rhiwfawr—do not feel that they can easily be associated with Port Talbot; they have a certain association with Neath because they are in the Neath constituency.
  I realise that playing around with names on the Floor of the House of Commons could be seen as a dangerous pursuit for a sitting Member of Parliament; playing around with boundaries is dangerous enough, but playing around with names may be even more hazardous. I do not seek to impose any alternative name on the new authority—that is a matter for the new members—but the Bill contains an unsatisfactory element, in that it excludes a sizeable slice of the new authority which has an important tradition and identity and proud local communities.
  Suggestions have been made, and I pass them on without prejudice in any direction. "New Glamorgan" has been suggested; some have even suggested "the Neath
  802
  Valleys"—a certain territorialism may be involved there. I do not think that Port Talbot would be terribly impressed. There is, however, a serious problem: the title of the new authority must give it an identity that is known to the outside world.
  I understand why the Secretary of State may have gone for this option. At least Neath and Port Talbot are two relatively well-known names in Wales—Neath is, anyway —in terms of rugby and politics. That gives the area an identity: investors and visitors know where it is. I can see the logic. A more anodyne name such as "New Glamorgan" might run the contrary risk of making the area relatively anonymous.
  I understand the difficulties involved, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give sympathetic consideration to any request not just from the fully constituted operational authority but from the shadow authority to set itself up on an entirely fresh basis, taking into account the important local feelings of pride and identity that exist in the upper Lliw valley. Certainly, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has nodded vigorously at me suggests that he will do so.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The nomenclature of the areas presents a special problem for my constituency. Although Newport is generally happy with the Bill's provisions, it faces a unique problem: there are Newports in Wales and throughout the world, as a result of which much confusion has arisen. A couple of months ago, I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in which he stated that he would visit an agricultural college in my constituency. I wrote back to say that I would be to happy to meet him and search for it and that, if we could not find it, he could meet the local Child Support Agency action group so that his trip would not be entirely wasted.
  Newports are constantly confused. To establish the identity of the area, it should be given another name. For most of this century, the area was called Newport Monmouthshire. Since 1974, it has been known as Newport Gwent, which has become the established name. We are told by the Post Office, however, that once the Bill is enacted, we shall have to start calling it Newport, Newport, to which some objections have been made.
  We commonly refer to our neighbour, the city of Cardiff, as "Newport, far west", which might be a suitable title if it is considering changing its name.
  The problem, which dates back through the history of Newport, is what to call ourselves. There is only one Casnewydd in Wales: Casnewyyd Ar Wysg is the Welsh version of Newport. The River Usk flows through the town. Usk means water and is found in the word "Eskdale". One popular suggestion is that the town should change its name to Newport on Usk, which has a certain attraction and might be popular.
  Our status is not accepted as permanent. Newport has long aspired to becoming a city. Newport County, a football team of great renown, is sadly no longer with us. Perhaps we could call ourselves Newport City and wait for the Queen or whoever is in charge of such matters to vest city status on Newport. The name of Newport presents -special problems which no other areas experience.
  Newport has an enormously important and unique history in Wales. Certain parts of it are booming, despite the policies of the Government, in whom we are all beginning to lose faith, especially after the last couple of

  803
  days. Newport still has a great future and a rugged, robust personality and character. Those matters must be borne in mind.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendments Nos. 41 to 47 respond to an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). After consideration, we have decided that it would be right to give the new councils a degree of flexibility to determine their official title. In addition to the titles of county council and county borough council, the amendment would create a third form of plain council. It does not alter the legal status of the new authorities—they will still be counties or county boroughs—but it will permit an authority to be known simply as a council, as in Monmouthshire council or Pembrokeshire council. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
  I noted the concern of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about the title of the authority now designated as Neath and Port Talbot. He will recollect that in Committee we passed an amendment that shortened the period in which the new authorities would require my right hon. Friend's permission to change their title. I assure him that my right hon. Friend remains sympathetic to any application, even while the authority is in shadow form. We are prepared to consider whatever application is made.
  I recognise Newport's aspirations to become a city. Speaking as a citizen of the capital city of Wales, I regard that as a fine aspiration. On the basic conundrum about the title of the authority for Newport, I can but leave that with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
  I assure the Opposition that there is no difference between county and county boroughs in terms of status, functions or responsibilities. The two designations were chosen because they are resonant of the traditional pre-1974 structures of local government, when county boroughs were unitary authorities and the administrative counties were responsible for almost all significant functions of local government in non-county borough areas. There is no reason, therefore, to pursue amendments Nos. 10, 11, 16 or 17.
  Mr. Morgan: That answer was absurd. There was no difference before 1974. If one had two-tier local government, one had two-tier local government. The boroughs in the old county areas and the counties split functions between them. It is not valid to say that the counties were so predominant in their areas that they were almost all-purpose authorities—they were not. Anyone who was involved in borough government before 1974 knows that the counties and the boroughs split their functions. They were unlike county boroughs of Cardiff, Newport Swansea and Merthyr.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made some valid points about the need to recognise the contribution that the upper Swansea valley has made to cultural life in Wales. I have strong family connections with that area, which has produced more Welsh rugby captains per head than any other part of Wales: I list only Claude Davey, R.H. Williams, Clem Thomas, Clive Rowlands and Gareth Edwards. The contribution of that area, therefore, should be recognised. I shall leave it to my
  804
  hon. Friend and his constituents to work how that should be done. Perhaps a petition could be presented to Her Majesty, provision for which is included in clause 245.
  If one comes from Cardiff, the issue involving Newport is a much trickier question. I have suggested that Cardiff may become known as the Latin quarter of Newport, although not in proceedings in the House. Cardiff is losing some of its industry, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, Newport remains very much part of the world of work and industry—not something that I necessarily approve of.
  The question of city status for Newport is affected by the problem that I referred to earlier. The schedule has been broken up into parts 1 and II. Inevitably, Newport will read the list. As the biggest and most historic town in division 2, it will naturally ask how it can be promoted to division 1. There is no provision to permit that. Cardiff and Swansea can apply to leave division 1 and go into division 2—they will have to if they are to have lord mayors. How will Newport get from division 2 into division 1? That is a great difficulty.
  Newport has a great history, including something of a football history. In Frederick Raphael's "Glittering Prizes" the bright young things at Cambridge were asked whether they would prefer playing football to working for the BBC, Shell or BP. One said that he would have given up all the A-levels in the world to score a hat-trick for Newport County reserves. As Newport had been bottom of the Football League for five years running at the time, that was a mark of how they valued football above academic prestige, despite the glittering prizes of the Oxbridge world.
  The problem would be solved by removing the distinction between part I and part II in the schedule. If the Government resist, I hope they will listen to the world of local government and will recognise that status in the new Wales does not count but function does. By the time the Bill goes to the other place, I hope that they will have thought again. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  CONSTITUTION OF NEW PRINCIPAL COUNCILS IN WALES
  Amendments made: No. 41, in page 2, line 45, after 'Council"' insert 'or the word "Council"'.
  No. 42, in page 2, line 45, leave out 'Anglesey' and insert 'Cardiganshire'. '
  No. 43, in page 2, line 46, after 'Council"' insert 'or "Cardiganshire Council"'.
  No. 44, in page 3, line 6, after 'Council"' insert 'or the word "Council"'.
  No. 45, in page 3, line 7, after 'Council"' insert 'or "Caerphilly Council"'.
  No. 46, in page 3, line 9, after 'Sirol"' insert 'or the word "Cyngor"'.
  No. 47, in page 3, line 10, after 'Caerffili?? insert 'or "Cyngor Caerffili"'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'Caerdydd and Abertawe' and insert 'Abertawe, Caerdydd and Powys'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 23, in schedule 1, page 52, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—

  'Breconshire and Radnorshire

  The districts of Brecknock and Radnorshire.'.

  Sir Brycheiniog and Sir Faesyfed

  Government amendments Nos. 76 to 82.
  Mr. Jones: We have listened carefully to the arguments for separate authorities for Breconshire, Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire. The Government remain strongly of the view that each of the three districts within Powys is too small to be a self-standing unitary authority with all that that entails in terms of taking responsibility for the full range of local government services.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The Under-Secretary of State said something interesting and important. If Montgomeryshire is too small to be a free-standing local authority, why are not Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and Clackmannanshire too small to be free-standing local authorities?
  Mr. Jones: This is a matter for consideration by the House and I am giving the House our advice on the subject.
  The Government are alive to the concerns of people in Montgomeryshire, Brecknock and Radnorshire who want to preserve the identities of the old counties. We believe that that can be achieved within the context of the proposals in the Bill. The provisions in clause 27 and the new clauses that the House has already considered will provide the shire committees which will allow a real measure of decentralisation of responsibility and accountability for local services to local representatives.
  On amendments Nos. 77, 81 and 82, we have given further careful consideration to this matter. On balance we feel that the community of Llanelly has closer affinities with areas in the proposed new authority of Monmouthshire. Lines of communication, social, economic and cultural links between the community and places such as Abergavenny, Govilon and Llanfoist appear to be much stronger than with places such as Crickhovvell in Powys. Our conclusion also takes account of representations such as the petition of 1,900 signatures presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and the poll conducted by Blaenau Gwent borough council on 24 February, which showed that the Monmouthshire "option" was the most popular among electors in Llanelly. Accordingly, we propose that Llanelly hill should be within Monmouthshire.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: What we have just heard is an insult to the House. If the Under-Secretary of State believed what he said, he would not have read it at such breakneck speed. There is an old horse racing expression to the effect that the jockey cannot come without the horse. What we heard was a horseless statement read by a tired jockey who did not believe in his capacity to finish the race, let alone to win it.
  The Secretary of State reminded us yesterday of his speech at a Conservative party conference when he spoke of the identity that people felt with certain traditional communities. He helpfully reminded us of how he spoke in terms which meant that people could have their Rutlandshire and their Huntingdonshire—communities just like Montgomeryshire and Merionethshire, and just the sort of communities that we won back into the Bill in Committee.
  806
  I apprehend that if the Secretary of State, then the Minister responsible for local government, had been asked to include some Welsh communities in his speech at that time he would have added Montgomeryshire and Merionethshire and he would have done it without any compunction whatever.
  Mr. Rowlands: His predecessor did.
  Mr. Carlile: Yes. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reminds me, the Secretary of State's predecessor did just that.
  We have been over this ground before and I do not want to tread over rocky old ground again or repeat what has been said many times, so I shall not do so; it is all on the record. However, on behalf of my constituents I have to say that the paucity and threadbare nature of the Under-Secretary of State's answer to my intervention really gave the game away. For some hidden, obscure and politically motivated reason the Government have decided that Montgomeryshire and Merionethshire should no longer exist as local government areas. Having thus far represented Montgomeryshire for 11 years and a few days, it gives me great sadness to be here on the day when it has been decided that Montgomeryshire shall no longer have a council with a legal personality which can say, "We are the entity of Montgomeryshire." The last vestige of the old county of Montgomeryshire will be the continuation of the constituency of Montgomery in Parliament.The demise of Montgomeryshire as a council area was not wanted by the public and it will never be accepted by them. The Government must know that by forcing through this unwelcome change in local government boundaries and status they have failed to achieve the consensus that I am sure they hoped at the outset to achieve. It is inevitable that we shall return to local government reform in due course and give back to Montgomeryshire the council that it wants and deserves.
  During the debates in Committee there was some welcome support from the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley). The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, as we rehearsed in Committee, has a distinguished residential and business connection with Montgomeryshire. He fully understands that Montgomeryshire should be a county council in its own right. I suspect that he would recognise that there was an easy and straightforward option for the Government—to have a unitary Montgomeryshire and a unitary combined Brecon and Radnor. Although they may deny it now, I suspect that if the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor had told Ministers at a much earlier stage that he would settle for a combined Brecon and Radnor, that is what we would have got.
  I fear that at the bottom of all this are political considerations concerning the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. I do not want to be unduly unfair to him—indeed, I believe that I shall be very fair to him. He acted courageously in opposing his party's Government and we know that as a result he had to take his toe off the lower rung of the ministerial ladder, although that may be only temporary. I informed the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor that I intended to make these comments and I believe that they should be put on the record. I am convinced that at an early stage in the deliberations he made a serious error of judgment and he

  807
  has become one of the authors of the destruction of Montgomeryshire as a local authority. I believe that his judgment was wrong in refusing to agree to a joint Brecon and Radnor unitary authority: in terms of jobs and accountability, it would have been far better for his constituency than the Powys pudding with which we are left.
  As I have said, I believe that the Government would have agreed to the two-unit option for mid-Wales had the hon. Gentleman supported it. His actions in Committee, welcome as they were, may in the final analysis seem more like self-immolation than rebellion. I believe that his constituents in Radnor as well as in Breconshire would have understood a decision of the type that I require. I believe that in Radnorshire they would understand far better a situation in which they would have had a unitary authority combined with Breconshire than the situation that they are likely to face as a result, which is likely to be a Powys in which there will be shire committees for Montgomeryshire and Breconshire but not for Radnorshire. So we now face the situation that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has brought on his own constituents of Radnorshire of having every decision made by committees with representatives from Breconshire and Montgomeryshire.
  I believe that by Government amendment No. 54 the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has been doublecrossed by the Government. He believed that it would take only 10 councillors from Radnorshire to have a shire committee, but now it will be 15 unless we achieve the unlikely result of defeating the Government a little later on. As a result, part of his own constituency will be seriously disadvantaged. I am sorry that I had to put that on the record, because I respect the hon. Gentleman for the course that he took in Committee, but when people look back on our debates that is one of the judgments that will be made.
  As I have said, it is a very sad occasion to see the burial tonight of Montgomeryshire as a local authority. Montgomeryshire has existed for centuries and is well understood both within and outside Wales as being a distinguished old county. It has produced great citizens and contributors to the national life of the country and further afield, ranging across all walks of life, such as Robert Jones, perhaps one of the greatest of all social reformers, as well as great lawyers, great public figures, great statesmen, and great teachers who almost invaded London from Montgomeryshire by tradition. The dairies of London were known to be run by people from Meirionnyddshire and Montgomeryshire.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: And Caernarfonshire.
  Mr. Carlile: And Caernarfonshire. Montgomeryshire has been part of the national heritage but tonight, apparently, we are to see it go. I regret that, and I believe that many hon. Members in the House—even on the Government side—privately share my regret.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I will deal first with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Sadly, during the entire debate, the one thing that he has not recognised is that the claims of Radnorshire to independent unitary authority status are
  808
  just as good as those of Montgomeryshire. I do not blame him for advancing the claim of Montgomeryshire above all else but, sadly, his remarks tonight have demonstrated that he has not appreciated that the cause of Radnorshire stands alongside the cause of Montgomeryshire and that Montgomeryshire is not to be preferred.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), in his sorry contribution to our debate yesterday, expressed his certainty that I would find myself defeated on the part of Bill before us. He then tried to claim some narrow, party political advantage for himself from such a defeat. I begin by reminding the hon. Gentleman, who may not have understood this, that we are now debating the Government's proposals to overturn the decision of the Standing Committee on amendment No. 44, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and supported by the hon. Gentleman himself. He, on the Opposition Front Bench, signed that amendment. Accordingly, in his failure to mobilise the Labour party in support of the amendment, the hon. Gentleman is demonstrating a failure to support the very amendment that he proposed and the passing of which he managed to achieve in Committee.
  It was not an insignificant event. The somewhat noisy hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)—I am sorry that he is leaving the Chamber—described it as the first Committee on which he had sat in which he had witnessed significant Government defeats. Another so far unnamed Labour Member reported to television Lobby journalists later that it had been the most exciting moment in all his time as a Member of the House. Yet today we have the sorry spectacle of the hon. Member for Caerphilly on the Opposition Front Bench aspiring to be the leader of political life in Wales but unable or unwilling to achieve the support of his colleagues to defend the success in Committee of which he boasted so much.
  It is all so very different, I am sad to say, from the easy promises made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly in earlier debates. On Second Reading, he promised the hon: and learned Member for Montgomery:
  "I shall give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to vote on whether Powys should continue as a unitary authority … I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is my firm intention to support him."—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 759.]
  We know that it was his firm intention to turn up, but that he was incapable of persuading the people whom he aspires to lead to be here to support him.
  We heard so much yesterday about the hon. Gentleman's disappointment with my votes in Committee. His first response to me in Committee appeared as early as column 8, when he said:
  "The only thing that I want the hear from the hon. Gentleman is an 'Aye' when we vote on the creation of the county of Brecon."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 April 1994; c. 8.]
  I might want to hear that sort of support from those who —supposedly—are behind the hon. Gentleman, but sadly he has been unable to bring them along today.
  7.15 pm
  Furthermore, just before the vote was taken in Committee the hon. Gentleman bravely stated:
  "I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment"
  and as an admonition to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) he said:
  "and I urge the Under-Secretary, to understand that if the amendment is accepted,"
  as it was accepted,

  809
  "it will not just be",
  to use an expression which no doubt trips off the hon. Gentleman's tongue,
  "to pull a fast one on the Government or to cause inconvenience, but to reflect the fact that the Government have got it wrong." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 April 1994; c. 103.]
  If the Government have indeed got it wrong, it is a sad event that the hon. Gentleman cannot produce his supporters to demonstrate that by defending the change that was made in Committee.
  Even after the vote had been taken, the hon. Gentleman again was quite outspoken in Committee. He said:
  "I assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor that … he will find Labour Members staunch allies in his cause"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 April 1994; c. 112.]
  That is all very different from the remarks that we heard subsequently in the House yesterday from the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
  Some have said that the hon. Gentleman has abandoned me. For my own part, I believe that the hon. Gentleman, who aspires to be a future Secretary of State for Wales, has abandoned the people of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire. I asked the hon. Gentleman yesterday what he had said to the leaders of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire—
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Evans: I will give way in a moment. I asked the hon. Gentleman yesterday what he had said to the leaders of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire when they met him yesterday to plead their cause. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to respond, I will give way.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I shall certainly respond in a moment to the case that the hon. Gentleman is trying to construct. First, I should put it on the record that the votes of his party's Government and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches will bring about the defeat of the proposal for which he argued in Committee.
  All that I and my hon. Friends have said stands. We are in favour of the creation of three unitary authorities in Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. When the appropriate time comes, I shall recommend to my hon. Friends that that is the course of action that we should take and that is course of action that I shall take, consistent with all my previous statements.
  Mr. Evans: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman gave a rather different response to the leaders of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire yesterday. He told them that he had achieved a major concession from the Secretary of State for Wales. They asked what was that prize and what was the price extracted by this tough negotiator, the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Rumours abounded yesterday that it may be an independent Cynon valley authority, or was it to be an independent Neath or Rhondda? No. The hon. Gentleman proudly gloated to those leaders over his achievement. He said that the Secretary of State had agreed to allow him a vote at 6 o'clock on his half-baked referendum amendment. That was it. The greatest achievement of the man who aspires to be the Secretary of State for Wales, negotiating and fighting for Wales in Europe and beyond, is to have a say in the timetabling of his own failures. Having landed on the beaches of Normandy, the leadership skills of the hon. Gentleman would have allowed him to crawl back into the sea with the kind agreement of the enemy.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak at such length without mentioning any part of the amendment that we are attempting to debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was in order, and he is responsible for his own speech. If he had not been in order, the Chair would have said so.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly, my remarks are causing difficulties for Opposition Members. To round off my remarks about the conduct of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, I point out that he yesterday twice congratulated the Secretary of State on his birthday; with an opponent with the talents of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State must believe that every day is his birthday.
  Paragraph 1.6 of the Government's consultation paper issued in 1991 declared that
  "local authority boundaries should as far as possible reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties".
  On the eve of the general election, in March 1992, the then Secretary of State for Wales said that he would
  "consult further on whether to extend that approach"—
  of local government based on the traditional counties—
  "to separate authorities for Radnorshire and Brecknock."—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 171.]
  My consistent response to that consultation has been to press the case for unitary authorities in my constituency based on the traditional shire counties.
  By 1993 the Government had decided to propose a single Powys-wide unitary authority. However, even they recognised the immense practical difficulties of establishing such an authority without effective decentralisation measures. The Secretary of State has suggested that the powers short of full unitary status could be exercised by area committees which, it was proposed in earlier debates, could even be called county committees. However, the flaw in the Government's argument is that, without real financial accountability, area committees cannot deal with the need for local autonomy in the shire counties in mid-Wales.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, Government amendment No. 54 will effectively ensure that Radnorshire will be unable to apply for any decentralisation scheme. By setting the trigger number of councillors at 15, the Secretary of State has virtually ensured that decisions in Radnorshire will be made by councillors drawn from Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire itself.
  I do not charge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the duplicity or the grubby pursuit of party political advantage shown by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The Secretary of State has always supported a centralised Powys authority and he has maintained the view that smaller authorities—those with under 50,000 people—cannot be permitted in Wales. The chief executives of the two district councils in my constituency, others in Caerphilly and people in Wales of all parties have made sterling efforts. I give credit to the Labour groups in my constituency which have strongly supported my arguments for the establishment of authorities based on Breconshire and Radnorshire. We have even cited Touche Ross, the Government's own advisers, who have shown that the proposals would be cost neutral.
  The Secretary of State is well aware that authorities established under the Scottish arrangements will be smaller

  811
  than those proposed in the Bill. He is also aware that last Friday the independent Local Government Commission for England proposed a unitary authority for Rutland. That decision has undoubtedly been of great comfort to some of my English colleagues. I note, however, that on the very day that Rutland was proposed, the Secretary of State tabled amendments to ensure that the equivalent case for Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire was rejected.
  Twenty years ago, Nicholas Edwards and Sir Raymond Gower carried their objections to the structural reform of Welsh local government into the Division Lobbies. Their views were rejected by the Conservative Government of the day, and they were defeated. With this Bill, the Government are recognising that they were right after all and they have re-established unitary council status for Pembrokeshire. It is ironic that in correcting that perceived injustice the Government have, with the connivance of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, committed as great an injustice in these amendments against the people of mid-Wales.
  Mr. Llwyd: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I do not intend to get involved in a party political slanging match because, at the end of the day, we are talking about the delivery of services to the people of mid-Wales. If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) were serious about the shire counties of mid-Wales being reinstated, why did he turn his back on the people of Meirionnydd?
  Labour Members, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and I were fully supportive of the hon. Gentleman's case on the basis that separate shire authorities for the whole of mid-Wales could work together happily on developmental, structural and economic grounds. In addition, we knew that a review of the workings of the Development Board for Rural Wales was imminent. That was one of the mainsprings of the argument made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor but, alas, he then turned his back on the people of Meirionnydd. Even worse, he tried to persuade me not to push the matter to a Division because he said that he was confident that we would win tonight. I do not accept Tory advice at any time, but I am especially pleased that I did not accept it in this instance.
  The hon. Gentleman is single-handedly responsible for the loss of Meirionnydd. Meirionnydd has existed since the immediate post-Roman times. His Conservative friend who will stand against me at the next election will have a torrid time of it when he embarks on his pathetic campaign trail.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman will confirm that, when we had our material discussion, he maintained that he would be able to organise a vote on Report. We are not able to debate the position of Meirionnydd at this point because he forced the matter to a Division. Furthermore, how I might have voted would not have affected the outcome.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am not in a position to guarantee Opposition votes and I did not claim that I was. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to make such palpably ridiculous charges. I could not guarantee that Opposition
  812
  Members would vote for the amendments because I am in no way involved with the official Opposition. His statement is palpably untrue, but I shall leave it there.
  Despite having existed for centuries, the historic counties of Montgomeryshire and Meirionnydd are to disappear because of the Government. My position is similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. We were both assured by the previous Secretary of State, who respected Welsh history and culture, that there would not be a problem. He said that our counties would be reinstated. In the light of that assurance, the hon. and learned Gentleman and I were happy. I shall not dwell on the skulduggery that has taken place since January—[Interruption.] I hear some Conservative Members making sedentary comments. They have not participated in the debate so far but, if they wish to do so, I shall give way to them. However, if they merely want to make a noise, there is plenty of room for them to do so outside the Chamber. This is a serious matter.
  It angers me that we are faced with the effective extinction of historic counties for narrow party political ends. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, I have no doubt that we shall soon again debate local government in Wales as the Bill is flawed. It will need to be reviewed shortly, and I have no doubt that the saying "Tra môr, tra Meirion" will come through once again.
  I am appalled at the way in which the Government have seen fit to ignore the views of 13,000 petitioners from Meirionnydd and the hundreds of letters that have been written by various people from all political persuasions, and taken this step. It makes me even more angry that the Prime Minister, in congratulating the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber and I wish him good luck—should give his seal of approval to a county that has a similar history to Meirionnydd and Montgomery, yet we as Welsh people in this Parliament are denied our rights. I have no doubt that our constituents will look to the Conservative party at the' next election and rue the day that this happened.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Warren Hawksley: I declare an interest which is in the Register of Members' Interests: my wife and I own a hotel in Montgomeryshire. I therefore have the pleasure of living in Montgomeryshire, seeing how Montgomeryshire district council operates and seeing how popular it is with local people, especially compared with the remote Powys county council.
  I shall be brief. I felt that it was an insult that the Minister's introduction to the amendments took only two minutes. I had hoped that we would have a longer explanation of exactly what has happened since the Committee stage. I had hoped that the Minister would discuss why the second-best alternative of financial autonomy for the three area committees, which was dealt with last night, was not a starter. I understand that the proposal was put to the Department of the Environment on Monday this week. Why was it not dealt with earlier so that the various Departments could study the proposal more fully to see whether it was a runner?
  On Friday, the proposal that Rutland should have its own authority was announced. That was an important decision, which was welcomed at Prime Minister's Question Time today. It is extraordinary that, within hours of the Prime Minister's welcoming the decision, a proposal

  813
  which was accepted in Committee, and which would have resulted in a similar situation, was overturned by the Government. The Rutland case is by far the most important thing that has happened since the Committee stage.
  Undoubtedly, the proposals as agreed in Committee, with the support of two of my hon. Friends, have the support of the public. Public opinion polls have shown that. The comments that I heard when I was back at my hotel show that there is terrific support for the proposals that were agreed in Committee. We heard in Committee about the support from the community councils. The lower tier of local government wanted to retain the three authorities, and that is important.
  I have lived most of my life in the border counties; I was born just over the border in Shropshire. As I moved into a county in 1992, I was interested to see that the Government proposed that the county of Montgomeryshire should be saved and should be the unitary authority. I welcomed the proposal at the time. In Committee, I quoted the words of the then chairman of the Conservative Association when an election meeting was addressed by the then Secretary of State for Wales. The chairman of the Conservative Association said that he was pleased to be back in Montgomeryshire and looked forward to its becoming a unitary authority. I can understand why not only the Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Labour supporters but the Conservative supporters in Montgomeryshire felt let down by the Secretary of State when he came forward with the proposals at this late stage after the election.
  I regret that we need to fight again the fight that we fought and won in Committee. I am disappointed at Labour's attitude. Labour Members tried to explain that they would support this vote. I hope that we will see more than 70 Labour Members paraded in a few moments when we vote on the amendment. If that is all they can get to support the three authorities, it is a fairly poor show and the decision will rest with them. Some of my hon. Friends will support the Opposition parties in opposing the amendment. It will be interesting to see how many socialists go into the Lobby to support those of us who fought hard for the three counties.
  It is a sad night. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, it is probably the end of the county of Montgomeryshire. I shall vote with a heavy heart against the Government's amendment. The Government should honour their election pledge to bring back a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire. I hope that Labour will produce enough votes tonight to join those of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), and other Opposition Members to defeat the Government's proposal. It lets down the electors of Montgomeryshire.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Normally, I do not take much notice of the comments of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) because he has no mandate to speak on this matter in the House.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) has every right to be heard in the House. Should not the statement of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) be challenged?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) has just been heard.
  Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that, as far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman does not have a mandate on this matter. He does not have a constituency in Wales and he does not have the vote of one person living in Wales. The only interest that he has is the financial interest that he happens to have in his constituency.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: He is in the House.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows all about financial interests; he was disgraced as a result of his financial dealings with the city of Westminster. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the question of financial probity, I am more than happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should dispense with the insults and get back to the debate.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge said that he would be interested to know how many socialists will be in the Lobby tonight. I venture to suggest that he is asking the wrong question. The question that he should ask is how many Tory Members will be in the Lobby to defend the interests of Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor. Having asked that question, he should then ask how many of them will be in the Lobby to ensure the destruction of unitary authority status for Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire, because they will decide the outcome of the vote.
  I shall briefly restate the position that the Labour party has consistently held on this matter. During the statement made in the House when the White Paper was produced, I announced my support and that of my party. I referred specifically to the case made for Montgomery and Montgomeryshire. By implication, my statement of support for Montgomeryshire implied support for the case made for unitary authorities for Brecon and Radnor. The case has been made by those councils for the people of those areas. They made their own case, and it was supported admirably by the Council of Welsh Districts.
  In Committee, the case was argued compellingly by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I acknowledge the role that they played. The motion was carried because of the votes of Labour Members. We supported the case made for Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor because we believed in the principle of self-determination. We also accepted the viability of those three authorities. The case for them will also be strengthened enormously when we have a Welsh assembly, which will be able to ensure that the necessary support and co-ordination for strategic services are given.
  It was clear at an early stage that the Government were not prepared to accept those amendments, which were carried against the Minister's wishes.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Was the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the past few minutes, it has been revealed that the Government intend to abandon Government amendment No. 54 and that it will require only 10 members from an area to ask for an area committee?

  815
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government can make that concession at this late stage—I express my appreciation of it—it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have a rethink on unitary authorities, too, and that the House would appreciate that?
  Mr. Davies: That was a dramatic intervention. If I replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman in full, I would have to divulge some of the inner workings of this place. I see that the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip is in position and that the Secretary of State is becoming embarrassed. I am a former Whip, so I am not prepared to divulge all the secrets, but I shall reply directly to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. Yes, I was aware of that and asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who does not normally figure in these debates as he is an Opposition Whip, to consult the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will know that when we debated the matter yesterday I expressed my scepticism because the concession that he was seeking would have made the creation of area committees that much easier, which would have had a destructive effect on many of the communities in Wales that we have discussed. I believe that it will be a force for instability. I recognise, however, that the Government are trying to make some concession, presumably to appease the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, because that will allow the re-creation of an area committee for Radnor which, as the hon. Gentleman demonstrated concisely in Committee, would be denied by Government amendment No. 54.
  I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central that he consult the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I am persuadable on the matter. If he feels that the Opposition should comply with the withdrawal of Government. amendment No. 54, we will consider doing so.
  I must place on record, however, the fact that my colleagues and I want to give the strongest possible support to unitary status for Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor. The proposals contained in the decentralisation measure do not provide a recipe for dealing with the inherent contradictions that exist within a Powys unitary authority. They will also be destructive of local government. That is why I believe that the way to deal with those matters is to strike out clauses 27 and 28, which is what we advocated in Committee and last night.
  I was referring to decentralisation when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery intervened. I recall the attitude of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor in Committee. He said that he supported decentralisation. He did so only because he realised that his attempt to break up —if I can use that expression—the Powys unitary authority into its constituent parts was doomed to failure. He supported the decentralisation measure to prepare for that eventuality. He made that quite clear.
  In fairness, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave precise expression to those views when we debated the matter in Committee. I understand that, as it was a practical and realistic expression, but it does not fit with the sense of synthetic outrage that we get from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, who pretends that all
  816
  along he has been a vigorous defender of the interests of Brecon, Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire and that he will brook no compromise.
  Clauses 27 and 28 stand testament to the attempts of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to reach a compromise deal with the Government. The whole purpose of the compromise was so that he could sell out on unitary authority status. That is the reason for the latest Government attempt to backtrack on their position, for which they were prepared to go to the wall yesterday, on amendment No. 54. They understand that, by doing so, they will deny the hon. Gentleman even that fig leaf of a decentralised area committee for his proposed unitary authority of Radnorshire. Since the hon. Gentleman seems to be in some discomfort—at least, he is pulling faces and getting very agitated—I shall happily give way to him. We have plenty of time.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I was becoming a little concerned because, in one of our first debates on the subject, the hon. Gentleman promised three times to give way to me but never did. He will recall that in Committee I was prepared to consider area committees, provided that financial autonomy was included. I had a consistent and regular position, but sadly the Secretary of State said yesterday that he was not able to concede that.
  Mr. Davies: Every time the hon. Gentleman intervenes in this debate he demonstrates two things: his failure to convince the Government of the merit of his case—if I had been such a failure, I should have been a little more reticent —and the fact that he has no support tonight on the Conservative Benches.
  When we debated these matters in Committee, we supported first Montgomeryshire, then Brecon and Radnor. Then, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, we supported him. We did so because it was a matter of principle and because we believed that those small rural unitary authorities could be viable, especially in the context of a mid-Wales forum.
  First, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor denied his reciprocal support to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, thereby denying the very principle that he asked us to endorse. Secondly, and even more destructively of his case, he knowingly denied the opportunity for the creation of a mid-Wales forum. By removing the opportunity of a Meirionnydd that could have joined those unitary authorities, he destroyed that concept of a mid-Wales forum, but that concept provided the alternative that would have allowed the Government to make a concession on the Floor of the House.
  I do not know why, but I confess that I share with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery admiration for the forthright position that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor took by voting for a separate Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery. I fail to see why, however, having resigned his position and voted against the Government on those issues, the hon. Gentleman failed to follow the logic of his position and the principle that all Opposition Members had united in defending in Committee. I do not understand why he failed to do so.
  What has happened since Committee stage has been significant. First, the Government have accepted the principle of two-tier government—not in Wales, unfortunately, but in England. I share the hope expressed by the

  817
  hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that, even at this late stage, the Government will recognise that they have got the thing totally wrong and are in a minority in Wales. I share that hope, but it is a forlorn one. It is worth putting it on record that the Government consider Clackmannan in Scotland, with a population of 47,000, to be worthy of unitary authority status and that Rutland, with a population of 37,000 is also worthy of such status.
  I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that questionnaires are to be sent to every household in Huntingdonshire so that local people can have their say. He said:
  "That is the right way to proceed."
  That is from the Prime Minister of a Government who insisted yesterday that new clause 11, which would have given precisely the same right to every authority in Wales, must be defeated. Where does the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor stand now? Where do the Secretary of State for Wales and his Front-Bench colleagues stand? Why is it that small authorities can exist in England and Scotland? Why can those in England and Scotland—with the seal of approval from the Prime Minister—have a referendum?
  Mr. Alex Carlile: We are a colony.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman shouts that we are a colony. We are not; we are a proud nation. At the moment, we are suffering from maladministration. The Prime Minister today stated clearly the contempt with which the Conservative party views those of us who live in Wales and who represent Welsh constituencies.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor shares that contempt. Having failed to persuade the Government, and having also manifestly failed to organise any support on the Conservative Benches for his case, he is now trying to divert attention from his failures by blaming the Labour party. I do not understand that.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the parliamentary arithmetic is quite simple, but I shall spell it out for the record so that the electors of Brecon and Radnor have a clear understanding of what has happened. The Government have a substantial overall majority. It would require a significant move by Conservative Members, either to join us in the Lobby or to abstain. We need at least 25 Conservative Members and we need to mobilise all Opposition Members to defeat the Government tonight. The hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to mobilise that opinion.
  If there was an opportunity, it arose during the debate on new clause 11 last night. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor seeks to persuade the House and the people of Brecon and Radnor that it is conceivable that all Opposition Members—including more than 260 Labour Members—will come along tonight to endorse a proposition in which the Conservative party has a direct interest. Opposition Members know that the proposition will not restore to our councils—Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent councils—the same rights as the hon. Gentleman demands for Brecon and Radnor. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking to rewrite the statute now; we are just asking for the same rights for our constituencies and districts.
  We know how consistent the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor is. We do not have to look in the looking-glass, because we can read the record. When the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to show consistency of principle, he ratted on it in Committee. He failed to support the case for
  818
  Meirionnydd, and the cases which we were making for Rhondda, Cynon, Taff, Port Talbot, Neath, and so on. That is a fact.
  If there was an opportunity to defeat the Government and to carry the cases for Brecon and Radnor, Montgomery and Meirionnydd, it came last night in the debate on new clause 11. The hon. Gentleman failed not only to mobilise support for it, but failed even to put himself in the Lobby. He is now trying to suggest that we should bail him out. He failed to win the argument, he manifestly failed to win the vote last night and he failed even to persuade the Government of the logic of his case.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State last night, saying:
  "I recognise that opinion on this matter is divided on both sides of the House and I will be taking the unusual step of proposing that Labour MPs have a free vote on this question. I hope you will be able to adopt a similar position to decide this matter free of any party dogma."
  There is a strong case for that, given that we know that there are manifest divisions on both sides of the House.
  Local government in all the countries of the United Kingdom is now in turmoil. Why do the Government seek not only to impose different standards on England, Scotland and Wales but to have their ideological writ run wherever they can? I do not understand that, and that is why I wrote to the Secretary of State suggesting that, in the case of Powys where opinion is divided, we should have a free vote. Unfortunately, he has not responded. Presumably, therefore, the Conservative party will be whipped tonight. If the proposal is carried, it will not be because of the absence of Labour Members; it will be because of the Whip which the Government are imposing.
  I shall vote tonight against the Government and I shall recommend that my hon. Friends join me in the Lobby. I know that the statements, speeches, actions and attitudes of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor represent nothing more than a gesture. He has been the architect of his own failure.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I totally reject the contemptible approach of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) towards my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Their contributions to our debates on the subject of local government reorganisation in Wales are just as welcome and constructive as the hon. Gentleman's, and usually more so.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, I do not want to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall reply to the debate and I am using the same maxim as the hon. and learned Gentleman of not going over the old ground time and time again. We have certainly aired all the arguments very well, and it is now time to come to a conclusion.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has acted throughout with principle and consistency in continually seeking to advocate what he believed to be the best for his constituents. At the same time, he will accept that the Government have equally acted with principle and consistency in putting forward what we believe is the best arrangement for Brecon and Radnor, and for the rest of Wales.
  I believe that it is better because, by proposing a Powys council, we are bringing forward suitable arrangements with a principal authority which is appropriate for mid-Wales. Our proposals for shire committees will make

  819
  considerable progress in bringing control of local matters to locally elected representatives in the historic counties. That will be a far better arrangement for Breconshire, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire, Merionethshire and any other part of Wales which seeks to take up the opportunities for shire committees.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Jones: I do not want to be overlong tonight. Members of the Standing Committee know that I dealt at some length with the possibilities of the shire committees. They are possibilities, and we are not laying down formulas. It is up to local people to decide what they want to make of the decentralisation schemes. I believe that they are better arrangements than what has been advocated. What we are coming forward—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he would not give way to deal with points that have been already discussed, and of course he is right. Is it in order and appropriate for him to give way on a new point, and is it in order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a long-time campaigner in the House and he is very experienced. He knows the answer to that question. The Minister is responsible for his own speech.
  Mr. Jones: I am concluding, and I think that the House wants me to make progress and not to waste any more time this evening.
  I must say that we will not pursue amendments Nos. 54 and 55. We have listened to what was said yesterday and we have reflected on the matter. We are conscious of the situation of Radnorshire and we believe that there should be an appropriate threshold for numbers of councillors to trigger a decentralisation scheme. We do not look upon the matter as a party political one. It was suggested yesterday that it would need something like 90 per cent. of members elected for one party ticket.
  Instead, we are looking for a high level of uniformity from locally elected representatives coming forward on the basis of what they want for their local county. After what we have heard, we are prepared to go back to the original threshold of 10 and therefore we will not be moving the amendments.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 35.

  Division No. 263]

  [7.58 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Amess, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butler, Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baldry, Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bates, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coe, Sebastian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Congdon, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bright, Graham

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  820

  Devlin, Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Dover, Den

  Merchant, Piers

  Duncan, Alan

  Mills, Iain

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Evennett, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Page, Richard

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Richards, Rod

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hague, William

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Hendry, Charles

  Sproat, Iain

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Stephen, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stern, Michael

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

  Sumberg, David

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sykes, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Key, Robert

  Thurnham, Peter

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Knapman, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Watts, John

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Wells, Bowen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Whitlingdale, John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Legg, Barry

  Wilkinson, John

  Lidington, David

  Willetts, David

  Lightbown, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Luff, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Mr. James Arbuthnot and

  Malone, Gerald

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Barnes, Harry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Bayley, Hugh

  Michael, Alun

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Rendel, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Spellar, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Timms, Stephen

  Gunnell, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Hanson, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mr. Paul Flynn.

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10

  COMMUNITY COUNCILS FOR GROUPS OF COMMUNITIES
  Amendment made: No. 49, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
  ?( ) An order under this section shall make such provision as appears to the council making it to be necessary for the application to the communities included in the group of all or any of the provisions of section 79 of the Charities Act 1993 (parochial charities) and of any of the provisions of this Act with respect to the custody of community documents, so as to preserve the separate rights of each community.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 17

  GENERAL PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS
  Amendments made: No. 50, in page 13, line 20, leave out `to the contrary'.
  No. 103, in page 13, line 22, leave out express'.
  No. 51, in page 13, line 27, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert' a'.
  No. 52, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert' a'.
  No. 53, in page 13, line 34, leave out from `Where' to `that', in line 36, and insert
  ?in relation to any relevant legislative provision, any question arises as to which new principal area is the appropriate new principal area for the purposes of that provision'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 25

  SERVICES
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 19, leave out lines 21 to 45.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 26, page 20, line 23, after '1996', insert `and
  (c) hold public meetings in their areas to discuss the service delivery plans.'.
  No. 9, in page 20, line 26, at end insert—
  ?(3A) A council's service delivery plan shall be published in English and in Welsh.'.
  Mr. Murphy: I hope that these amendments will not occupy the House for long.
  The three amendments which lie in my and my hon. Friends' names refer to cross-border trading or tendering, to clause 25, which we discussed at some length in Committee, and to service delivery plans. I refer to the arguments that the Government made in Committee. We said then, and we say today, that the Opposition agree with the idea of cross-border trading or tendering. We believe that there is an opportunity for different local authorities in Wales, not only to trade with one another, but to give one another their skills and the expertise that all our local authorities in the Principality have established over many years. In Committee, Ministers said that they would reconsider the operation of clause 25.
  Our reservations about the clause were twofold. First, we thought that the geographical restrictions that the Government were to impose on cross-border trading were too restrictive. We said that if it were possible, for example, for the skills in Anglesey to be used by a council in south Wales, that should be a reality. I believe that it was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who said that he would re-examine those geographical limitations.
  The other limitations, which may be more serious, referred to those parts of the clause which, in turn, refer to compulsory competitive tendering. Effectively, those
  822
  sections say that cross-border trading cannot operate if the services concerned are covered by the Government's regulations regarding compulsory competitive tendering.
  There are two problems. The first is that, as recently as this week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), in reply to a written question, said:
  "Compulsory competitive tendering is being extended to six professional support services, in a phased programme—legal services, professional construction and property services, IT, finance, personnel, and corporate and administrative services." —[Official Report, 14 June 1994; Vol. 113, c. 346.]
  Some of those are the very services which, we believe, could be offered by one local authority to another.
  Mr. David Hanson: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 27 April 1994 the very same Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said at a seminar that he believed that it should be possible for cross-border tendering to take place? I should be interested to hear later whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales agrees with that presumption, which has already been put forward by the Department of the Environment at that conference.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Murphy: I hope that in reply the Minister will take those facts into account because they seem to be contradictory. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was right and that cross-border trading could operate in the sectors that I mentioned.
  The other aspect of CCT that is affected by clause 25 is that of the areas that are already covered by compulsory competitive tendering. The most significant one is that which refers to the highways functions of our present county councils. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State jointly announced eight what they called "centres of excellence" in Wales. Those would relate to the highway functions, and they would also have taken over much of the work of highway DLOs in Wales, which are currently run by our county councils. The Government agree—and we agree with the Government—that they are centres of excellence.
  The problem is that if those centres of excellence are unable to take part in cross-authority trading and tendering, their viability would be put at serious risk because they would be restricted to the management of trunk roads, motorway networks and only 35 per cent. of the work within the local authority's boundaries. There is some doubt about whether those centres of excellence of highways provision could then apply.
  The Government also said that they would consider the Council of Welsh Districts' safeguards, which were outlined in Committee because obviously, as the Minister said in Committee and might say again this evening, they were worried about the risk that would be accepted by the local authorities were they to undertake cross-border trading. I said in Committee—the CWD indicated its support on that issue—that the district auditor, the work of the council through its committee system, and the Secretary of State's powers under sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 are sufficient safeguards to protect, not only local authorities that engage in trading, but other local authorities.

  823
  I do not think that cross-border trading will harm the viability of our local authorities. It can bring only good to all our authorities in Wales, especially now that they are becoming smaller. We fear that some of the excellent services that are provided, especially by the county councils, should be safeguarded and given to those other local authorities. The last thing that we want is for it to be used as a means simply of privatising more local government services. I do not think that that is under consideration at the moment. What is under consideration is the best delivery of services by the 20-odd—I am not quite sure how many it is now—unitary authorities in Wales.
  The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to widen the public debate about service delivery plans. The Government—in our view, rightly—are indicating that those plans should be published. We are saying that those published plans could well be the subject of public meetings. At those meetings, the public who are worried about county council services such as adult education and other matters with which the county deals would be safeguarded by the service delivery plans of the new unitary authorities.
  It is also important because the service delivery plans should include the safeguards that the Government intend for the voluntary organisations in Wales. We believe that the Government should give proper guidance to the new transitional committees, and that that guidance should contain recommendations for transitional funding for voluntary organisations in Wales. That has been discussed at length in Committee and I do not want to elaborate today.
  Those are our arguments. The Government said that they would return to the Floor of the House to answer the arguments that we and the local authority associations had made to them about CCT.
  Mr. Hanson: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will answer a couple of arguments.
  I shall not revisit the discussion that we had in Committee. There was an extensive discussion about the Government's original intentions for lead authorities, which were outlined in the White Paper and which indicated the possibility of having centres of excellence within local authorities and thereby allowing some cross-border trading. A centre could be established with a lead authority providing a service which other authorities, such as my own county of Clwyd, could buy in to improve their own local services more efficiently and cost-effectively. As a result of the discussions in Committee, the Government agreed to consult various authorities and agencies in Wales on how best to overcome the matter.
  It was obvious from what Lord Rodger of Earlsferry said in another place that the Government intended that cross-border tendering should no longer be part of the fabric of local authority organisation—for reasons, it appeared to the Committee, of pure dogma. I hope that the Committee convinced the Under-Secretary that the Government's objectives for CCT would not be negated by cross-border tendering because everything that could be done under CCT would remain the same and the protections would be in place, but there would be the opportunity to provide what we believe the Government
  824
  want, which is cost-effective and efficient local services in a number of areas, highways being the one that we discussed most.
  I want the Under-Secretary now to tell us the results of the consultation. I understand from a parliamentary reply that letters were sent out on 23 May with replies being sought by 7 June. What response did the hon. Gentleman have from local authorities and organisations on the issue of cross-border tendering? That is relevant to our debate today and I want their responses placed on the record.
  The arguments that we advanced in Committee are still valid today. There is no good reason why there should not be cross-border tendering within the new local government structure. The Government have expressed several fears if cross-border tendering is allowed. The first is that the private sector would not be able to take part in certain services in which it is currently involved. That is a fundamentally misconstrued belief. With CCT, anyone who offers a cross-border service, whether from Flintshire, Wrexham or Denbighshire, will do so on the basis that he will win the tender because he has been competitive. Private organisations can still bid for that service and if they are the most cost-effective, the most efficient and in the best interests of the ratepayers, they will win the contract.
  Secondly, the Government suggested that the lead authority would place a burden on its own ratepayers. For example, a lead authority such as Flintshire might set up all the infrastructure and expertise in-house to provide a highways service to Denbighshire and Wrexham, but at the end of the day those authorities might decide not to purchase the service. The ratepayers of Flintshire would then suffer a loss. However, local authority organisations have explained to the Government that the district auditor can step in and the Government's powers can be used to stop such a situation dead in its tracks if a local authority provides a service that then begins to lose money. Therefore, the Government's argument is negated.
  The arguments for negating cross-border tendering do not hold water. The private sector, which the Government want to compete, can still compete and, if it is efficient, it will win. If, for whatever reason, a local authority finds that it is losing money on a service that it provides, the Government have the power via the district auditor, via councillors who would not wish to be surcharged, or via the Secretary of State's powers to end that service and provide an alternative method of service delivery.
  Since the Committee stage, I have discovered that on 27 April the hon. Member for Banbury said at a conference that local government reorganisation would provide fresh opportunities for the delivery of services. He also said—and it is significant for this debate—that there were cases where a council's DSO should be able to deliver services to another council's area or for a joint body of several unitary authorities to provide a service.
  I return to the point made often by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies): if the hon. Member for Banbury intends to include in the forthcoming English Bill a facility for local authorities to provide a service, in co-operation with each other, to beat the system of competitive tendering—to allow, perhaps, Rutland to provide a highways service to a neighbouring authority such as Huntingdonshire—why will not the Welsh Under-Secretary do the same for Wales?
  I am an Englishman representing a Welsh seat. I received the vote of Welsh constituents, but I was born in

  825
  England. I am a Member of a British Parliament. I reside in Clwyd. I do not want the residents of Saltney, one mile from Chester, to receive a service that is different from the residents of Chester, which is just over the border. I am acutely aware of the border as it falls in my constituency. If the Department of the Environment allows Cheshire county council to do one thing and the counties of Flintshire and Denbighshire to do another, I shall be angry and upset. There must be a level playing field between the Cheshires and the Clwyds and between England and Wales.
  I rest my case. Tonight we want to hear from the Under-Secretary the detailed results of the consultation following the Committee stage. Does he agree with his Government colleague, the hon. Member for Banbury, or is Wales yet again to be the poor relation to England in cost-effective service delivery?
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have had useful debates on this subject both tonight and in Committee. As we promised in Committee, we have consulted the local authority associations, although I cannot go through all the responses this evening. We believe that the powers for regulation are still needed, but I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that we do not intend to impose any geographic restrictions unless there is clear evidence of authorities abusing their freedom to provide services to authorities throughout Wales.
  In the case of services subject to competitive tendering, we see no case for cross-border tendering for work such as refuse collection, building maintenance and catering. We have considered carefully the professional services that will become subject to competitive tendering after reorganisation. We have concluded that personnel, legal and financial services that are already adequately dealt with by even the smallest district council, and where there are many potential private sector suppliers, should not be used for the purposes of clause 25. However, we are still considering the possibility that authorities appointed as my right hon. Friend's agents for trunk road maintenance should be allowed to provide professional highways services to other authorities. In due course, we will consult further on draft regulations and will keep the position under review.
  If genuine difficulties emerged, it would always be possible for my right hon. Friend to amend the regulations to provide a more relaxed regime. I cannot commend the Opposition's amendment to the House, principally because it would remove my right hon. Friend's regulation-making power.
  On amendment No. 3, the Government believe that it is for the new councils to decide how best to publicise their service delivery plans. The publication of those plans will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the shadow authority's proposals, and I suspect that shadow authorities will wish to consider whether a public meeting is the best way to subject their plans to public scrutiny. I am happy to consider whether the thrust of the amendment should be included in the guidance, but I am not prepared to limit the discretion of the authorities by including it in the Bill.
  Mr. Murphy: There is a mixture of disappointment and agreement here. On the disappointment side, I do not understand for a second why some of the personnel, legal services, information technology and so on, certainly in the
  826
  more sparsely populated areas of Wales, could not be the subject of cross-border tendering. Nobody would have anything to lose and there would be an awful lot to gain if that were to occur.
  8.30 pm
  I am, however, grateful that the Minister has agreed to have a further look at the highways provision and I am glad that the Government have agreed that the geographical restrictions should be lifted. It is also important that the possibility of public meetings will be included in the guidance notes to local authorities.
  Although I am disappointed, I am grateful for those concessions and to that end I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We now move directly to amendment No. 56, to be moved formally.
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there a problem?
  Mr. Morgan: I wanted to speak to amendment No. 59.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that we have got there yet. We have reached amendment No. 56.

Clause 28

  DECENTRALISATION SCHEMES:APPROVAL, IMPLEMENTATION AND SAFEGUARDS
  Amendments made: No. 56, in page 22, line 6, leave out `one year' and insert 'six months'.
  No. 57, in page 22, line 11, at end insert—
  ?( ) Where he proposes not to approve the scheme as submitted, the Secretary of State shall notify the council concerned, before the end of that six month period, of the modifications which he proposes to make to the scheme, or (as the case may be) that he proposes to reject the scheme.
  ( ) Before he approves a scheme subject to modifications, or rejects a scheme, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations which have been made to him by the council concerned.'.
  No. 58, in page 22, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 23.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We now move to amendment No. 59.

Clause 32

  DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES OF PRINCIPAL COUNCILS: EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 25, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 26.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 60, 110 and 111.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Clauses 32 and 33 were intended to allow the new authorities in Wales the opportunity to experiment with alternative forms of political management within the framework provided by the existing system, but, of course, there was severe criticism of the clauses in Standing Committee and we concluded that further consideration would be beneficial before legislating for

  827
  changes to a system which appears to be working quite well. Therefore, we have decided that the introduction of a completely new unitary structure with all that that entails in terms of upheaval and reorganisation of services is not the right time to be putting forward the proposals included in clauses 32 and 33, so we decided to remove them.
  Mr. Morgan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having misheard you a few seconds ago. I only wanted to speak briefly on the matter.
  Obviously I shall not oppose the Government introducing amendments for which we pressed hard in Committee, but it is fair to say that the Minister did not tell the whole story in that brief introduction. We were asking for a spirit of experimentation which would involve some discussion of the benefits to central Government of the merits of those aspects of the historical functions and modus operandi of local government that we were commending. We were asking for the same flexibility to be applied, possibly to the proceedings of the House. As a result of some of the movements in the direction of flexibility in the reform of Prime Minister's questions and other aspects of the Jopling report, we thought that the Government should give serious consideration to measuring the benefits of Opposition Members having access to civil servants who work only for Ministers in central Government, but whose equivalents work for both sides of the political divide, if there is one, in local government.
  Had we had equal access to those officials, as we would have done in local government, we might then have been able to uncover some of the mysteries of the functions of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and its rather strange extensions which appear to have affected or had a side effect on the proceedings of the Bill.
  We were concerned with the principle of measuring the effectiveness of Government. If they want experiments, they should apply them not only to local government, but to central Government. In order to have an experiment, we need some measurement technique to decide what we would count as a success or an improvement on the present system.
  Many of us have had short, medium or long experience in the House as well as backgrounds in local government either as elected members—in some cases leaders of councils—or, as in my case, as a local government officer and a civil servant before coming to the House. We therefore have some idea of how some of the advantages of the civil service and Cabinet government and some of the advantages of the committee system and shared access to full-time local government officers could be applied to central and local government simultaneously in a properly measurable, audited and independently validated experiment to improve local and central Government.
  Some aspects of local government practice would benefit enormously the proceedings of the House and central Government through the Executive, and some aspects of central Government practice could be brought into local government through experimentation procedure, as was the purpose of the two amendments.
  We are happy that the Government have listened to us, although they heard only half the message and took the easy way out by scrapping the whole idea without really
  828
  conceding the principle that both central and local government could do with a great deal of improvement and could learn a great deal from each other.
  Obviously, the Government are nervous about learning something from local government and giving Opposition Members equal access to full-time local government officials. As a result, they have taken the coward's way out. Before anybody had too many bright ideas about giving Opposition Members access to Parliamentary Counsel, private offices or full-time civil servants, they decided to scrub the idea of introducing Cabinet government monopoly access to full-time officials for people on the majority side in a party organisation, using the techniques of Cabinet government and having the sole loyalty of the full-time officials until they get thrown out at the next election.
  By scrapping the two clauses and the idea of experimentation, the Government have shown that they never thought it through in the first place; nevertheless, I warmly welcome their decision.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that my hon. Friend's wonderful recollection of the debate is the accurate one. My own is that my hon. Friend's marvellous mocking humour shamed Ministers and we probably made too good a case against the clauses. I suspect that, as a result, the Minister has given up and given way.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33
  DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES OF NEW PRINCIPAL COUNCILS: PERMANENT PROVISION.
  Amendment made: No. 60, in page 26, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]
Clause 38

  INITIAL TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO COUNCIL FUNDS.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 31, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 32.
  I must first thank the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who helped us reach the conclusion that clause 38 can be deleted. In Standing Committee, he asked whether the assets referred to in subsection (1) could include, for instance, council houses whose finances are dealt with in the housing revenue account and whether, therefore, the clause duplicated the order-making power in clause 54, which provides for the transfer of property rights and liabilities.
  The answer to his question was that clause 38 would not operate in that way, but we have looked at the position again and concluded that clause 54 gives my right hon. Friend all the necessary power to transfer assets and clause 38 can therefore be deleted.
  Mr. Murphy: I wish simply to place on record the fact that at least four columns of the Committee Hansard were devoted to the Government's defence of clause 38. I am extremely grateful that the Minister has conceded that the clause is unnecessary, but more importantly agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), as he did in all the proceedings of the Committee, made an outstanding contribution to the success of that Standing Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44

  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 62, in page 34, line 39, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 3 on page 35 and insert
  'In determining the effect of any provision of—

  (a) Part IV, V or VI of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, or

  (b) Chapter II of Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,

  in relation to a person whose contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act, it shall be assumed that he was dismissed by the old authority concerned by reason of redundancy immediately before 1st April 1996 and that his dismissal was proposed by the authority.
  (IA) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) a person's contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act if—

  (i) immediately before 1st April 1996 he was in the service of an old authority under a contract of employment which would have continued in force if that authority had not been abolished; and

  (ii) his contract of employment is not transferred to a new principal council or to the Residuary Body; and

  (b) a contract of employment is transferred—

  (i) to a new principal council, if it is treated by any provision made by this Act, or by or under any other enactment, as continued in force with that council on 1st April 1996; or

  (ii) to the Residuary Body, if it is so treated as continued in force with the Residuary Body on that date.'.

  No. 63, in page 35, line 5, leave out 'such'.
  No. 64, in page 35, line 5, after 'payment' insert
  'under Part VI of the Act of 1978'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 45

  OTHER COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 65, in page 35, line 12, leave out from?(1)' to end of line 16 and insert
  'This section applies where any contract of employment made before 1st December 1993 is terminated as a result of this Act.
  (1A) Subsection (IA) of section 44 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.
  No. 66, in page 35, line 39, at end insert—
  '( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations exclude the operation of this section in prescribed circumstances (and, in particular, in cases of engagement by new principal councils).'. —[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 47

  OLD AND NEW PRINCIPAL AREAS WITH THE SAME NAME
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 36, line 27, leave out '1' and insert '1(1)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 112.
  Mr. Jones: Clause 65(2) provides for certain clauses to come into force on enactment. However, as implementation will take place in 1996, there is no longer the pressing need to have the other provisions of clause 1 amending the 1972 Act immediately following Royal Assent. They can be phased in using the commencement order powers under clause 65.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50

  EXISTING JOINT BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AND PORT HEALTH DISTRICTS
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 37, line 38, after 'councils' insert
  'in relation to such areas in Wales'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 68 to 70.
  Mr. Jones: Clause 50 provides the mechanism for the transfer of property held by existing county councils in Wales and required to be applied in accordance with section 90 of the Welsh Church Act 1914. To avoid the division of a property into 22 funds—one for each council —it is to be vested in the lead authorities. The amendments make minor technical changes to clarify the provisions for apportionment of the funds, which will take effect on 1 April 1996.
  Mr. Murphy: The Minister will recall that there was a lively debate in Committee on the 1914 Act, and I hope that he will be able to indicate which particular Welsh authorities will be designated lead authorities. We argued in Committee—but not today because the argument was concluded in Committee, if not in our favour—that every local authority should act as those authorities dealing with the Welsh church fund moneys.
  My first point is one of definition. Page 38 of the 1914 Act, at line 24, uses a word that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) asks to be interpreted by the Minister—"eleemosynary". The "Oxford English Dictionary" indicates that it pertains to alms giving. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower points out that one of the Bronte sisters wrote that
  "eleemosynary relief never yet tranquillised the working classes."
  It seems that operation of the 1914 Act is important to not just the working classes but everybody in the Principality.
  The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs conducted an investigation only last year into the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments. I remind the Minister that it indicated that the Welsh Office should consider how the funds could be restructured on a more equitable and consistent basis for transferring them to the proposed unitary authorities. The Government replied:
  "Each county council?—
  or leading authority, as it will now be—
  "is required to administer its Welsh Church Act fund in accordance with a scheme which sets out the charitable and other purposes to which the Fund's property will be applied. Each scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State. The Department is not aware of any instance of a council failing to comply with the provision of its scheme but, in the light of the Committee's concerns, it proposes to invite the Charity Commissioners to review the administration of the Funds to see what improvements may be made."
  It would be a good idea for the Government to undertake a consultative exercise and to make recommendations to lead authorities as to how best the 1914 Act could be operated in some instances. In some parts of Wales it works extremely well, but in others, not so well. I will be grateful for the Minister's comments.
  Mr. Rowlands: I remind the Minister of the role that the Welsh church funds have played in Mid-Glamorgan, in supporting and upholding the fabric of many chapels and churches in our communities and of the rightful necessity

  831
  for that work to continue. If the Minister is to establish lead authorities, I hope that one of them will be really representative of the valley communities and that the funds' representation will not be centred on Cardiff. I hope that the Minister will now give the assurance that I sought in Committee.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I recognise the aspirations of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and there is considerable merit in his comments. I shall see what we can do to achieve that which he seeks.
  As to lead authorities, I remind the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that I made him happy, but upset my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), by suggesting that the lead authority for Gwent would probably be Torfaen, on the basis that the computers are currently located there and the administrative arrangements are already to hand. However, our arrangements will ensure that all 22 authorities will fully participate appropriately in the administration of the church funds.
  I am advised that the word identified by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) means the relief of the poor.
  As to the point about restructuring, which was raised in the Select Committee report, we referred the matter to the Charity Commissioners. The hon. Member for Torfaen suggested consultation, and there is merit in that. That is something that we should examine, but not in the course of local government reorganisation. I am aware that the Wales Council for Voluntary Action has also made worthwhile suggestions about what might be done with the church funds, but those are all matters that we should consider later.
  Amendment agreed to.
  8.45 pm
  Amendments made: No. 68, in page 38, line 2, after 'whose' insert 'designated'.
  No. 69, in page 38, line 4, after 'whose' insert 'designated'.
  No. 70, in page 38, leave out line 20 and insert
  ?designated" means'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 54

  CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION
  Amendments made: No. 71, in page 42, line 16, leave out from 'council' to end of line 17 and insert
  'or other public body or to the Residuary Body;'.—
  No. 72, in page 42, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 43.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 56

  LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 105, in page 44, line 13, after '54', insert
  'or (Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.)'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 57

  MODIFICATIONS ETC. OF LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 106, in page 45, line 5, after '54', insert
  'or (Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.) (a "modifying order")'.
  No. 107, in page 45, line 6, leave out 'section 54' and insert 'modifying'.
  No. 108, in page 45, line 27, after '54', insert '(Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.),'.
  No. 109, in page 45, line 38, leave out
  'an order under section 54'
  and insert 'a modifying order'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 62

  REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
  Amendments made: No. 110, in page 49, line 31, leave out '32(1) or 33(1)'.
  No. 111, in page 49, line 35, leave out 32(1), 33(1),'.
  No. 73, in page 49, line 41, after 'State' insert
  'or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Clause 65

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC
  Amendments made: No. 112, in page 51, line 2, leave out '1,' and insert 1(1), (2) and (7),'.
  No. 75, in page 51, line 2, after '54' insert ?(Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.),'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 1

  THE NEW PRINCIPAL AREAS
  Amendments made: No. 76, in page 52, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.
  No. 77, in page 52, line 40, column 2, after 'Monmouth' insert
  ?together with (from the district of Blaenau Gwent) the community of Llanelly'.
  No. 78, in page 53, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4.
  No. 79, in page 53, line 7, at end insert—

  ?Powys Powys

  The districts of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Brecknock, together with (from the district of Glynd?r) the communities of Llanrhaeadrym-Mochnant, Llansilin and Llangedwyn.'.

  No. 80, in page 53, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 9.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Schedule 1

  THE NEW PRINCIPAL AREAS
  Amendments made: No. 81, in page 54, line 27, column 2, leave out
  'but excluding the community of Llanelly'.
  No. 82, in page 54, line 38, column 2, leave out
  'and the community of Llanelly from the county of Gwent'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 2

  PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRESERVED COUNTIES
  Amendments made: No. 83, in page 56, line 34, leave out 'The provisions of' and insert 'In'.
  No. 84, in page 56, line 35, leave out from 'areas)' to end of line 38 and insert in paragraph (a), after 'county' insert 'in England' and after that paragraph insert—
  "(aa) every preserved county in Wales;".
  (2) In section 4 of that Act (petty sessions areas), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(IA) In subsection (1) above, any reference to a non-metropolitan county is to be construed, in relation to Wales, as a reference to a preserved county."
  (3) In section 19 of that Act (general provisions as to magistrates' courts committees), in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), after "county" insert "in England", and after paragraph (b) insert—
  "(bb) every preserved county in Wales;".
  (4) In section 70 of that Act (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" insert—
  "preserved county" has the meaning given by section 63 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;".

  PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRESERVED COUNTIES

    The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
    —(1) In section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest), in subsection (8) after "county" insert "in England, any preserved county in Wales".
    (2) In section 2 of that Act (jurisdiction to deal with charges), in subsections (1) and (3) after first "county" insert "in England, a preserved county in Wales" and after second "county" insert ", the preserved county".
    (3) In section 3 of that Act (offences committed on boundaries etc.), in subsection (4) after "county" insert "in England, any preserved county in Wales".
    (4) In section 150(1) of that Act (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" insert—
    "preserved county" has the meaning given by section 63 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;".'. — [Mr. Redwood.]

  Schedule 3

    ESTABLISHMENT OF PRINCIPAL COUNCILS
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 59, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—
    '9.—(1) In this paragraph "council" means a county or district council which ceases to exist on 1st April 1996 by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
    (1A) No election of councillors of a council shall be held after 31st December 1994, except—

    (a) to fill a casual vacancy in the office of councillor of that council where before 31st December 1994—

    (i) the office has been declared to be vacant; or

    (ii) notice of the vacancy has been given under section 89(1) of this Act; or

    (b) where the number of casual vacancies in the office of councillor of a council occurring after 31st December
    1994 exceeds half of the total number of such offices.

    (2) Any such councillor holding office immediately before 31st December 1994, or elected after that date to fill a casual vacancy, shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant, continue to hold office until 1st April 1996.
    (2A) It shall not be necessary—

    (a) to fill any casual vacancy in the office of councillor of a council occurring after 31st December 1994; and accordingly section 89 of this Act shall have effect with the necessary modifications in relation to any such vacancy; or

    (b) to fill any casual vacancy occurring during March 1996 in the office of chairman or vice-chairman of a council.'.

    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 86 to 98, 113 and 114.
    Mr. Jones: In Committee, I undertook to return at this stage with our proposals for the suspension of elections to casual vacancies. The amendment fulfils that commitment and confirms our preference for 31 December 1994 to be the cut-off date, except for circumstances described in the amendment. It also suspends the district council elections in 1995 and prolongs the mandate of district councillors.
    Amendment No. 86 removes the provision relating to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941. It is no longer required because the Act has been repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993.
    Schedule 13 deals with the powers and administrative arrangements of the residuary body for Wales.
    Amendments Nos. 87 to 93 represent minor drafting amendments to provisions that apply for other enactments to the residuary body in order for it to carry out its functions.
    Amendments Nos. 94 and 98 are consequential amendments which have been necessitated by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.
    Amendment No. 95 is simply a technical amendment to clarify the wording of paragraph 46 of schedule 15, which itself amends section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not make any substantive change to the provision.
    Amendment No. 96 is a technical amendment to paragraph 56 of schedule 15, which itself amends section 255(1) of the 1972 Act to take account of the new local government system.
    Amendment No. 97 is a technical amendment to paragraph 17 of schedule 16, which amends section 39(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to provide a reference to county boroughs in the definition of an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers.
    Amendment No. 113 amends the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and ensures that an extant local government finance provision will apply to all the new authorities.
    Amendment No. 114 is a technical amendment and clarifies an ambiguity arising from the current drafting of paragraph 19(2) of schedule 17.
    Mr. Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to speak about this provision, because, as I see it, quite difficult complications could arise from the fact that after 31 December 1994 no casual vacancies can be filled in an authority that runs until 1996 as an operative authority. That could be the case in rural Wales, for example, where councillors might represent very large areas, but single-member wards, and have difficulty in getting coverage for such wards. It seems unlikely, but if half the councillors resigned, died or whatever, would all the empty wards come up together, or just a number to make it up to over half? The provision seems somewhat artificial, and I cannot see why it would not be possible for it to run through at least until a date in 1995 so that no one is left without representation at a time that is fairly critical to their futures.
    Mr. Morgan: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asks an important question, because, obviously, there are single-member wards 'as well as multi-member wards, and those vacancies could create a vacuum. I hope

    835
    that the Minister will accept the need to reply on that point, although in general the proposal is at least an improvement on what was offered in Committee—pushing the date forward.
    Amendment No. 87 requires a little more comment than that made so far by the Under-Secretary. Most of the other amendments were aligned with other legislation, apart from that relating to by-elections. The amendment edges us one step further down the road of how to define the residuary body. It makes it look as though for some purposes—rather more than the Government have so far revealed—the residuary body will be defined as a non-departmental public body; in other words, it will be a quango. The amendment incorporates the right of the ombudsman to take up complaints against the residuary body. That right did not exist in Committee because of the Government's enthusiasm for trying to prevent the residuary body from being construed, politically or legally —I am not sure which—as a quango.
    Obviously, the Secretary of State is anxious about his record. He wants to be known as a "quango buster", having realised that that might increase his popularity rating in Wales from 0 per cent. to 1 per cent., so he does not want to be seen to be creating any more quangos. Nevertheless, he is being pushed in that direction, probably by the advice that he is receiving. If the residuary body is to have the powers of the ombudsman made applicable to it by the amendment, it would probably be better to go the whole hog.
    The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and some of the members of the residuary body. If I recall correctly, the National Audit Office is to have access to its books—presumably, it will be listed in "Public Bodies", which is the bible of the quangos. "Public Bodies" is published and updated every year and gives the salaries of chairmen and members. In Committee, the residuary body was presented as having a curious undefined status, but a panoply of audit and examination powers and its responsibility to the House go with its being a quango. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he accepts the case we made in Committee that the residuary body cannot be other than a quango, because there is no other category into which it fits.
    The Government accept that case, functionally, through the taking up of complaints of maladministration and by stating in the amendment that the residuary body will be subject to the review powers of the ombudsman. It has been recommended that there should be compensation where maladministration is proved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will come clean and say that they are creating a quango, even if it has only temporary status.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I appreciate what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said about vacancies, especially in rural areas, but we feel that the cut-off date of the end of the current calendar year is an appropriate time to draw a line. The number of vacancies is not expected to be large, although we have put in that ultimate provision of one half of the vacancies in that most unusual—and I think almost impossible to envisage—circumstance. Recollecting what happened in 1973 and 1974, I think that it will suffice. Of course, the shadow councils will be
    836
    elected in April or May next year. They begin the work for the following year; in that way, they start subsuming activities. There must be some form of continuity there.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister implying that a councillor who has been elected to the shadow authority will have a right to attend meetings of either district or county authorities?
    Mr. Jones: I do not expect councillors to have such a right, but I recall that, in the reorganisation of 1973–74, as a shadow councillor, I was invited to attend meetings of the council that was about to cease to exist. That may happen again. Nor do I expect shadow councillors to have powers under the existing councils, but I anticipate that, from the following year onwards, the shadow council will subsume the activities of the existing one.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) mentioned the residuary body. I did not think that my proposals needed further explanation: these are only minor drafting improvements, which do not affect the substance of the provisions as previously drafted. I hesitate to try to help him by giving a definition of quangos. Following yesterday's sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee, I know that his party is quango-mad—not least because of the number of representatives whom Welsh Labour councils appoint to their own quangos. The hon. Gentleman seems to define whatever he finds as a quango.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I must point out that he is treating the time that remains rather carelessly by being unnecessarily provocative.
    The Secretary of State was entirely wrong to make the suggestion that he made yesterday. It showed a complete lack of understanding of the way in which local government operates with its representation on other bodies, which cannot possibly be equated with the quango state created by the Government. If the Minister reflects for a moment on the meaning of the acronym "quango", he will understand that he has misread the position.
    9 pm
    Mr. Jones: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Local electors, and some councillors, may wish to study further the quango appointments made by Welsh Labour councils. But the last thing that I want to do this evening is to be provocative, certainly towards the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 11
    WATER, LAND DRAINAGE AND COAST PROTECTION
    Amendment made: No. 86, in page 100, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 17.—[Mr. Redwood.]
  Schedule 13

    THE RESIDUARY BODY FOR WALES: CORFF GWEDDILLIOL CYMRU
    Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 103, line 29, leave out 'nor more than 7'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 20, in page 103, line 30, after 'by', insert

    837
    ?the principal councils in consultation with'.
    No. 21, in page 103, line 32, leave out 'may by order alter either of the numbers' and insert
    ?may with the agreement of a majority of the principal councils by order alter the number.'.
    Mr. Morgan: Although this is the final group of amendments, I do not feel that we can simply whistle through the provisions to which they refer. They relate to issues that I touched on briefly when discussing Government amendment No. 87, which provided a foretaste of the questions raised by the establishment of the residuary body.
    We made certain demands in Committee. This is our first attempt to return to the theme in a big way, and our last opportunity to put right the difficulties encountered by the Government in their attempt to bridge the gap between the definition of quangos as quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organisations, or non-departmental public bodies which are listed in "Public Bodies"—an annual Government publication—and the definition to which the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary are trying to extend it. They suggest that a quango is something that they define as a quango; a body created by local government could be a quango as well.
    That is an absurd proposition, but it is very relevant to the amendments. Quangos are organisations that are listed in "Public Bodies", the Government's bible, because their chairmen are appointed by the Secretary of State and because various other provisions apply. Certain other bodies probably ought to be listed. Several hundred are included, but it clearly is not complete. Occasionally organisations "drop out", as happened with the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which was removed about two years ago when it was deemed to be a commercial trading organisation.
    What about the residuary body for Wales? We do not want that to be a quango in either function or name; we want it to be what the Government want to present it as. They may want to present it as not being a quango, but we want it genuinely not to be one. We do not want it to be completely under the control of the Secretary of State; we do not want the Secretary of State to determine the appointment of its chairman, its membership, its powers or the length of its life, or to be empowered to shrink, maintain or extend its powers.
    The Bill gives the Secretary of State Henry VIII powers to extend the residuary body, terminate it and move it sideways, forwards, upwards and downwards. It is undoubtedly his creature. Given the way in which it is currently defined in the Bill, it will certainly be a quango —although the Government do not want it to be recognised as such. Our amendments seek to remove it from any such danger by giving the Secretary of State some powers, but requiring the exercise of those powers to be conjoint with those of the new principal councils.
    This is, after all, intended to be the body that will deal with the property of the present quantum of local authorities in Wales, if it is determined—after the passage of the Bill, and by means of various orders and subsidiary legislation—that that property is not to be properly housed among the new authorities. Cardiff-Wales airport is the outstanding example. We are concerned that its future lies with the residuary body.
    Mr. Redwood: I hope that the current owners of Cardiff airport will come to an arrangement on its future, which
    838
    could include private capital and a greater role for its management, which would solve the problem. If they do not, it will pass to the residuary body. I do not intend to split the shareholdings among all the new authorities that could have a claim. It is in the hands of local government, and I hope that it solves the problem.
    Mr. Morgan: I am grateful, in one sense, to the Secretary of State for his attempt to clarify the matter, although not for the content of his intervention. He is placing a sword of Damocles over local authorities. Democratically elected councillors on unitary bodies, who have spent countless time building and fighting for a financial commitment to Cardiff-Wales airport, are being told, "If you don't sell it, you certainly won't see the benefit of it afterwards." It will be placed under the dead hand of a residuary body which, without amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21, will be under the control of the Secretary of State.
    In the next few months, those councillors will not be able to wait for an appropriate time to undertake the task that the Secretary of State has talked about of bargaining, on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, with private capital through privatisation, a management buy-out or the process that is sometimes known as Prescottisation—an option that the Opposition's employment spokesman adumbrated as an alternative to privatisation before the last general election, whereby private capital is used in transport projects to ensure that they are not restricted by the public sector borrowing requirement.
    Such a process cannot be undertaken if it is known that the project must be shovelled off to management within 12 months rather than accepting more appropriate timing, which might be in the interests of the buyer, the investor, if it was taking a minority stake, or the seller—the three democratically elected councils of Mid, West and South Glamorgan. That is unsatisfactory because it puts all the pressure on the three Glamorgans to get shot of the airport now, even though they would receive a better price if the threat of placing it under the control of the residuary body were removed.
    If the Government persist in that intention and cannot be dissuaded, we will face the problem of their in effect nationalising Cardiff-Wales airport. The Government are opposed to nationalisation, but that will be the result if the Bill is enacted and the Secretary of State executes his threatened action, because a satisfactory price will not be obtained by the three present owners with a sword of Damocles hanging over them, and control will pass to the residuary body—all of whose members will be provided by the Secretary of State—from the airport's municipal owners.
    That would probably be the first nationalisation that the Secretary of State for Wales has undertaken. When he got home that night and told his wife that he had nationalised an airport in Wales, the dog would bite him. We are trying to get him out of that difficulty by asking him not to make the residuary body completely responsible to him for its membership and the power to terminate or extend its life. He should make it clearly a transitional body by means of which powers may be passed from one group of democratically elected councils to another group of democratically elected councils. The transitional bodies should contain a majority of democratically elected councils. That would be the solution and it would enable

    839
    the Secretary of State to avoid being bitten by his dog when he gets home after inadvertently nationalising Cardiff-Wales airport.
    I ask the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to his future state of health, in relation to either his leg or his backside, and accept our amendments to the clauses dealing with the residuary body.
    Mr. Rowlands: We cannot just nod through the clauses dealing with the residuary body without trying to discover a little more about the nature of the animal.
    Mr. Morgan: The dog.
    Mr. Rowlands: I do not know whether it will be of that character, but it will be an interesting animal.
    The only precedents that we have for this type of body are the residuary bodies created under previous local government reorganisation in England on the break-up of the metropolitan authorities. I took the opportunity to look at the annual and final reports of a handful of residuary bodies to discover what sort of animal it is likely to be. I shall give the House the benefit of this modest degree of research.
    Each of them turned out to be a huge property company. For example, the West Yorkshire organisation took over the powers of West Yorkshire metropolitan council. It took over about 28,000 deeds and 800 sites worth about £20 million, which it sold for £33 million, handing the distribution to the five district councils. At its peak, it employed 219 people, full time and part time.
    That is one authority, dismantling one unit of local government and distributing the powers to five others. We are talking about a residuary body that will take over the surplus land of eight county councils and 36 district councils throughout the Principality. It will be one of the largest property companies in Wales. It will have enormous power. It will have the power to levy. However, one hopes that after the experience of the West Yorkshire organisation, the levies will be less than the distributed proceeds. The Secretary of State may nod his head. The reason for the success of the authorities at that time is that they coincided with the big property boom. The years 1986, 1987 and 1988 were a good time to get one's hands on property and then sell it off.
    I do not think that the new residuary body will be operating in the same type of market. [Interruption.] I hope that it does not, because it would have a disastrous effect on inflation. I thought that the Government did not want a boom and bust economy. The Secretary of State seems to be backing a boom and bust economy. Is this another division between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor?
    We are right to draw attention to the amazing character that the residuary body will have. It will be dealing with sensitive issues. I do not know whether, like the West Yorkshire authority and others, it will handle the pension funds for a time. I assume that it will not. I assume that it will take surplus revenues, as opposed to just surplus land and property, from every one of the existing district and county authorities. It will also have in its possession a large number of sensitive civic buildings that might be surplus to requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has mentioned one. I am thinking of the Mid Glamorgan county council office. Will that be
    840
    taken over by a residuary body and sold off? Will we have a Greater London council re-run in the middle of Cathays park?
    As I have said, we should not just nod this organisation through. I have a practical suggestion to make to the Secretary of State. I can see the need for an organisation, but I wonder why he needs to create something new.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has suggested one model that I suspect the Government will refuse. So why not use the Land Authority for Wales as the main body? If it is to be what I suspect, which is a five-year property company, why create a huge new organisation when there is in existence a rather successful and well-organised body? I should not really draw attention to it in case the Secretary of State decides to look at it. It was my creation and I am proud of it. Way back in 1974–75 it survived the abolition of the community land legislation. It has done a very useful job alongside the Welsh Development Agency. Why does not the Secretary of State use the Land Authority for Wales as the main vehicle for carrying out that function, given that, in many cases, it has created sensitive and good working relationships with local government? It will not be a completely new animal. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the model suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, but, assuming that the Government do not accept that model, perhaps the Secretary of State would consider the practical solution of using the land authority.
    We shall be very interested; we shall watch with great care and scrutinise the new body, which will be an enormous property company, handling large numbers of parcels of land from the four corners of the Principality, at a time when it may not be the easiest thing in the world to sell that land and achieve values such as those obtained by the residuary bodies created under previous legislation.
    9.15 pm
    What will be the method of redistribution? How are the proceeds to be redistributed? It was not difficult for the property of the West Yorkshire body to be distributed among five district councils. In this case, the residuary body will be acquiring properties from 36 councils and eight counties and distributing them among 21—I cannot remember the exact number—unitary authorities. Will the method of distribution be related to the location of the land and property? Will the proceeds stay in the community, or will there be some form of pooling of the resources and an equalisation of the distribution of proceeds? Those are big and serious issues of public policy and before we nod the body through, we ought to find out a little more about the Government's thinking on it.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We discussed the residuary body fairly extensively in Committee. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) argues that it is a quango, but it has many of the characteristics of a local authority for the simple reason that it has to take over local authority contracts, deeds and so on.
    We certainly do not accept that it would be right for the new councils to appoint all the members of the residuary body or for there to be no limit on the number of members, as the amendments suggest, for the following reasons. Of course, the body will at times have to take difficult decisions on competing claims for an asset, for example, or on whether an asset is surplus. If all the members were

    841
    appointed by councils, it could give rise to conflicts of interest. That is therefore one of our objections to the proposals in the amendments.
    The residuary body will have limited functions and, indeed, a limited life. It will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the transfer of property and the disposal of surplus assets. It would certainly make the body unwieldy if we had rather more than four to seven members, which we think would suffice. Having said that, we do not want the residuary body to be dominated by councillors, as proposed in the amendments. My right hon. Friend is open to suggestions—without commitment, of course—as to the membership. He is quite open to any suggestions from local authority associations or individual councillors, as well as from hon. Members.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised a specific point about the disposal of assets, and especially of proceeds. The proceeds will go to the new local authorities which have taken over from those authorities whose assets have been sold. Therefore, in the hon. Gentleman's words, the proceeds of the assets will stay in the area served by the authority from which the assets have been sold.
    Mr. Morgan: The Minister of State said that the residuary body had some of the characteristics of a local authority because it would oversee some local authority contracts, but he omitted to mention that it would have one characteristic which is definitely not shared by local authorities: none of its members will be elected. That is a significant distinction which he chose to slide over rather quickly. Perhaps an authority with no councillors is the ideal Tory authority of the future.
    The Minister of State also said, incorrectly, that the residuary body would have a limited life. If he reads the small print, he will find that the Secretary of State can extend or shorten its life as he wishes. The Secretary of State has Henry VIII powers to do as he wishes. He could, for example, decide to wait for a property boom. The Minister implied that it could be wound up neatly and that the danger of putting so many powers in the hands of the Secretary of State was therefore far less significant than it really is. The Secretary of State's powers in respect of the residuary body are almost infinite. We are not happy about the way in which it will operate, despite the olive branch so characteristically offered by the Minister of State.
    This may be my last opportunity to pay my respects to the remarkable actuarial parliamentary longevity of the Minister of State, so I do so now. His record for holding the same office without being sacked or promoted is similar to the record length of time it took for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 to pass through both Houses of Parliament. He and I share the latter record, so we can both appear in the "Guinness Book of Records". The Minister is known throughout the land for his ability to plough indomitably through his briefs and, if he is retiring shortly, I am sure that he has been offered the life presidency of the Freedom from Dyslexia Association. We look forward to the Minister's return to commercial television, the world from which he came. He would be the ideal host for a game show such as "The Price is Right" in Welsh, but I am sure that he will find suitable cultural pursuits. In any event, we shall miss his contributions enormously.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 87, in page 107, line 43, leave out from '17.' to end of line 45 and insert
    842
    'The Residuary Body shall be included among the authorities to which the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 applies.'.
    No. 88, in page 109, line 9, leave out 'enactments to' and insert 'circumstances in'.
    No. 89, in page 109, line 38, leave out from '(1)(b))' to 'and' in line 40 and insert
    ?and 443 (local authority contributions to mortgage costs);'.
    No. 90, in page 109, line 42, at end insert—
    '. The Residuary Body shall be treated as a housing authority for the purposes of sections 444, 452 and 453 of the Housing Act 1985 (provision in connection with local authority mortgages).'.
    No. 91, in page 110, line 1, leave out from '88)' to end of line 2 and insert
    '(retention or resumption of land required for public purposes)'.
    No. 92, in page 110, line 21, leave out 'Section MA of and insert
    'Paragraph MA of Schedule 2 to'.
    No. 93, in page 110, line 21, after '1971' insert '(official pensions)'.—[Mr. Redwood]

  Schedule 15

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF THE 1972 ACT
    Amendments made: No. 94, in page 118, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.
    No. 95, in page 119, line 43, leave out from 'for' to 'whom' and insert
    "council of the district" substitute "local authority to'.
    No. 96, in page 121, line 15, at end insert—
    '. In section 255(1) (transfer of officers), for "27, 28 or 29" substitute "28, 29 or 29A".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

  Schedule 16

    OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 97, in page 124, line 27, leave out from 'powers"' to end of line 28 and insert
    'for "or county council" substitute ", county council or county-borough council".'.
    No. 98, in page 133, line 17, after second 'council' insert
    'or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964'.
    No. 113, in page 142, line 46, at end insert—
    ?. In section 88(2) of that Act (councils to whom transport grants may be paid), after paragraph (a) insert—
    "(aa) a county borough council,".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

  Schedule 17

    SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
    Amendment made: No. 114, in page 152, line 8, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Act of 1980'.—[Mr. Redwood]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]
    9.23 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: The process leading to Third Reading began a long time ago, before the beginning of this parliamentary Session. Indeed, it was as long ago as 1992 that we heard from the then Secretary of State that local government in Wales was to be reformed. At that time, all parties shared a common purpose, which was to bring unitary local government to Wales. The then

    843
    Secretary of State made a declaration which, if not full of eastern promise, was certainly full of western promise. The declaration promised the people of Wales unitary local government based on natural communities. In the event, some natural communities, such as Merthyr Tydfil, Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire, are to have unitary local government, but others are not.
    The history of the Bill will be viewed with interest by Welsh political historians. There are not many serious broken promises in Welsh political history which one can nail and which leave one bemused when one analyses why they were broken. One of the most significant promises that has been broken in Welsh political history is what will be known as the Llanfechain promise: the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), promised without equivocation or ambiguity that there would be a unitary Montgomeryshire. We have never had an explanation as to why that promise was broken. We have never been told the history of how the change of mind came about. We have never been given a proper insight into the thought processes of the Welsh Office and its Ministers.
    At the last gasp, the Local Government Commission for England—the Government appear to accept this—proposed that Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and six other authorities smaller than Montgomeryshire in population should have unitary authority status. That decision is entirely consistent with the Secretary of State's views as declared in a Conservative party conference speech, of which he reminded us yesterday.
    Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State was asked why what is good enough for Rutlandshire, Clackmannanshire and Huntingdonshire was not good enough for traditional communities in Wales. He did not give us an answer. I hope that in the last breath of the Bill in this House we shall be given a ministerial answer to that question.
    In 1992, I thought that we would see an improvement in local government in Wales based on consensus. I am grateful for the support that Montgomeryshire has received from right hon. and hon. Members in all parties: the two Tory rebels in Committee, the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley); the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has equal cause for complaint with myself; and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who from an early stage made it clear that the Labour party would support unitary status for Montgomeryshire. Despite what was said earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Caerphilly has been entirely consistent in what he has said and done, and he deserves praise for that.
    Unfortunately, those of us from Montgomeryshire, including the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Brecon and Radnor, will leave the Bill with a deep sense of disappointment. There was a great opportunity to do what was originally promised, but that promise has been broken, leaving us with a sense of deep frustration. I can only express the fervent hope and expectation that one day in the not too distant future we shall return to this issue and I shall be here to see Montgomeryshire restored as a council.
    9.28 pm
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Sadly—or perhaps happily, in view of the late hour tonight—I was unable to be a member of the Committee. I had hoped that the Government would listen to all the members of the Committee representing Welsh seats on at least two major issues, the first being of importance to the whole of Wales and the second of great importance to the people of an area in my constituency, Llangollen.
    The first issue is the lack of any provision for an all-Wales elected tier of government. The creation of unitary authorities makes almost no sense without a regional tier of government. Only a panoply of quangos of one sort or another can provide the services that need to be provided on a strategic basis. It is hardly surprising that the Government should set their face against any increase in democracy, however, as it is far easier to place stooges on quangos than to win elections in Wales, at any rate for their party.
    The other issue that has not been dealt with is the placing of Llangollen in the new Denbighshire authority, against the wishes of its people as expressed in the referendum organised by Glyndwr council, of which Llangollen is a part. To set the record straight, the result of that referendum—without rounding up or down—was, on 68 per cent. of ballot slips returned, 58 per cent. in favour of Wrexham and only 42 per cent. in favour of Denbighshire. I remind the Government that they have been governing—I use the term loosely—for 15 years on much less than that majority, even if one measures the vote as a percentage of the total electorate, which seemed to be the Minister's response in Committee.
    The Minister of State put forward another strange argument in Committee when he said:
    "As Llangollen and the other two areas belong to the old Denbighshire area which we are reviving and there is no clear majority against joining the new authority, we should let matters stand."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 April 1994; c. 155.]
    The Minister was, to say the least, confused with that argument since Wrexham was also part of Denbighshire prior to 1974.
    Hiding behind the decisions of the three community councils involved does not hold water either. The biggest —Llangollen town council—is now overwhelmingly in favour of Wrexham, and Llangollen rural district council's decision against was six to three, which is roughly the same proportion as Glyndwr's referendum of all residents. Llantysilio has at least been consistently opposed to Wrexham, although it clearly does not represent the views of those polled throughout Llangollen.
    Glyndwr has also had a chequered history on the subject, voting only on the casting vote of the chairman to opt for Denbighshire and ignoring its referendum. The chief executive, Mr. Julian Parry, who now writes criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for some extremely minor errors of little consequence in Committee, and is militant in his ignorance of the referendum result, advised Glyndwr council as follows at its policy and finance committee on 23 June 1992:
    "Being south of the Llantysilio mountains/Horseshoe Pass, there is little community affinity or interaction between this area and north Glyndwr, local communities look to Wrexham as their main centre for most goods, services and employment, the existing pattern of communications and the geography/ topography being important relevant factors. The 3

    845
    town/community councils would prefer to remain part of a rural unitary authority rather than joining the new Wrexham unit. Whilst respecting this expressed preference, application of the relevant criteria results in your Sub-Committee recommending that this area has decidedly stronger relationships with Wrexham than with West Clwyd."
    I could not have put it better myself and I wonder how Mr. Parry thinks that things have changed in the interim.
    The people of Llangollen feel let down: they have voted and nothing has happened. Now we hear that the local government boundary commission for England is to mount an in-depth consultation with English residents over its review. Surely the same could be done for Wales. In any event, I hope that the anomaly of Llangollen can at least be put right, or the people of Llangollen will once again feel let down by this Government. Judging by the European election results in Wales, they feel let down in every other respect as well.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Rowlands: I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will not mind—we have shared their hurt and disappointment in Committee and on Report—if I say that at least the Bill is better in one respect than the Bill that started out. It is a better Bill in respect of schedule 1, part II page 53 where, under the title "County Boroughs", the "district of Merthyr Tydfil" is listed. It would be wrong not to recognise the significance and importance of that change.
    I first came to the House in 1966. As a young, green and inexperienced Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in 1969, I wandered into the terrible world of local government reorganisation, when we attempted to introduce a unitary authority and found that we offended almost everyone on our own side, let alone the then Conservative Opposition Members. We therefore had to be man enough and sufficiently principled politicians to withdraw those proposals in 1969–70.
    I was out of Parliament for a brief time, but returned at the tail end of a local government reorganisation measure to see the proud county borough status of Merthyr Tydfil removed by a Conservative Government with the Local Government Act 1972. It is a privilege to be still here 22 years later to get to my feet on Third Reading of the present Bill and talk about the restoration of the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.
    I must break it ever so gently to the Secretary of State that I suspect that he will not get too much of the electoral credit in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for the change. On the basis of the enormous achievement of Glenys Kinnock in the European elections—which I am sure will be repeated in the national elections—I doubt whether the Secretary of State will reap too much electoral benefit from the change. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to say that we were glad that he was a listening Secretary of State, at least in this respect. He has created a county borough which I believe will take the full opportunity of being a unitary authority and will regenerate and redevelop a community in a manner which I hope will be as colourful as in the past. Therefore, I can at least welcome that part of the Bill which recognised the spirit and character of the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.
    9.37 pm
    Mr. Llwyd: First, may I echo the words of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? I know that it was a great deal of hard work by the hon. Gentleman which brought about the change of heart by the Government, and I congratulate him on his success. I wish that that could also have been the case for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and for myself, but it was not to be.
    I also add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) in congratulating the Minister of State on his service to the House in his present capacity. I am sure that we will all join in congratulating him if it is true that this evening is his final evening at the Dispatch Box.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and of course I relish the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Were not it for the matter of time and of delaying the House, I would have risen to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I must tell hon. Members that I have made no statement whatsoever about any impending retirement.
    Mr. Llwyd: I do not wish to be niggardly, but I was going to couple that with a few remarks. I was going to say that, during his happy days of retirement—thinking of poetry and poets and possibly sitting on a river bank, fishing—the Minister might recall several questions which I put to him during discussions on the Bill which he has not yet answered.
    On a serious note, the first flaw which my party sees in the Bill, as was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), is that there is no strategic all-Wales tier of government. My party makes no pretence. It wishes to see a fully fledged Parliament in Wales with tax-raising and legislative powers. But even in the terms of the amendment which was the subject of the debate, it would have been a great step forward. It would have halted the proliferation of quangos in Wales and would have given accountability in a true sense.
    It is a matter of some regret that the amendment was not carried in Committee or on Report, but it was the initial response of my party and it remains our main response. There should have been an all-Wales, truly democratic tier responsible for strategic matters in Wales.
    There are numerous questions that have not been answered which I believe should have been. I am afraid that there are many flaws in the Bill. One that comes to mind is the absence of strategic planning, about which numerous bodies of professional and expert opinion are concerned. But I shall not go over the same old ground, as we have debated that matter this evening.
    A further flaw may be the lack of cohesion, on unitary development plans, among unitary councils. Area committees may be a poisoned chalice—we do not know, and we are quite unsure about many matters to do with them.
    I must say, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that earlier today I put to him five specific points about redundancy, TUPE and transfer generally. I have not had one reply. I regret that bitterly because at least one of those matters was put to me by council advisers in Wales. It was of the utmost importance that those matters should have received a reply and I deeply regret the fact that they have not.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I had a great deal of ground to cover, but I was under the impression that I had given at least a framework of an answer to the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall, however, look carefully at what I said and, if points are still outstanding, I shall write to him.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the Minister. It may assist him to know that those points were raised towards the beginning of my speech. I am not trying to score points. I sincerely asked for answers and should be grateful for them in due course. Many thousands of people in Wales are extremely concerned about the position.
    I still have misgivings about voluntary organisations, which have lobbied hard and are concerned about their futures under the present set-up. I moved an amendment in Committee to deal with that point and I am far from assured that their futures are guaranteed in any shape or form. Likewise, many people have contacted hon. Members on both sides of the House about support for the arts. There is little comfort for them, either.
    Earlier today, I mentioned the role of community councils. I was reassured in part by the Under-Secretary of State and I sincerely hope that, in due course, the guidance to unitary authorities will include specific provision on the matters incorporated in an earlier amendment.
    I feel extremely sad this evening at the loss of Meirionnydd, where seven centuries of government have gone by the board. The same applies to Montgomery, with which we are good neighbours. Both are proud communities which respect their traditions and have a great deal of cultural integrity. I am sure that they will be grossly disappointed at what has been transacted this evening.
    I have said before and shall say briefly again that the Bill does not have the consensus of the Welsh people. In those circumstances, it must be wrong. To be workable, it must have the consensus of the people of Wales. After all, it is designed to deliver services to them. It does not have that consensus for many reasons, some of which I mentioned earlier. The Bill is flawed and I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery: I honestly believe that we shall shortly be back here discussing local government again.
    I conclude with a point of particular concern to me—the maxim, "Tra mor tra Meirion", which will doubtless be referred to again. We in Meirionnydd have stood the test of time and I shall stand up in this Parliament or, I hope, one nearer home, and look at the matter anew in the not too distant future. The people of Meirionnydd will not allow 700 years of their proud history to be done away with at the whim of a Conservative Government.
    9.43 pm
    Mr. Ron Davies: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be interested in my first point. The Minister of State has vigorously denied the comment in this morning's Western Mail prophesying his retirement. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has penned a word for him, which the Minister of State, even if no one else on the Government Bench, will appreciate:
    "Mae Wyn wedi mynd and ddim wedi trigo; dim ffws, dim ffwdan, heb ddagrau, heb ei gof."
    It means, "For the very good of the Minister; the Minister is going, no fuss, no fuss."
    If the Minister is to retire, we shall miss him for his personal qualities and his decisive approach in Committee.
    848
    There were many occasions in Committee when he was having difficulty discussing the arguments that we made to him and he invariably started his remarks by saying, "Well, I should think", or "Well, I would imagine". He had a couple of variations. He sometimes used to say, "Well, off the top of my head", or, "I will consider that point and reply in a moment." He never did reply, of course. There was one marvellous moment when we were debating what has become known as the "Powys pudding". When he was referring to the Government scheme for area committees, he said, "Those are the areas that we want to pacify." He was referring to those five districts of mid-Wales.
    I take the opportunity to thank my Front-Bench colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Tor hyphen faen, as it has now become known as a result of the passage of the Bill. I also thank my Back-Bench colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who, at an early stage in the proceedings, managed to achieve a richly deserved prize as a result of the diligent campaign that he waged on behalf of his town of Merthyr Tydfil. We all appreciate that he was not exactly striving for his political life. He has something in the order of a 30,000 majority and, dare I say it, even if he had lost the battle he would still have won his seat, although with a perhaps slightly reduced majority, at the next general election.
    We are on Third Reading. It is the end of the Commons stage of the Bill. There is only one conclusion that I can reach, however: it is an unacceptable Bill. It has been passed by what I consider to be a completely unsatisfactory Commons procedure and it has been piloted—if that does not give rise to a contradiction in terms—by Ministers of whom the best that I can say is that they were wise enough not to stray too far from their civil service briefs.
    The central criticism of the Bill is that it did not create a Welsh assembly and our own tier of government. That, I believe, must be the starting point of reform of Welsh government.
    The Bill was not based on any principle. There was no meaningful consultation with the people of Wales or with Welsh local government. The Bill certainly did not build on natural communities, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said. The local authority structures, the boundaries and numbers, were arbitrary, taken out of the air, changed from week to week, from year to year. Councils expressed the clearest outrage against the Bill, although the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State managed to say, "I am right when I say that we have received few objections to our proposals for Rhondda- Cynon-Taff'. All that I can say is that he could not have listened to what we were saying. There was absolute outrage in those communities, yet the Minister has ignored them. There has been, as late as last night, a complete rejection of our new clause 11, which would have restored some element of democracy to local government reform.
    The Bill is a shambles. It took years in preparation, with all the consultation, yet amendments have fluttered down on it like confetti. There were dozens of amendments in the Lords and what seemed like hundreds of Government amendments in Committee. We have had dozens of amendments on Report; whole clauses have been put into the Bill in the past 24 hours; whole clauses have been taken out of the Bill, almost at random. We have had tonight a massive change in the Government's policy on area committees, reducing by 50 per cent. the threshold that was

    849
    necessary. Whatever else it does, it does not show that this is a thought-out piece of legislation, designed to improve government in Wales.
    At the end, there are enormous areas of uncertainty. Area committees and staff transfer are unclear. There is an enormous centralisation of power in the Welsh Office—44 new powers are conveyed to the Secretary of State. We have a new super-quango in the residuary body. The Bill is not for local government; it undermines local government and it has enormous implications for service delivery. It was opposed by 32 of 36 Welsh Members of Parliament.
    I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for his words of thanks to myself and my colleagues. If it has done one thing—and the Government should take note of this—the Bill has ensured that Members of Parliament representing Wales have started to identify a common enemy. We, I think, have learnt that we have a common interest, and a common interest that is not shared by the Conservative party. I hope that that kernel of trust and common working will bear greater fruit in the years to come.
    The Bill has been carried on the basis of English Members of Parliament, and of Standing Order No. 86. It was a packed Committee, but the only meaningful change it made has been reversed on the Floor of the House tonight. What price democracy?
    The Bill will be costly and it will cause great uncertainty. When it is enacted, all Opposition Members must ensure that it becomes the starting point of a process of reform of Welsh local government, not the end. We will need a new settlement for local government. We will also need a new contract between local government and central Government, which must be based on removing the shackles on local government, of restoring its independence, of recognising the plurality that exists in our public institutions and of understanding that local government exists both to represent the people of its areas and to improve the quality of life.
    Above all, we must restore those things that are lacking in Welsh public life—openness and honesty. There must be confidence in the view that there can be democratic control of public affairs and that people can be trusted to run not only their own councils but their own country.
    9.50 pm
    Mr. Redwood: I thank all those who have contributed to the making of the Bill—hon. Members, local councillors and their officers, organisations and individual members of the public. A great deal of attention has been paid to the Bill and it is the better for that. Special thanks go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for piloting the Bill through long hours of debate in Committee.
    Local government should be government for local people by local people. The crucial decisions will be taken by the new shadow authorities that will be elected next May. Many of the points that Opposition Members wanted clarified are matters that should be decided by local people and we are giving them those decision-making powers. I believe that they have every chance of doing a good job.
    The success of the venture rests on councillors and officers, old and new. I have concluded that the elections should be on 4 May 1995, the usual first Thursday in May for local elections and the day on which, in other circumstances, elections to the existing authorities would
    850
    have taken place. I believe that that will be welcomed by the political parties in Wales, which I have consulted on the issue.
    The new authorities will need to recruit their chief officers as soon as possible to plan for the future. They will also need to establish small planning teams to prepare the new authorities' budgets and draw up their service delivery plans. Those people can be seconded from existing local authorities, which will no longer have the same need to plan for the future. Their service plans will set out what the authorities will do.
    In this evening's debate we have seen again just how short of ideas and confidence in its own views the Labour party in Wales has become. Today's decision of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to nominate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and then to vote for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for the leadership of the Labour party—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's latter remarks have to do with Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Redwood: Those remarks are extremely important because it was a foolish decision by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It means that the policies that he has been advancing may be ditched by the new leader. It certainly means that the person whose job is on the line at the moment is the hon. Gentleman. He backed two horses in a three-horse race and hoped that the two horses would not notice that he had backed each of them. What will he say to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when he next meets her—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I last intervened, I meant what I said. Will the right hon. Gentleman now get back to Third Reading of the Bill?
    Mr. Redwood: I shall try to ensure that I meet your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The Labour party's proposals have centred round the creation of an unnecessary tier of government in Wales —the assembly.Throughout our debates Labour Members have failed to come clean on whether they support their friends in the counties who want fewer, larger strategic unitary authorities, or their friends in the districts who want more, smaller unitaries. The hon. Member for Caerphilly never managed to assert his discipline over his own party around a single clear proposal for local government in Wales. Labour Members have attacked the Government's proposals from a whole range of contradictory directions in an attempt to conceal the absence of any thought-through alternative. They have the audacity to say in the House that they dislike centralising powers and duties in the Welsh Office, when time and again in Committee and on the Floor of the House they have demanded that I take more centralising powers and give greater clarity over things which local government should decide for itself.
    Tonight we have seen a Labour party that could not even deliver a vote on the main boundary issue that was fiercely debated in Committee; a Labour party that could not keep its troops here for this Welsh business; a Labour party that has clearly decided that Wales does not matter or can be taken for granted. The vote on Powys shows that not even all the Welsh Labour Members stayed for that critical debate and Labour's total vote fell below the number of Welsh Labour Members of Parliament. What a disgrace

    851
    when we are told that this is a critical piece of legislation and one that the Labour party should have modified or removed from the statute book. The Labour party has failed tonight in a big way.
    We shall carry our Bill. It is good legislation for Wales and it will produce much better local government for Wales. The Opposition are there in tatters behind the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but perhaps not for much longer because he has failed to deliver the vote and failed to deliver the goods and he has no idea how he would like local government in Wales to be conducted.
    We have a vision, a view of better local government in Wales. I commend it to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 20.

    Division No. 264]

    [9.55 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Faber, David

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Amess, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Baldry, Tony

    Hague, William

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Harris, David

    Bates, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Batiste, Spencer

    Hendry, Charles

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

    Booth, Hartley

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Boswell, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bowis, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Brazier, Julian

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Bright, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Butler, Peter

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Knapman, Roger

    Carrington, Matthew

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Clappison, James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Coe, Sebastian

    Legg, Barry

    Congdon, David

    Lidington, David

    Conway, Derek

    Lightbown, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Luff, Peter

    Cran, James

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

    MacKay, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Malone, Gerald

    Devlin, Tim

    Mans, Keith

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dover, Den

    Merchant, Piers

    Duncan, Alan

    Mills, Iain

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Evennett, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    852

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Thurnham, Peter

    Page, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waller, Gary

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Richards, Rod

    Waterson, Nigel

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Watts, John

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Whittingdale, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Willetts, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sproat, Iain

    Wood, Timothy

    Stephen, Michael

    Sumberg, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Sykes, John

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Bayley, Hugh

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Madden, Max

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Rendel, David

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Harvey, Nick

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Simon Hughes and

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

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

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE IN BOVINE ANIMALS AND SWINE
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4168/94, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandurri submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 6th May, relating to intra-community trade in bovine animals and swine; and supports the Government's objective of ensuring that the rules protect the health status of the United Kingdom, and the Community as a whole, and sustain the United Kingdom's existing export market.

  1992 BUDGET DISCHARGE AND FRAUD IN THE COMMUNITY
  That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 16th March 1994, relating to the discharge of the general budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1992 and of European Community Documents Nos. 6214/94, the Commission's report on the fight against fraud in the. Community in 1993, and 6214/94 ADDI, the Commission's report on its anti-fraud strategy and work programme for 1994; and strongly supports the Government's policy of securing sound financial management in the Community, including combating fraud against the Community's financial interests.—[Mr. Arbuthnot]
  Question agreed to.

  Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison(Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
  That the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  It may be recalled that when I moved a similar motion in 1990 in connection with the Care of Cathedrals Measure, I gave an undertaking to the House that a supplementary Measure would be brought before Parliament containing enforcement provisions relating to the procedures for the approval of works to cathedrals.
  Both the Government and the national amenity societies were of the opinion that there should be statutory provisions preventing unauthorised works to a cathedral fabric, or, where such works had occurred, provisions requiring the fabric to be made good or reinstated without delay. The Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, which the House approved in 1991, contained enforcement provisions in respect of parish churches. Undertakings were given that similar provisions would be included in a supplementary Measure for cathedrals. The Measure before the House tonight honours that undertaking.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I have a specific question that he may be able to answer. Can he tell us whether churches that are neither parish churches nor cathedrals are covered in either this or the previous legislation? Bath abbey, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is one such church, but there are others—important national churches. As far as I can see, they are not covered in the Measure, but they obviously need to be covered in legislation of some sort.
  Mr. Alison: This may be a very short debate. If I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the relevant information at the end, I shall in any case ensure that he receives it.
  As I was saying, the Measure honours the undertaking that I gave the House in 1991. It builds on the so-called visitatorial powers of the diocesan bishop which already exist in relation to his cathedral. The cathedral church is, of course, the seat of the relevant bishop. The Measure also includes a power for the court of the vicar-general of the province to issue injunctions or make restoration orders.
  The enforcement provisions feature a two-stage procedure. First, the bishop will seek to remedy any apparent contravention of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 by private interview and, if he considers it appropriate, take action through a special visitation. Only if those procedures are unsuccessful will proceedings be instituted for the issuing of an injunction or the making of a restoration order in the court of the vicar-general of the province.
  There has been further consultation with deans and provosts, and with cathedral administrative bodies, concerning the Measure. The general view was that enforcement provisions should be provided for, although the cathedral authorities do not believe that they would
  854
  themselves be likely knowingly to contravene the provisions of the 1990 Measure. The Department of National Heritage, English Heritage and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England have also been consulted about the provisions, and are content with them. The Government have continued to attach importance to the legislation, and have taken an active role in pursuing the proposals. I am particularly glad of the supporting presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage to receive my appreciation and commendation of the interest that his Department has taken in the report.
  Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn, in these contentious days for the Church of England, that there are some financial considerations to be taken into account. There has been consultation with the Church Commissioners and the central board of finance of the Church of England about the financial implications of the Measure.
  The Church Commissioners' involvement arises because they have a general responsibility in respect of the expenses of bishops, including legal expenses. Under section 4 of the Measure, where legal proceedings are to be instituted against a cathedral authority the bishop must first inform the Commissioners, who will decide whether they would be prepared to meet some or all of the bishops' costs and expenses in respect of those proceedings. The provision builds on the statutory discretion that the commissioners already have in deciding whether to contribute to a bishop's costs in court proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. The commissioners and the central board are content with the proposed arrangements.
  The Measure was given general approval in November 1992, and then went to a revision committee of the General Synod, which made a number of amendments. Final approval took place at the November 1993 group of sessions of the Synod, where the Measure was approved in all three Houses with only one vote against. As will be seen from the report of our own in-house Ecclesiastical Committee, that Committee is of the opinion that the Measure is expedient.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The House is indebted to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who presented the Measure clearly and persuasively explained its nature. I do not think that any hon. Member will find it objectionable.
  In this debate, we miss our former colleague, the late Bob Cryer, who, while not a church man, took a sensitive interest in church buildings and would have taken part in the debate if only to point out, as was his wont, that there are buildings of fine quality that are not part of the established Church. Nevertheless, he would have welcomed the Measure as it helps to maintain our generation's commitment to maintain that part of our heritage and to remedy the inadequacies of the previous arrangement and as it reflects the overwhelming, if not unanimous, view of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which deemed it to be expedient.
  We are debating the Anglican cathedrals of England. The Measure should be passed to maintain the fabric of the Church and to prevent unauthorised and distasteful developments. Without the Measure, in these days when

  855
  market philosophies are all, it perhaps would be only a matter of time before someone equipped an Anglican cathedral with neon lights and sought to attract the attention of those who devote money to current fads, even if they are distasteful.
  Prudence requires that a sensible, historically appropriate approach be taken to these buildings, which are not only important to the Church; some of our cathedrals are among the greatest buildings on the planet and our generation must understand that it has an obligation to maintain them.
  Some cathedrals are of ancient origin and owe their construction to those who wished to express their religious beliefs and to worship and to offer gifts to God. The glories of our cathedrals were created by ordinary people, the skilled craftsmen of the day who toiled hard with few labour-saving devices to assist them. One would like to think that their motivation was not simply to practise the skills of their craft. They created buildings of enormous merit and the House should assist the Church to ensure their future.
  Many of our cathedrals have stood for almost a millennium and deserve to stand throughout the next one. The House is right, therefore, to ensure that wise legislation is passed because the Church has much to do to serve the present as well as to maintain the glories of the past. I should like to think that the House will have sympathy with the Church in ensuring that its priorities are to those who work for it and who seek to represent its ideals in a society that is becoming increasingly pagan.
  Cathedrals allow us to enjoy a little regional pride. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) is in his place. As a Yorkshire Member—I hope that, as another Yorkshire Member, the right hon. Member for Selby will agree—I believe that York is infinitely superior to Canterbury. It would be invidious, however, to mention York without mentioning Salisbury. If one mentions Salisbury, one must mention Durham and the cathedral at Lincoln, which has enormous architectural and historic significance. One could give other examples. All are important and enormously advantageous in providing an inspiration for our country, and we have an obligation not merely to serve the past but to maintain this vital part of our architectural, historic and religious inheritance.
  In order to serve that heritage I hope that the House will approve the Measure. I hope that the reasons advanced by the right hon. Member for Selby were sufficiently persuasive to convince the House that the Measure is right and thus justify the decision of the Ecclesiastical Committee that it be deemed expedient.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I, too, found the contribution of my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), to be a clear exposition of the need for this Measure. Although I know that it is not his debate, I am pleased to see in his place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage. If he chooses to make a contribution to the debate, I hope that he will respond to my concern about the cathedral repair grant scheme which, to a large extent, this Measure is there to regulate and enforce.
  856
  Perhaps uncharacteristically from the Opposition Benches, I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing the cathedral repair grant scheme a little over three years ago. I have consulted the Very Reverend John Southgate, the Dean of York, who until recently was the chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals, about how the repair grant has worked in practice. He has nothing but praise for the scheme. He said that English Heritage has handled it with care. As chairman of the committee, he has not received a single complaint and he pays special tribute to Jenny Page and Richard Halsey from English Heritage who have administered the scheme.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, our cathedrals are important as places of worship and as centres of excellence in music. Some of them are still important as centres of scholarship and learning. The library at York Minster is now the biggest privately owned theological library and the dean and chapter spend a great deal of money each year ensuring that the stock of books is replenished.
  Along with parish churches, historic cathedrals are a unique part of our national heritage. They are large buildings of great age which are still in use today for the same purpose for which they were originally built. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth said, they are monuments to English craftsmanship through the ages. It is for those reasons—both Christian and secular—that they attract so much love and affection from the people of our country. York Minster attracts 2.25 million visitors a year. That is more than the Tower of London and considerably more than the Tate gallery.
  Until three years ago when the repair grant scheme was introduced, the cathedrals were unique in another respect. They were the only great historic buildings that were not able to apply for grants for their repair, restoration and conservation. Perhaps I should declare an interest as York Minster is a grateful recipient of money from the scheme. This year it received just under £250,000 for work on the north-west tower. The grant does not replace local fund-raising, but it is an important supplement to it.
  The contribution made by English Heritage to York Minster is towards a £3.5 million scheme of restoration for the south-west and north-west towers and the south face of the Minster. That restoration work will take seven to eight years to complete. There is the rub. The restoration will continue for many years to come, but the cathedral repair grant scheme is due to end at the end of next year, after it has run for five years. I am not making a special case for York Minster, because its applications should be judged against the needs of other cathedrals. Nor am I asking for increased annual spending on repair, restoration and conservation of cathedrals.
  English Heritage is carrying out a needs assessment to assess the likely future repair costs faced by our great cathedrals. It will make a judgment on whether the current level of funding is appropriate or not and I am happy to leave that decision in its hands and to consider it when its report is published. However, I am asking for cathedrals to be treated in a similar way—not better and not worse—to secular buildings and parish churches. That means that the repair grant scheme must continue beyond the end of the next financial year because schemes to assist the conservation and repair of other secular buildings and parish churches will continue after that time.
  One of the great benefits of the scheme has been that those responsible for the fabric of cathedrals have started

  857
  to plan their repair and restoration programmes ahead, instead of waiting for a crisis, such as the foundations to give way or the roof to cave in, to respond. That important forward planning could and would be lost if the repair grant scheme was to come to an end. I shall give briefly a couple of examples.
  At St. Albans, a grant was given for the repair of the central tower. When they started the work, they found that the need for repair and the cost of the scheme was much greater than had originally been estimated. English Heritage was able to help by transferring a grant, which was scheduled for a future year for repairs to the nave, to finish off the repairs to the central tower. That ability to roll funding forward from one year to another will be lost if the repair grant scheme comes to an end. What would have happened if the work on the tower had been commenced next year, in the last year of the scheme? The scaffolding would have been up, the work would have commenced, the bills would have been rolling in and there would not have been a scheme to which to apply in future years.
  Ripon, too, faced a similar hiatus when a contractor who was due to come on site suddenly let it down. Since the scheme had not reached its final year, English Heritage was able to roll the funding forward. The same happened at Salisbury when a new architect was appointed.
  I am happy to congratulate the Government on introducing the scheme. It is a good scheme and it has worked well, but the question I put to Minister is, will the good work continue? If he speaks tonight, can he give an assurance to the House that the cathedral repair grant scheme will be rolled forward at least for a further five years?
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Measure. It would be churlish not to, since, as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) rightly said, it had only one opponent when it went through the Synod. Incidentally, we have not been given the reason why the one person opposed it, but that certainly meant that it was a far less controversial Measure at all stages than many other things which go through the Synod. I note in passing that, today, there was another close vote in the Anglican Church, although not in England. The Church of Scotland voted to agree to women being ordained as priests, which is a decision that I welcome. It has followed the English example, which is, in this case, a better example than that of the Welsh, although the Welsh normally set very good examples.
  I have three comments to make and they are made generally, although, of course, my interest is in South wark cathedral; a beautiful cathedral and the cathedral for the south bank of our capital city. My hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Bath (Mr. Foster), have expressed their interest, too. I believe that the question that I posed earlier related to Bath, but there are certainly other buildings, such as Westminster abbey, which are neither one thing nor the other; neither parish churches nor cathedrals, which I assume are covered. That is why I raised the point with the right hon. Gentleman. However, it would be good to hear that, after the Measure is approved, Anglican church buildings are covered, which was its purpose.
  858
  I pay tribute to all those who do so such an excellent job in looking after our inheritance, which is what the cathedrals of England are. They are this country's great treasures, and some people give their lives to looking after them. I also pay a specific and timely tribute. My diocese is about to acknowledge the retirement of the Very Reverend David Edwards, who was at Westminster abbey and has had a distinguished career outside and in the House.
  David Edwards retires formally at the end of August, but a farewell service is being held next week. Many people in this place remember with affection his time here. He has made great contributions to the Church of England, academically and in his writings as a historian, and in his last post he looked after a beautiful building and made it a vibrant centre for the church and non-church community. People certainly value cathedrals for their beauty and the tranquillity that they offer, but also because they play a role in the wider community.
  I wish simply to put on record a second point, but it may elicit an answer. It appears that the Measure provides powers to deal with cathedral administrations that fail to look after their buildings properly. That is a good thing, but my concern is that sometimes it is not, technically speaking, the fabric of the buildings which, for understandable but mistaken motives, administrations may decide to treat wrongly.
  I come from Hereford. One of the most controversial incidents for the Church of England and its cathedrals in the past decade was when the dean and chapter of Hereford cathedral decided to sell Mappa Mundi. Technically, it is not part of the fabric of the cathedral, but it is a Hereford cathedral creature. It was made in Hereford and was intended to be in Hereford since the 13th century. It would have been sold had there not been an outcry, and a building is now being constructed in Hereford to accommodate it properly. We have a duty to ensure that the fabric of our cathedrals is looked after by a policing management, but those of us who are equally concerned about the treasures in the cathedrals must find a mechanism to ensure that there is no danger of our suffering from the mistaken short-termism that drove the dean and chapter of Hereford to make a wrong but understandable decision. The national outcry proved how wrong that decision was.
  I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for York (Mr. Bayley) about the beautiful cathedrals in Yorkshire. I am grateful that the Minister and his Department have become increasingly sensitive to the notion that it is vital for the state to take its share of responsibility for cathedrals. If it does not, we risk being unbiblical. We risk charging people to enter our cathedrals. In many places, that step is now unacceptably close.
  It appears to be assumed that anyone going into a cathedral does so as a tourist and should therefore pay. Of course, the upkeep of cathedrals costs a great deal, and members of the church worldwide may feel an obligation to contribute if they can. However, increasingly the impression is being given that a person entering a cathedral has an obligation to spend money. That is entirely unacceptable, and I hope that the tendency will be resisted.
  It is also unacceptable when the commercialism of cathedral merchandising operations trespasses increasingly on our worship and fails to remain well and truly outside the building. I seem to remember that Jesus had very clear views about money-changing in the temple. We are not far

  859
  from that in many of our cathedrals and cathedral premises now. I have made that view known with regard to my own cathedral, where I think the buying and selling should be done further away from the centre of the building, and not simply in the side aisle.
  My point is that if the fabric and maintenance of cathedrals are funded properly, the pressure to be commercial can be resisted. If there is no security of funding, they are often driven, because of the need to maintain the fabric and contents, to do things that I think are increasingly inconsistent with their role as mother churches of the diocese for all the people—native and visitors—of the churches of England. I hope, therefore, that the Church will be continually vigilant and the state regularly generous, and that as a result we can have security for our buildings so that they can continue to serve the purpose for which they were so beautifully built.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I am grateful for the constructive and warm welcome which my colleagues have given to this limited but valuable Measure.
  I appreciate the remarks made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), about the contribution that the Government—public finance—have made, and will continue to make, towards York Minister. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is on the Front Bench tonight, probably hesitated to intervene in the debate because the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are not strictly within the ambit of the Measure—he might even be out of order if he
  860
  attempted to intervene from the Front Bench. However, I am sure that he will have heard the remarks made and the queries raised by the hon. Gentleman. One of us will communicate with him specifically to respond to the points made.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a couple of points. I promised that I would try to answer his first intervention. Despite the title that it bears, Bath abbey is a parish church and therefore is covered by the care of churches legislation. All other churches which are consecrated as parish churches are likewise covered by the existing church facilities which we debated and passed in 1991. Churches that are not strictly consecrated but are so-called dedicated—that could even include chapels in hospitals and such things—are subject to the faculty jurisdiction by the direction of the bishop. That just about encompasses all conceivable sorts of church buildings which might be relevant to the debate.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the Mappa Mundi, for example. I am glad to be able to tell him that the control mechanism in the Care of Cathedrals Measure which he and I debated and which was passed in 1990 covers not only fabric changes but the disposal by sale or otherwise of outstanding movables, to give them their technical term. So Mappa Mundi is subject to enforcement of that Measure.
  Against that background, I hope that the House will agree to give a fair wind to the Measure tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

  Metropolitan Police (Firearms)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjoum—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important and topical subject of the arming of the Metropolitan police. I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for coming along tonight to give the Government's response. I am sure that his considered comments will create considerable interest.
  Last month, Sir Paul Condon—the House will wish to congratulate the distinguished Metropolitan Police Commissioner on his knighthood—announced that his officers will in the future openly wear handguns on London streets in certain circumstances. I have carefully read through the resulting press coverage of that announcement, and I am astonished how inaccurate and exaggerated much of it was.
  What the Home Secretary in fact agreed was that officers in armed response vehicles—ARVs—in London can wear their side arms in holsters at all times. Previously, they armed only when they reached the incident to which they had been called. They needed the permission of a high-ranking officer, who in practice had to be contacted via his bleeper at all hours of the day or night, before removing guns from a secure metal box in their car.
  In London, officers in ARVs are dedicated to attending incidents in which firearms are being or may be used. Clearly those side arms will not be visible while jerseys are worn, but when officers are in shirt sleeves only, they will become visible in their holsters.
  That is a comparatively small step, and is by no means unreasonable. The purpose of our brief debate, however, is to consider the arming of the Metropolitan police in a much wider context and over a longer time. Here I must express a long-held sense of unease, which I am confident that I share with many of my constituents in Bexleyheath, Welling and Barnehurst.
  I will put my case in simple terms. I claim that during the past 20 years more weapons have been placed in police armouries. I claim that more automatic weapons have been given to the police, some with astonishingly high rates of fire. I claim that, if that trend continues during the next 20 years, the British police service—the Met traditionally sets the pace—will become much more like many of its European counterparts and many more police officers will carry weapons on duty, and perhaps even off duty as happens abroad. I claim that there is a certain ratchet effect. The decisions go in one direction, and it is very seldom reversed. Finally, I claim that that long-term trend, which has involved a number of Commissioners and Home Secretaries and is probably not supported by a majority of Members of Parliament representing London, is almost certainly not proceeding with the blessing of those people who pay towards the funding of the Metropolitan police, namely the people of London.
  There are two basic approaches to the police carrying guns. There is that adopted in most states of the United States, where the police carry guns as a matter of routine and where many police patrols have considerable fire power at their disposal. I suggest that it becomes normal in such circumstances to cock guns and not to hesitate: too long before firing them. Then there is the approach adopted
  862
  in Britain and a few other countries, where the police go about their duties unarmed except for a truncheon. There are hosts of arguments to be deployed, but at the end of the day I am fiercely proud of the British approach and I speak tonight in favour of its being continued and not undermined.
  There must be—and Parliament has seen to it that there are—very heavy penalties for criminals who go about their business carrying knives and guns. It follows that the courts must not hesitate to use the powers that they have been given when the facts have been properly established. That must be the starting point, rather than attempting to match weapon for weapon. At the same time, it is vital that it gets harder—not easier, as is the case now—for criminals to obtain guns in the Greater London area. There must be a crack-down on the number of arms imported into the United Kingdom. I am well aware how difficult that is to achieve. There must be a determined drive to find the weapons which are held illegally in our major cities, and they must be seized and destroyed. Perhaps more amnesties are called for. I suggest that at present too many firearms certificates are issued. In 1992, the Metropolitan police issued 9,427. I believe that they are far too easy to obtain.
  Some years ago, I applied for a shotgun licence at a police station a few hundred yards from here at the request of a national newspaper. I was not examined as to why I needed a shotgun while living in London.
  Winston Churchill wrote a wonderful description of the battle of Sidney street in the east end of London when he was Home Secretary. My hon. Friends may recall the superb remark of Balfour after Churchill was photographed risking his life at the scene. He commented:
  "I understand what the photographer was doing, but what was the right hon. Gentleman doing?"
  A detachment of 20 Scots Guards armed with rifles had been summoned to deal with three Russian anarchists after some policemen had been killed.
  I suggest that the Army should be called in more often today when the authorities believe that rifles and sub-machine guns would be appropriate. By all means, let us match armed bank robbers with an armed response team. But if it is thought that the Provisional IRA or other terrorists are present, why are we so reluctant to call on the Army to support the police?
  It is becoming commonplace when terrorists are being tried in London to watch on our television sets armed police on the rooftops near the court in those ridiculous baseball caps which are so fashionable among schoolboys, wearing body armour and carrying sub-machine guns, and perhaps rifles with telescopic sights. The serious point is that this does the image of the constabulary no good at all. I would take some persuading that sharpshooters serve any real purpose on those occasions. If they really are essential, why do we not use the snipers of, say, the Royal Green Jackets? The public understand that soldiers need to be trained in the use of sniper rifles, telescopic sights and night-firing aids, but does the same apply to Metropolitan policemen? The Army can offer a broad range of support to the Commissioner from, at one end of the scale, a Royal Military policeman with a revolver to those highly trained specialists of the Special Air Services so brilliantly sent into action during the Iranian embassy siege. I would put it to senior police officers that, just as the public were soured by the disappearance of the bobby on the beat in favour of high-speed patrol cars—a trend which happily is

  863
  being reversed—so, too, they are alienated by the regular sight on television of heavily armed police officers on our streets.
  In a fine piece of journalism in The Times on 18 May, Simon Jenkins wrote that the police, who deserve every support,
  "would help themselves if they stopped calling press conferences … with photographs of policemen dressed as John Wayne, courtesy of Messrs Smith and Wesson and Messrs Heckler and Koch."
  Senior police officers should appreciate that many Londoners would agree with that comment. The article continued, after referring to the criminals who import and sell cocaine and crack, by saying:
  "One country has wide experience of using a heavily armed police and paramilitary force to stamp out the cocaine trade. It is the United States of America. The result has been a disaster for the American police and especially for its relations with black people. Local police forces send one delegation after another to Britain to learn how we do it better."
  Policemen to whom I talk seem divided in their views on that issue, but most do not want an armed police force. They feel that such a move would encourage criminals to carry arms, especially quick-firing weapons. They are not convinced that it would save police lives in the long run —we are all thinking of a particular tragic event. They remind me that not all police men and women are suitable for weapons training and that the equipment is expensive to buy and maintain at a time when money is scarce.
  Problems also exist in the secure storing of weapons. Some police officers mention that, each year, a significant number of police officers in America are killed by their own weapons and that members of the public there are not infrequently injured when a shoot-out occurs, as happens all too often. Most of them know that fewer police officers in Britain are being assaulted each year, even if that fact is not known to the public. Last year, 3,370 London police officers were assaulted while on duty but five years ago the figure was almost 5,000.
  In the real world, although more guns are being used in crimes—I gather that replicas are a particular problem—they are rarely fired at police officers. The figures are clear on that point. Police officers know that they are respected by the public because they are prepared to face danger unarmed. It is a tradition of which they can be proud. Some recall, too, the bad publicity that followed the police shooting of Stephen Waldorf. In a recent issue of the Police Review I came across a warning by Mr. Jim Sharpies, the Merseyside chief constable and chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Firearms Committee. He said:
  "Arming the police would mark an irreversible change which could have unknown implications for the service and the community. Such a move would have unpredictable effects. Would an arming of police … lead to an even greater carriage of arms by criminals? Would even more injuries and death ensue?"
  During my time as an infantry soldier I carried a weapon while on active service. My experience was that, even among the best trained soldiers, accidental discharges were bound to occur and preventing weapons from falling into the wrong hands, including those of children, was a constant problem. Police forces already have difficulties looking after their own weapons. The Times reported a few weeks ago that two loaded police handguns were found lying in a street in the centre of Blackburn, Lancashire,
  864
  after apparently falling from an armed response vehicle. A passer-by handed them in to the nearest police station. Think for a moment what might have followed had those loaded weapons come the way of one of Her Majesty's less well disposed subjects. My observation is that the more weapons are carried by the police, the more such incidents are bound to occur and the more people will suffer injuries as a result.
  In a recent professional survey of police officers, paperwork and bureaucracy ranked higher than violence against the police. Nevertheless, I support refresher training in self-defence for police officers throughout their careers. I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that point. And protective vests should be more readily available. Few people object to police officers in the capital carrying the new-style baton, which is longer than the traditional wooden truncheon, while hoping never to be on the receiving end. Medical tests on devices such as pepper sprays must be speeded up. Perhaps my hon. Friend would comment on that, too.
  While announcing in May a doubling in the number of London ARVs from five to 12, the Commissioner apparently said that the further carrying of guns by his officers would be "event driven". That odd phrase concerns me. It rather suggests the initiative being passed by the goodies to the baddies. Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State accept that if there are more armed robberies in the Metropolitan police area, the police will be bound to respond by carrying more arms? I hope not. I like to think that the Home Secretary has some over-arching strategy, and that the traditional character of British policing and its humane face will be enhanced. I like to think that if, in the next 20 years, the terrorist threat diminishes in Greater London—and there must be a good chance that it will—there will be fewer ARVs and fewer armed policemen as a result.
  Police officers up to the rank of chief inspector are to be balloted about whether they wish to have the
  "right to carry firearms in the course of normal duties".
  It is important that the Home Office's considered advice is well publicised in advance of that little referendum. The possible arming of the police will remain high on the political agenda.The basis of my brief submission is that Britain leads the world in community-based policing, and that that is helped by the lack of conspicuous weapons. We have a right to look to our Government to give a lead. I trust that they will continue to make clear their determined opposition to a general arming of our police forces, who at the end of the day do us proud.
  10.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on raising this important issue and I welcome an opportunity to explain to the House the recent changes that have been made and then to put them into context. I agree with many of my hon. Friend's sentiments. I also join him in congratulating the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on his knighthood.
  My hon. Friend is right to assert that the changes recently announced by Sir Paul Condon are modest. However, he spoke of longer-term trends and extrapolated from that a gloomy picture for some years hence. I think that he strikes too pessimistic a note and I shall seek to reassure him by my remarks.

  865
  My hon. Friend also spoke about an amnesty for people who hold firearms illegally. I understand the attractions of that, but I am bound to tell him that, as I am sure he appreciates, it is a delicate judgment because, if one has an amnesty with any semblance of regularity, it allows a person to think, "Perhaps I shall wait for the next amnesty." Nevertheless, I understand his argument. I am bound to say, as I know that he appreciates, ihat the deployment of authorised firearms officers for whatever purpose—whether as sharpshooters, as he describes it, or as anything else—is an operational judgment for the chief officer, and in this case for the Commissioner.
  Before turning to the specific question of the overt arming of some Metropolitan police officers, I shall explain the range of measures being taken to offer greater protection to the police. It is important to set the issue in that context because the recent changes spring solely from a desire to protect officers more effectively as they carry out their duties. The changes are not the first moves in a fundamental change to the style of policing in the Metropolitan police district.
  The physical danger that police officers confront on behalf of the rest of us cannot, and should not, be forgotten, and my hon. Friend made the same argument. The tragic deaths of PC Patrick Dunn and Sergeant Derek Robertson in the past year have brought that home to all of us. The risk in policing cannot be removed entirely and there is no infallible protection available, but a great deal can be done, and is being done, through a range of co-ordinated measures.
  The recent change which has precipitated the debate relates only to Metropolitan police officers in armed response vehicles—ARVs, as my hon. Friend called them —attending incidents at which armed officers are judged to be operationally necessary. ARVs carry carbines and sidearms and, until recently, the specific authority of a senior officer was required for either of those weapons to be removed from the locked box in which they are transported. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently agreed that, from now on, ARV officers in London can wear their sidearms overtly.
  ARVs are usually on patrol so that they can be readily available should it be necessary to respond to a firearms incident. Where such an incident takes place, the ARV may be deployed either at the direction of a senior officer or on the initiative of ARV crew members who may observe an incident in the course of their patrol.
  In London, ARV crews are deployed only where there is a perceived firearms or other lethal threat. It therefore makes sense for them to have the immediate capacity to defend themselves and others. The previous procedures, which involved retrieving weapons from the fixed locked box in the back of a fast moving vehicle, can be unsafe.
  In operational terms, the handguns carried by ARV officers would be clearly visible only when they are in shirtsleeve order. My hon. Friend alluded to that. They will still require authorisation to remove their carbines from the locked box in the ARV.
  Routine arming of the police is simply not the issue here —that would be a fundamental change to the style of policing. What is intended is that the police should be given the protection they need to do their job. Far from shifting towards routine arming of police officers, the Commissioner has said that the average member of the public will never see—unless he is travelling through
  866
  Heathrow airport—officers routinely carrying guns on the street. I am only sorry that media coverage following this recent change has given an impression to the contrary.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the Army should be used at incidents currently dealt with by armed police officers. I am not persuaded of that. Of course, there have been and may again be particular incidents in which the expertise of the armed services are called upon. However, for the regular policing needs of London, the right response is from police officers who will be unarmed in the vast majority of cases, but who must, when operationally necessary, have access to appropriate firearms.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that we should keep a clear dividing line between the work of the police and the work of the Army. They have different jobs to do and different methods. One of the great strengths of British policing is precisely that the police are the police and the Army is the Army. We have always been careful not to mix them up. That is why I would not want the Army drawn into police work any more than is absolutely necessary, even if it were practicable to do so.
  I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that we are not talking about routine arming or anything close to it. Although routine arming might, in some cases, assist morale, it will not often help against sudden and unexpected attack. In my view, routine arming does not have a realistic place in the balance that needs to be reached between giving proper weight to protecting officers against attack and protecting the character of policing in this country, of which my hon. Friend spoke.
  The House may wish to know that the present number of authorised firearms officers in the Metropolitan police has decreased by almost 600 compared with the number of such officers in 1991. The number now is just over 1,950; in 1991, it was 2,583—hardly evidence of a move towards the routine arming of the police.
  However, in responding to police anxieties about the dangers that the police face, we must not concentrate exclusively on the debate about arming. The risk of other, lesser assaults is much greater, as the figures show. In the past six years throughout England and Wales, four officers have been killed by firearms and about 50 more have been injured, the majority not seriously. Those figures can be set against annual figures for England and Wales of between 17,000 and 18,000 a year for all assaults on police officers, a little over 300 of which occurred in the Metropolitan police district. Incidentally, the figures for overall assaults have not risen in recent years—indeed, they have fallen slightly—although I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that they remain unacceptably high.
  We believe that a great deal can be done to offer greater protection to police officers through a range of co-ordinated measures. The truncheon can be made more effective. A number of alternatives have been or are being trialled. The main trial is that of the expandable side-handled baton and we are providing technical support for that. Interim reports from those trials have been received and I understand that the results so far emerging are encouraging. This equipment greatly improves the confidence of officers and it also promises to be a highly effective tool of control and restraint. That is important in itself. Research recently carried out by the Home Office shows that one half of all injuries to officers are sustained while suspects are restrained. The results of the trials are now being considered by the Association of Chief Police Officers and a final decision is imminent.

  867
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, from the evidence so far we are likely to support any chief officer who decides to introduce the baton. Exercising his special responsibilities as police authority for the Metropolitan police, my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to proposals by the Commissioner to introduce two types of 22 in baton and other new batons will join the list if we are satisfied that they properly meet the undoubted need.
  Body armour is also necessary in some circumstances. Many of us would have thought that it was not beyond modern technology to produce body armour that provides effective protection against knife and gun attacks and is comfortable to wear all day. However, the Home Office police scientific development branch and ACPO do not consider that there is yet such a product.
  Body armour is issued for firearms incidents and stab-resistant and dual-purpose vests are increasingly purchased by forces. Chief officers will, of course, do everything they can and I commend the vest trials which are taking place in the Metropolitan police. Such trials are needed if we are to find the right product.
  The Home Office is, with ACPO, considering whether pepper spray is the good thing that, by many reports, it seems to be held to be in America. Curiously, it has not been subjected to the vigorous health checks that one would expect in the United States and we must be concerned about evidence that it may be carcinogenic. I
  868
  have a particular concern for officers who would be deploying it, for the simple reason that they are the most likely to experience frequent exposure.
  We agree with ACPO that the issue must be resolved as speedily as possible before we can make further progress. We have been advised by the Department of Health that we should be able to get a clearer answer within months, given the right scientific research. We have, of course, asked for the necessary work to be put in hand. It is, I am sure, an essential step in reaching a position where decisions can safely be made about whether and if so in what circumstance pepper spray should be used.
  A few moments ago, I referred to the number of assaults in the Metropolitan police area. I thought that I said something over 3,000. I am advised by an alert observer that I may have said over 300. If I did, I correct myself here and now. The figure I had clearly in mind and in front of me was over 3,000 and I apologise if I said the wrong figure.
  I hope that, by putting the recent justifiable changes to the way in which armed officers carry their sidearms into the wider context of the measures being taken to offer the police better protection, I have shown the House that, far from representing a fundamental shift in policing, they are a measured response to changing circumstances. We must remain flexible and imaginative in our response to the shifting changes which confront police officers as they go about their duties; that is our intent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information has been available since the end of March. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Food Supply
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in his plans to transfer the armed services food supply task to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Negotiations with the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute are proceeding satisfactorily and I expect shortly to be able to provide full details of the future food supply arrangements for the armed services. As part of our review of this task, the future of victualling depots operated by the Ministry of Defence has been examined. This work is continuing, but the conclusions reached so far are that the Royal Navy victualling depots at Burnetts Lane, near Southampton, and Royal Elizabeth Yard, Kirkliston, near Edinburgh, are no longer required. It is therefore proposed the Burnetts Lane should close by 30 September 1995, and that REY Kirkliston should close by 31 March 1996.

  These proposals are subject to consultation with the trade unions and other interested parties. No final decisions will be taken until consultation has been completed, and negotiations with NAAFI have been concluded.

HEALTH

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals covering the Greater London area carry out heart transplant surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  St. George's Healthcare NHS trust, St. George's hospital, Tooting; the Great Ormand Street Hospital for Children NHS trust; and the Royal Brompton hospital which operates in association with Harefield hospital.

  Infertility
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision is made for(a) infertility treatment and (b) infertility investigation in Sunderland district health authority;

  (2) what advice the Sunderland district health authority has sought from her Department as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the Sunderland district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. George Bedell, chairman of the authority, for details.

  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for subfertility. Individual health authorities determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Advice is available to health authorities and clinicians in two publications drawn to the attention of the NHS in 1992:

  (a) The Effective Health Care Bulletin on management of subfertility, published for the NHS Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  (b) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility—Guidelines For Practice".

  Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice the West Kent health authority has sought from her Department as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment in its area;

  (2) what provision is made for (a) infertility investigation and (b) infertility in West Kent health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for West Kent health authority. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Peter Edgely, the chairman of the authority, for details.

  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for subfertility. Individual health authorities determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances. Advice is available to health authorities and clinicians in two publications drawn to the attention of the NHS in 1992:

  (a) The Effective Health Care Bulletin on management of subfertility, published for the NHS Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  (b) The Royal College of Obstreticians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility—Guidelines For Practice".

  Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision is made for infertility investigation in(a) the South Birmingham district health authority area and (b) the area covered by West Midlands Health.

  (2) what is the provision for infertility treatment in (a) the South Birmingham district health authority area and (b) the area covered by West Midlands Health.

  (3) whether the South Birmingham district health authority has sought advice from her Department on the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment in its area.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for individual health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. B.
  623
  Stoten, chairman of South Birmingham health authority and Mr. B. Edwards, chairman of West Midlands regional health authority for further information.

  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for subfertility. Individual health authorities determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances. Advice is available to health authorities and clinicians in two publications drawn to the attention of the NHS in 1992:

  (a) The Effective Health Care Bulletin on management of subfertility, published for the NHS Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  (b) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility Guidelines for Practice".

  Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the recruitment of general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of general practitioners is at an all-time high and has risen from 21,357 at 1 October 1979 to 26,289 at 1 October 1993, an increase of over 23 per cent.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on stress among general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Family doctors deliver a high standard of care across a wide range of services. We recognise that the responsibility for maintaining high-quality services can lead to stress in some doctors and we have recently agreed to provide financial support for a study by the Royal College of General Practitioners into the effects of stress on general practitioners.

  Cataract Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) percentage discount rates and (b) special offers have been offered by each national health service trust provider in England to GP fundholders who place block orders for cataract surgery; and if she will indicate the thresholds at which the discount changes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These are local contractual matters between individual national health service trusts and general practitioner fundholders and district health authorities as purchasers.

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made following the report by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting on standards of nursing in nursing homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I welcome the clear statement by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting that the vast majority of residents of nursing homes are looked after well. I share the UKCC's concern about the rare cases where abuse or neglect by nursing staff occurs. Any single such case is a betrayal of nursing trust.
  624
  I endorse the practical advice given in the report and the messages that it sends to the nursing profession, to nurse trainers, to managers and matrons of nursing homes and to district health authorities as responsible for inspections and registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  We shall be seeking to ensure that lessons are learned and advice carried forward, in the light of this report, by nurses' representatives, trainers, supervisors and inspectors.

  The message of this report is that the number of incidents leading to disciplinary proceedings against a nurse in a nursing home is small in relation to the considerably increased number of residents in nursing homes over the past years.

  Nevertheless, we believe that one case is a case too many.

  Care in the Community
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each housing association which is contracted to provide social services under the care in the community programme.

  Mr. Bowis
  Contracts for social care are made by individual social services authorities in accordance with the needs of their areas.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will itemise each community care service for which there is a charge and indicate the variation in charges found within England.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are required to make charges for adults for whom they arrange residential accommodation. The amounts payable in charges vary depending on the actual costs of the accommodation and the resources of each resident. Local authorities have discretion about the amount charged for short-stay residents. They also have discretionary powers to make charges for non-residential services. There is no requirement to inform the Department about individual charges.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has undertaken of the effect of the homelessness legislation review on her care in the community policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has been fully involved in the review of access to local authority and housing association tenancies. The Government's conclusions, when announced, will take into account the implications for the policy areas, including care in the community.

  Health Expenditure
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 May,Official Report, columns 294–95, (1) if she will list all the factors, and their relative weights, taken into account when determining per capita spending by district health and family health services authority;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 26 May, Official Report, columns 294–95, regarding per capita spend by health authorities, what factors determined the relative allocation to (a) Preston and (b) Newham.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures for per capita spending were calculated by dividing the total expenditure for each
  625
  authority—from the provisional 1992–93 accounts—by the crude population figures, mid 1992 estimates, for each respective authority.

  It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to make allocations to district health authorities and to family health services authorities for cash-limited expenditure. The majority of FHSA expenditure is determined by demand for services and there are no predetermined allocations.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her best estimate of the numbers of patients in end-stage renal failure dying each year due to non-availability of sufficient donor organs; what steps she is taking to reduce destruction of such organs; and if she will enter into discussions with the medical profession with a view to establishing an organ transplant opt-out register in place of the current donor cards.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available centrally on the number of people who die while awaiting a kidney transplant. People awaiting kidney transplants may live for many years and may die from causes other than kidney failure. The Government are continuing to take a number of initiatives to increase the number of donor organs available for transplant. The Department of Health is in regular contact with the medical profession on this subject but the legislation for the presumption of consent unless otherwise indicated, regardless of the views of relatives, does not have widespread support.

EDUCATION

  Academic Work Force
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his oral answer of 29 March to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen),Official Report, column 787, what study he is making of the age profile of the academic work force.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for universities and colleges as employers to consider in the first instance the age profile of their academic staff. My right hon. Friend will continue to keep the general situation under review, in the light of any advice from the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

TREASURY

  National Debt
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Kingdom's level of non-marketable debt minus national savings has increased in line with Government estimates for each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Nelson
  Non-marketable debt represents only a small proportion of total Government debt. Figures for the components of national debt at end-March, including sterling non-marketable debt and national savings, are 626
  published annually in the Bank of England's quarterly bulletin debt article—see the November 1993 edition for end-March 1993. Sterling non-marketable debt excluding national savings, calculated from these articles, for the last 15 years are given in the table:

  Sterling non-marketable debt excluding national savings

  End-March

  £ million

  1979

  1,575

  1980

  821

  1981

  1,410

  1982

  1,968

  1983

  3,002

  1984

  3,171

  1985

  3,704

  1986

  4,205

  1987

  3,239

  1988

  3,529

  1989

  2,869

  1990

  3,591

  1991

  3,389

  1992

  3,275

  1993

  4,096

  There are no official forecasts of Government debt by instrument.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions are given to security staff in his departmental offices in London for dealing with(a) those sleeping rough in departmental doorways and (b) beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems have been experienced with each category in the last three months.

  Mr. Nelson
  No specific instructions are issued to security staff; it is the practice for anyone causing a nuisance to be asked to move on. No problems have been experienced in the past three months.

  Company Dividends
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for encouraging companies to retain profits rather than distribute them as dividends.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor has no plans to intervene in the control of dividends.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average level of dividends of the top 50 companies in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury does not monitor individual company results and does not have this information.

  Wages
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average price of 20 cigarettes, the average gross weekly wage for adult male manual workers and the proportion of the latter represented by the former in each year since 1964.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table shows available data.
  627

  Average retail price Cigarettes (20)

  Year

  Type of cigarette

  Pence

  Average gross weekly earnings of men Full-time manual Great Britain £

  Average cost of 20 cigarettes as a percentage of weekly earnings Per cent.

  1964

  Plain

  24·6

  —

  —

  1965

  Plain

  27·1

  —

  —

  1966

  Plain

  27·1

  —

  —

  1967

  Plain

  27·1

  —

  —

  1968

  Filter tip

  24·2

  —

  —

  1969

  Filter tip

  25·8

  —

  —

  1970

  Filter tip

  26·2

  26·40

  0·99

  1971

  Filter tip

  27·0

  29·00

  0·93

  1972

  Filter tip

  26·5

  32·30

  0·82

  1973

  Filter tip

  26·5

  37·60

  0·70

  1974

  Filter tip

  32·0

  43·00

  0·74

  1975

  Filter tip

  42·0

  54·90

  0·77

  1976

  Filter tip

  45·0

  64·20

  0·70

  1977

  Filter tip

  55·0

  70·50

  0·78

  1978

  Filter tip

  57·0

  79·60

  0·72

  1979

  Filter tip

  67·0

  91·70

  0·73

  1980

  Filter tip

  72·0

  110·10

  0·65

  1981

  Filter tip

  97·0

  120·20

  0·81

  1982

  Filter tip

  106·0

  131·90

  0·80

  1983

  —

  —

  141·60

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  152·70

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  163·60

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  174·40

  —

  1987

  King size filter tip

  144·0

  185·50

  0·78

  1988

  King size filter tip

  149·0

  200·60

  0·74

  1989

  King size filter tip

  152·0

  217·80

  0·70

  1990

  King size filter tip

  168·0

  237·20

  0·71

  1991

  King size filter tip

  191·0

  253·10

  0·75

  1992

  King size filter tip

  209·0

  268·30

  0·78

  1993

  King size filter tip

  229·0

  274·30

  0·83

  Notes:

  1. Average retail prices of cigarettes prior to 1971 have been converted to decimal equivalent.

  2. Average cigarette prices 1983–86 and earnings prior to 1970 are not available.

  Source: Retail Prices (CSO).

  New Earnings Survey (ED).

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the change in the real exchange rate as measured by relative unit values of exports to(a) European Union countries and (b) the rest of the world from January 1993 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 21 March 1994,Official Report, column 15, which provides references to exchange rate and export price data for Community and other countries, which can be used to calculate the information requested.

  Economic Forecast
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the Government's latest economic forecast.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Under the terms of the Industry Act 1975 the Government have to publish two forecasts a year. Following the move to a unified Budget, forecasts will be published in the summer and in the Budget in November. The first summer forecast will be published on 28 June. Copies will be available from the House of Commons Vote Office at 11 am.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what mechanisms exist for the independent monitoring of charter standards; and if he will give details of the mechanism for each public service covered by a charter.

  Mr. David Davis
  Under the citizens charter, each public service organisation is responsible for setting its own charter standards and ensuring that they are monitored. The public services publish details of actual performance against standards on a regular basis. Later this month, for example, the Department of Health will publish comparative information on the performance of health authorities. In November, the Department for Education will again publish performance tables for schools and colleges with students in the 16 to 18 age range. London Underground publishes four-weekly performance figures against its charter targets, and British Rail publishes four-weekly performance figures for the punctuality and reliability of lines.

  The citizens charter second report published in March 1994 reports generally on the progress achieved in improving standards of service and gives details of new commitments made under the charter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plug and Socket Harmonisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take on the conclusions of reports which he commissioned on plug and socket harmonisation on the level of disruption and costs to industry, customers and the time taken for benefits to accrue.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation—CENELEC—the body responsible for electrical standards in Europe, has referred the proposed standard back to the relevant technical committee for further work. The study recently undertaken by the Building Services Research and Information Association for my Department will provide a useful factual background for comments from consumers and industry if and when a draft standard is issued for national consultation.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade further to his White paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", what evidence he has in respect of profit levels of(a) United Kingdom manufacturers and (b) major foreign based manufacturers; and what was the estimated return on capital in manufacturing industry for each year since 1970 in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) other major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  For the United Kingdom, the gross trading surplus of manufacturing companies and public corporations plus income from self-employment from manufacturing can be obtained from table 2.2 of the Central Statistical Office Blue Book. The rate of return on capital employed by manufacturing companies is shown in CSO Bulletin 64/93 "Profitability of UK Companies (1962–1992)".

  Table 14 of the OECD's "National Accounts 1993" contains information on the operating surplus and rates of return on capital employed in manufacturing for OECD countries. These figures are on a slightly different basis from those published by CSO, and are provided for a variety of years.

  Copies of all the above-mentioned publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Cabling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the areas of the United Kingdom which have been cabled to date and those areas which are programmed for cabling over the next 12 months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To date, 125 franchises have been licensed, covering 14.5 million homes. Services are now being offered in 65 of these franchises and cable networks now pass over 3 million homes. The cable operators will continue to build out their franchises over the course of the next few years in line with the build obligations set out in their licences. The Department does not hold precise details of the areas which have been cabled, and the 630
  construction plans of the cable operators for the next 12 months are primarily a matter for the companies themselves.

  Post Office
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that the articles for the blind facility will remain a Freepost service following any reorganisation of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are well aware of the importance of the free postage facility currently offered by the Royal Mail for articles for the blind. The Green Paper on the Post Office, which is due to be published shortly, will, therefore, make clear that, under any option, the Royal Mail will be required to continue to offer this valued service.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what approval is required from institutions of the European Union, and in what form, for the zero-rating of VAT on postage for letters and parcels in the event of privatisation or part-privatisation of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Arrangements in respect of VAT and postal services need to conform with EC VAT legislation and, in particular, the sixth EC VAT directive, which provides VAT exemption for the universal letter and parcel services. In the light of discussions with the European Commission, as well as earlier jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, the Government are satisfied that privatisation would not mean the imposition of VAT on these services. The Government have made it clear that, under any option that they finally adopt, stamps will continue to be free of VAT.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will publish the scrutiny team's report and evidence;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of consideration given to the views of the Fire and Rescue Service in the present deregulation of fire safety legislation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Fire and Rescue Service has taken every opportunity to make its views known to Government and the fire safety review team during the widespread consultation on the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement. I know that the review team has found these and others' comments constructive and comprehensive.

  On the question of publication of the review team's report, I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 14 June, Official Report, columns 427–28.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, when he expects to publish the inter-departmental report on fire safety scrutiny.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 427–28.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many requests he has received for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992; and how many requests were refused.on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: The Department has to date received around 187 requests for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, none of which have been refused on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 13 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will make an assessment of the background work and credentials of Mr. Max van der Stoel for making a report on Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. van der Stoel is the United Nations special rapporteur on Iraq. It is for the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights to appoint special rapporteurs, who must be impartial. Mr. van der Stoel's international reputation and his wide experience of human rights issues make him an excellent choice as rapporteur on human rights in Iraq.

ENVIRONMENT

  Conservation Bodies
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the summary of responses received by his Department as part of the consultation process following his proposal to merge English Nature and the Countryside Commission for England.

  Mr. Atkins
  A summary of the responses received will be placed in the Library of the House once an announcement has been made on the outcome of the study.

  Land Use, West Midlands
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to protect green-field sites in the west midlands region.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State will continue to uphold policies that protect the green belt and open countryside in the west midlands. He will maintain his 632
  commitment to urban regeneration and will stress the importance of accommodating any necessary development within urban areas wherever possible.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received as to a need for the release of land for house building in the west midlands.

  Mr. Baldry
  The West Midlands Forum of Local Authorities has recently submitted advice to the Secretary of State. The forum estimated that 275,000 additional dwellings would be required in the region between 1991 and 2011.

  Housing Demand, West Midlands
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the demand for new private sector housing in the west midlands.

  Sir George Young
  The Secretary of State will set out his view of the need for new housing in the region in the forthcoming consultation draft of regional planning guidance. That need is based on a number of different factors and will be met by housing of a variety of tenures.

  County Hall (Sale)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which parts of the county hall complex have been sold; and which parts remain unsold.

  Mr. Baldry
  The riverside or "main" building has been sold. The remainder of the county hall land and buildings at present remain unsold.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions are given to security staff in his departmental offices in London for dealing with(a) those sleeping rough in departmental doorways and (b) beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems have been experienced with each category in the last three months.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department's standing instructions do not contain anything specifically related to the categories mentioned, nor have there been any problems in the last three months.

  Urban Air Quality
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to establish an urban air quality monitoring station in the Nottingham area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We take advice on this matter from the quality of urban air review group and as priorities develop over the next three years, we will consult the review group on the location of monitoring sites.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the current key performance targets for the Building Research Establishment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Building Research Establishment is working to the following key targets for 1994–95:
  633
  £920,000 net contribution to the Exchequer income to cover full economic costs on a trading basis gross non-Exchequer income of £3.6 million taking into account changes in BRE's charging policy, an improvement of 3 per cent. in the average daily cost of commissions.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what matters were discussed and what decisions taken at the European Transport Council on 13–14 June in Luxembourg; and how the United Kingdom voted on matters decided by vote.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the Transport Council in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June. I represented the United Kingdom.

  On the first day, the Council discussed a number of maritime safety issues and reached a common position on proposals on the training of seafarers, minimum standards for ship classification societies and lower port fees for environmentally friendly oil tankers.

  I gave a presentation on the Donaldson report into the Braer incident off Shetland. I emphasised three recommendations of special interest: port state control, improved ship identification using transponders and emphasis on the "polluter pays" priniciple. I received strong support from all member states and the Commission, which felt that the report was a very positive basis for future work on maritime safety and agreed to further detailed discussion by the Council.

  Other items discussed included maritime competition, freedom to provide maritime services and maritime relations with west Africa.

  On the second day, the Council reached provisional agreement, subject to a United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny reserve, on a common position on a directive harmonising conditions for transport of dangerous goods by road. The Netherlands and Spain entered abstentions.

  The Commission presented a communication on the way forward for civil aviation in Europe, drawn up in response to the wise men's report published in January of this year. I welcomed the Commission's paper, while emphasising the importance of elimination of state aids and full implementation of the third package of aviation liberalisation measures.

  Among the other items discussed was a proposed measure that aims to establish common criteria for allocating train paths to operators and charging for access to the railway network. I argued that the scope of the measure should be limited to international services and drew attention to the special treatment that would be needed where traffic rights had already been laid down —for example, the channel tunnel—or where necessary to get new infrastructure built. The Council also discusssed, but made little progress on, mandates for road transport negotiations with eastern Europe and transport negotiations with Switzerland.

  Under any other business, I reported on the review recently undertaken by the United Kingdom into the provision of seat belts in coaches and minibuses. My
  634
  conclusion from this report was that there was now a good case for requiring the fitting of seat belts to new vehicles. I emphasised the importance of this issue for road safety and asked how work was progressing within the Commission. In its response, the Commission informed the Council that it was working on a directive that would introduce new roof rigidity standards and emergency exit requirements. Existing seat belt legislation was also being reviewed under the guidance of a group of experts and a separate proposal covering the fire resistance of materials was being examined. The Commission was committed to having all these proposals on the table by the end of 1994.

  Two votes were taken. On the dangerous goods directive, as noted above, I entered a parliamentary scrutiny reserve and the Netherlands and Spain abstained. On the seafarers' training proposal, Italy abstained.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the estimated(a) demand and (b) cost to public funds of motorcycle tests over the next three years; what is the cost to the Driving Standards Agency of providing personal protective equipment to each motorcycle examiner; and what is the type and cost of the motorcycles used for the tests;

  (2) if he will list the reasons for which the block booking of heavy goods vehicle driving tests has been discontinued by the Driving Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  (3) if he will list the number of (a) motorcycle tests and (b) "L" tests conducted at Evesham during the last 12 months and the comparable period for the previous three years; and for how many days a week examiners are employed at Evesham.

  (4) what were the costs to public funds following the liquidation of the contractor employed to build the new driving test centre at Worcester; what attempts have been made by the Driving Standards Agency to recover this; and if he will list the reasons as to why these costs were not included in the financial report;

  (5) if he will list each driving test centre which currently operates a motorcycle test facility; and which of these he intends to close.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Ford, and I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from S. J. Ford to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 8 June 1994:

  Driving Standards Agency
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the questions you have raised about DSA's operations.

  PQ 2461/93/94
  You asked about the costs to public funds following the liquidation of the contractor employed to build the new driving test centre at Worcester, what steps were taken to recover this and why the figures were not included in the Agency's financial report.
  Enquiries have been made with the Agency's Managing Agent for the Worcester scheme and with the Contractor Management Information System operated by the Department of the Environment Property Holdings. The Agency has no information to suggest that the contractors concerned with the Worcester scheme have been in receivership or liquidation.
  635
  PQ 2462/93/94
  You asked which Driving Standards Agency test centres currently provide a motorcycle riding test facility and which of these are to close.
  A list of the centres, with those scheduled for closure indicated, is below:

  Aberdeen, Balgownie Road

  Abergavenny

  Aberystwyth

  Aldershot

  Ammanford

  Arbroath

  Arran

  Ashford (Kent)

  Aylesbury

  Ayr

  Ballachulish

  Ballater

  Banbury

  Banff

  Bangor

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Barnstaple

  Barra

  Barrow

  *Bath (to close on 15 July 1994)

  Bedford

  Belvedere

  Benbecula

  Berwick-on-Tweed

  Bettyhill

  Birmingham, Kingstanding

  Birmingham, South Yardley

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Bletchley

  Blyth

  Bodmin

  Bolton

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bradford, Wibsey

  Bridgend

  *Bridgwater (to close on 22 July 1994)

  Brighton

  Bristol, Brislington

  Broadstairs

  Burton-on-Trent

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Cambridge, Brooklands Avenue

  Campbeltown

  Cardiff, Cathays Terrace

  Cardigan

  Carlisle

  Carmarthen

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Chichester

  Chingford

  Chippenham

  Chorley

  Cleethorpes

  Colchester

  Coventry, Mason Road

  Crawley

  Cupar

  Darlington

  Derby, Sinfin Lane

  Derby, Chaddesden

  Dingwall

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Dumbarton

  Dumfries

  Dundee

  Dunfermline

  Durham

  636

  Eastbourne

  Edinburgh, Joppa

  Edinburgh, Parkhead

  Elgin

  *Evesham (to close on 16 June 1994)

  Exeter

  Falkirk

  Failsworth

  Folkestone

  Fort Augustus

  Fort William

  Fraserburgh

  Gairloch

  Galashiels

  Gateshead

  Gillingham

  Glasgow, Anniesland

  Glasgow, Shawlands

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  Gloucester

  Golspie

  Gosport

  Grantham

  Grantown-on-Spey

  Gravesend

  Greenford, Ruislip Road

  Greenock

  Guildford

  Halifax

  Hamilton

  Harrogate

  Hartlepool

  Haverfordwest

  Helmsdale

  Hendon

  Hereford

  Heysham

  Hexham

  Hinckley

  Hornchurch

  Horsforth

  Hull, Chamberlain Road

  Huntly

  Inveraray

  Inverness

  Inverurie

  Ipswich

  Islay

  Isles of Scilly

  Keighley

  Kendal

  Kenton Bar

  Kettering

  Kilmarnock

  King's Lynn

  Kingussie

  Kirkcaldy

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  Lairg

  Lampeter

  Launceston

  Leicester, Gipsy Lane

  Leighton Buzzard

  Lewis

  Leamington

  Lichfield

  Lincoln

  Liverpool, Crosby

  Llandrindod Wells

  Lochgilphead

  Loughborough

  Lowestoft

  Lower Gornal

  Macclesfield

  Mallaig

  Manchester, Cheetham Hill

  Melton Mowbray

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Middlesborough

  Minehead

  637

  Monmouth

  Montrose

  Mull

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Newport

  Newport (IOW)

  Newton Abbot

  Newton Stewart

  Newtown

  Northampton

  Northwich

  Norwich, Jupiter Road

  Nottingham, Gedling

  Nottingham, West Bridgford

  Oban

  Orkney

  Oxford

  Penzance

  Perth

  Peterborough

  Peterhead

  Pinner

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Reading

  Redditch

  Rhyl

  Rotherham (from 1 July 1994)

  Rugby

  Salisbury

  Scarborough

  Scunthorpe

  Shetland

  Shrewsbury

  Sidcup

  Skye, Portree

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southampton

  Southport

  St. Albans

  Stirling

  Strontian

  Sutton

  Sutton-in-Ashfield

  Swansea

  Swindon

  Tain

  Taunton

  Thurso

  Tiree

  Truro

  Tunbridge Wells

  Ullapool

  Wakefield

  Wallasey

  Wallington, Old Town Hall

  Wellingborough

  Wellington

  *Wells (to close on 15 July 1994)

  Weston-super-Mare

  Weybridge

  Wick

  Widnes

  Wigan

  Wolverhampton

  Worcester (from June 16)

  Workington

  Worksop

  Worthing

  Wrexham

  Yeovil

  York

  PQ 2466/93/94
  You asked the reasons why the present block booking arrangements were being ended by the Driving Standards Agency and for a statement.
  As you may be aware, the Secretary of State for Transport recently tasked all parts of the Department to find 20 per cent, efficiency savings over the next two years and this package of measures will help the Agency to achieve its part. The Agency
  638
  announced in April a package of measures, to be introduced in October, designed to improve service and reduce costs by an estimated £148,000 annually. The package includes ending the present block booking arrangements. As waiting times for driving tests have continued to fall, the inflexibilities of allowing certain training bodies to reserve blocks of driving tests, without naming candidates or paying the test fee, has become/becoming increasingly uneconomic. Block booking involved DSA operating a parallel booking system with the attendant costs having to be recovered from candidates via the test fee. Also, it was unfair as well as inefficient as it prevented cancelled appointments being used by other prospective candidates and meant that examiner time was wasted, reducing productivity and further increasing costs. The revised arrangement will remove an uncompetitive practice which has been the subject of a recent query from the Office of Fair Trading. Trainers will still be able to plan courses and book tests on behalf of trainees, if that is what their pupils prefer, on payment of the relevant fee.

  PQ 2484/93/94
  You asked about the estimated demand for and costs to public funds of motorcycle tests for the next three years, the cost of providing examiners with protective equipment and the type and cost of motorcycles used for tests.
  The estimated demand for motorcycle tests is between 80,000 and 90,000 for each of the financial years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97. The Agency is currently conducting a tendering exercise for motorcycles to replace the present lease hire contract. Also a new specification for motorcycle clothing is being considered by the Agency with a view to inviting tenders for supply in Autumn 1994. The precise cost of providing the motorcycle testing service, and the types of bikes to be used, during the next three years will not be known until after the tendering exercises.

  PQ 2497/93/94
  You asked for the number of motorcycle and car tests conducted at the Evesham driving test centre over the last year and the previous three years as well as how many days a week examiners were employed at the centre. The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Cars

  Motorcycles

  April 1990 to March 1991

  2,179

  n/a

  April 1991 to March 1992

  1,906

  n/a

  April 1992 to March 1993

  1,934

  155

  April 1993 to March 1994

  1,760

  221

  Before April 1992 separate figures for motorcycle tests were not kept for outstation centres such as Evesham, where no driving examiners were permanently based. Examiners based at Redditch have been detached to the Evesham centre for between 2 to 4 days per week, depending on demand.

  Jubilee Line
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy in respect of the proportion of the jobs created by the construction of the Jubilee line extention to be taken up by members of the communities adjacent to the extension.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 14 June 1994,Official Report, column 523.

  Bus and Coach Safety
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research evidence known to his Department demonstrates that the imposition of a ban on coaches using the third lane on motorways would reduce the risk of accidents.

  Mr. Key
  The available evidence is referred to in the consultation document issued on 9 May 1994, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish W. S. Atkins's independent review of Union Railways' work on the London terminus of the new channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today published W. S. Atkins's report. Copies have been placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in awarding three-year licences to training and enterprise councils; against what criteria TEC bids are being assessed; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The prospectus which launched the licensing process for training and enterprise councils was published at the end of May. TECs have between now and 1997 to demonstrate that they have met the criteria. We expect that the first licences will be awarded with effect from April 1995.

  The criteria cover TEC's corporate plans, strategic impact, programme performance and internal capability.

  A copy of the prospectus, "The New Contract Framework: 3 Year Licences", has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what proportion of(a) chairmen, (b) chief executives and (c) board members of training and enterprise councils are women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Records held centrally on the numbers and proportion of training and enterprise council chairmen, chief executives and board members in England and Wales who are women show the following:

  Number

  Propertion Per cent.

  Chairmen

  3

  3·6

  Chief Executive

  11

  13·4

  Board Members

  120

  12·4

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under which treaty provisions Cyprus is prohibited from joining the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  Under article 0 of the treaty on European Union any European state may apply to become a member of the Union. There is no prohibition in this treaty, or in the treaty of Rome, on Cyprus joining. But there are clearly difficulties in its doing so while the inter-communal dispute remains unresolved. The Council will review Cyprus's application early in 1995 in the light of developments in the inter-communal process. The United Kingdom supports Cyprus's membership application and the Commission's talks with Cyprus to familiarise it with the EC's existing legislation.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the derogations entered by the United Kingdom Government from the Council of Europe recommendations that pertain to the use of personal data; and what was the reason in each case for such a derogation being entered.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom has entered the following reservations. In each case the reservations were entered because the provisions in question were inconsistent with United Kingdom law, policy or practice.Recommendation No. R(83)10 on the protection of personal data used for scientific research and statistics (adopted 23/9/1983): the United Kingdom reserved its right not to comply with the recommendation as far as it relates to manually processed data.
  Recommendation No. R(85)20 on the protection of personal data used for the purposes of direct marketing (adopted 25/10/1985): the United Kingdom reserved its right to comply or not with the first sentence of paragraph 2.4, the second sentence of paragraph 3.1 and with paragraph 3.3 as a whole.
  Recommendation No. R(86)1 on the protection of personal data used for social security purposes (adopted 23/1/1986): the United Kingdom reserved its right to comply or not with the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 1.2, the second sentence of paragraph 3.3 and paragraph 5.
  Recommendation No. R(87)15 regulating the use of personal data in the police sector (adopted 17/9/1987): the United Kingdom reserved its right to comply or not with principles 2.2 and 2.4.
  Recommendation No. R(90)19 on the protection of personal data used for payment and other related operations (adopted 13/9/1990): the United Kingdom reserved its right to comply or not with paragraph 3.3, 3.4, 5.1.c and 7.1.
  Recommendation No. R(91)10 on the communication to third parties of personal data held by public bodies (adopted 9/9/1991): the United Kingdom reserved its right to comply or not with principles 6.2 and 6.3 paragraph 2.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the United Kingdom is taking as a member of the Security Council to ensure that safe areas are established across Rwanda other than those on the border areas and in Kigali.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom supported Security Council resolutions 918 and 925 expanding the United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda force and mandating it to provide support and protection for civilians at risk. Since the situation on the ground is constantly changing, Security Council resolution 925 gives the force commander the flexibility to deploy his force in the way that he considers most likely to enable UNAMIR to fulfil its mandate.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the United Kingdom and other Security Council members are taking to ensure that those responsible for the genocide in Rwanda are held accountable under the 1948 United Nations genocide convention.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has welcomed the appointment by the special session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on 24–25 May of a special rapporteur. His task will be to
  641
  gather information on acts which may constitute breaches of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity, including acts of genocide, and report to the Secretary-General.

  The special session also affirmed that all persons who commit or authorise violations of human rights or international humanitarian law are individually responsible and accountable for those violations and that the international community will exert every effort to bring those responsible to justice, while affirming that the primary responsibility for bringing perpetrators to justice rests with national judicial system.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he supports calls for human rights monitors to be deployed as part of the United Nations force in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom supported the adoption of the recent resolution by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which, inter alia, called for human rights field officers to be deployed in Rwanda. Proposals for a deployment have not yet been made.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what request the United Kingdom Government have received for logistical assistance with the deployment of UNAMIR troops in Rwanda; and what was their response.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom, along with other United Nations member states, has received a request to provide logistical support. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House on 15 June,Official Report, column 615, we are keen and ready to provide such support and are looking with the United Nations at ways in which we can contribute, for example by providing trucks. Since the start of the crisis in Rwanda we have given over £11 million in humanitarian aid.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the emergency session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which met on 24 and 25 May to discuss Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcomed the outcome of the special session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to discuss Rwanda, and in particular its decision to appoint a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation, assisted by a team of human rights field officers. We look forward to receiving the first report of the special rapporteur by 24 June.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries which have responded positively to the United Nations Secretary General's appeal for troops to augment United Nations UNAMIR in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo and Mali have all responded positively to the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal for troops to augment UNAMIR.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the predicted timetable for the deployment of 642
  the addition 5,500 United Nations troops to Rwanda as agreed under United Nations Security Council resolution 918.

  Mr. Hogg
  The Secretary-General's report to the Security Council of 31 May 1994 outlined a three-stage deployment schedule. The first stage, the strengthening of the Ghanaian battalion in Kigali and the deployment of a number of military observers is to begin by mid-July 1994. Phase two, the deployment of one mechanised and one motorised battalion, will take place in close synchronisation with phase 1. The timing of phase three, the deployment of an additional two battalions, will depend upon how the initial deployment of the force unfolds.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested by the hon. Member is only available for the past nine years and is as follows:

  (a) 159

  (b) 25

  (c) 0

  (d)(i)) 184

  (d(ii)) 183 (One application granted but job offer not taken up).

  British Prisoners Abroad
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are awaiting trial having been in custody for over one year since arrest in(a) other member states of the European Union, (b) Belgium, (c) Denmark (d) France, (e) Germany, (f) Greece, (g) Italy, (h) the Netherlands, (i) Portugal and (j) Spain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following numbers of British citizens have been awaiting trial in custody for over one year since arrest:

  Numbers

  (a) Belgium

  1

  (b) Denmark

  0

  (c) France

  10

  (d) Germany

  4

  (e) Greece

  0

  (f) Italy

  0

  (g) Netherlands

  5

  (h) Portugal

  4

  (i) Spain

  40

  (j) European Union

  64

  British Prisoners Abroad
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are awaiting trial having been in custody for over two years since arrest in(a) other member states

  643
  of the European Union, (b) Belgium, (c) Denmark, (d) France, (e) Germany, (f) Greece, (g) Italy, (h) the Netherlands, (i) Portugal and (j) Spain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following numbers of British citizens have been awaiting trial in custody for over two years since arrest:

  Numbers

  (a) European Union

  15

  (b) Belgium

  0

  (c) Denmark

  0

  (d) France

  2

  (e) Germany

  0

  (f) Greece

  0

  (g) Italy

  0

  (h) Netherlands

  0

  (i) Portugal

  0

  (j) Spain

  13

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions are given to security staff in his departmental offices in London for dealing with(a) those sleeping rough in departmental doorways and (b) beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems have been experienced with each category in the last three months.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No specific instructions are given to FCO security staff for dealing with anyone sleeping rough in doorways of our buildings or with beggars. We have had no problems with either category.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the record of member states in implementing EC directives; and how many times the Commission took member states to court in the years 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  These figures were published in the Commission's 1993 report on application of Community law, available in the House Library. They are as follows:

  Member States

  Percentage of Directives Implemented as at 31 December 1993

  Number of Referrals to Court 1989–1993

  United Kingdom

  92·3

  10

  Belgium

  90·7

  48

  Denmark

  95·4

  5

  Germany

  88·9

  19

  Greece

  88·1

  37

  Spain

  90·1

  20

  France

  89·7

  21

  Ireland

  88·7

  17

  Italy

  88·9

  102

  Luxembourg

  90·7

  39

  Netherlands

  92·4

  24

  Portugal

  89·2

  6

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will announce a decision on the milk marketing board's reorganisation scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Agriculture Act 1993 gave to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales the task of deciding on a milk marketing reorganisation scheme submitted by the England and Wales milk marketing board. Since receiving the board's application last October we have conducted two formal rounds of consultation and held discussions with the European Commission, the board itself, the Dairy Trade Federation and other parties whose interests are at stake. We have given full consideration to the many and complex issues involved as required by the Act.

  I am able to announce today that we have informed the board of the modifications which we considered necessary to enable us to grant its application for approval. The board has agreed to them and we have granted approval. The industry is therefore poised to take a great step forward.

  Under the now approved reorganisation scheme the existing milk marketing scheme will come to an end on 1 November 1994. From that date, producers will be free to sell their milk wherever they wish, while dairies and other purchasers will be free to buy direct from producers. The present system of managed markets and end-use pricing will be replaced by the normal disciplines of a competitive market. Our industry will have greater freedom to compete on level terms within the wider European market.

  It is evident that the full benefits of competition could more rapidly be achieved if Community milk quotas were abolished so that production could expand as the reward for success. This remains an important Government objective but not one which can be accomplished overnight. In the meantime I shall continue to press at next week's Council of Agriculture Ministers for milk quota to be made tradeable between producers in different member states.

  Up to 1 November 1994, which is vesting day under the board's reorganisation scheme, the requirement for producers to sell their milk to the board remains in force. But after 1 November those producers who continue to want the security of collective marketing will have a number of options. They can form their own marketing groups, as many are already doing in anticipation of the ending of the milk marketing scheme; they can form an association with a particular purchaser; or they can join Milk Marque, the board's successor marketing body under the reorganisation scheme.

  The scheme provides for Milk Marque to inherit certain assets of the MMB, including a sum of cash, property, staff and laboratories. It will not inherit Dairy Crest, which is to be floated on the stock market as an independent company. Nor will it inherit Genus, which is to become an independent company with all the shares distributed to producers. National Milk Records will remain with the residuary body for an initial period pending decisions on its longer-term future.

  The total market value of the assets to be passed to Milk Marque is around £39 million. In considering whether this transfer was acceptable, my right hon. Friend and I had to

  645
  balance two considerations in particular. The first was the importance that we both attach to ensuring, in the interests of producers, that Milk Marque has a sound financial base. The second was the need to ensure fairness as between those producers who join the new body and those who do not. We are satisfied that the outcome is a satisfactory balance. Milk Marque will have an adequate asset base but will be required to issue interest-bearing certificates of entitlement so that producers who choose not to join will receive their full share of the value of transferred assets.

  I know that many purchasers are opposed to the establishment of a body such as Milk Marque which may have a large share of the market for raw milk in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend and I have considered Milk Marque's proposed trading practices, as we are required to by the Act, and have concluded that, taking account of the amendments made by the board to its October proposals, it does, indeed, take account of the interests of purchasers. Many, if not most, of the fears of the purchasers relate to the possibility of Milk Marque's abusing its market power in a discriminatory or otherwise unfair manner. Milk Marque will, however, be aware that it is under continuous scrutiny and will be well advised to conduct itself in such a way that there are no grounds for complaint. My right hon. Friend and I look to the Office of Fair Trading and the European Commission to monitor the situation closely and to act decisively if the need should arise.

  A great deal now has to be accomplished in a short time. Producers who have already signed contracts with Milk Marque, and wish to reconsider, have two weeks from today, that is until 30 June, to give Milk Marque written notice in order to secure release from their contract without paying compensation. I would however urge all producers to come to a decision on who they are going to sell to, and sign up, by four weeks from now. That will give the dairy companies, Milk Marque and others the ability to plan their sales and purchases from 1 November with the maximum of confidence. That is very much in the interests of consumers. It is also important for the flotation prospects of Dairy Crest, in which producers have a particular interest under the scheme.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will be laying regulations before Parliament to establish the constitution of the residuary MMB which will deal with the MMB's remaining rights and obligations on behalf of producers after vesting day. It is our intention that the residuary body should be required to have due regard to the financial interests of milk producers. It will be answerable to them and not to Government. There will be a strong producer presence on the new board.

  I am pleased to be able to announce also that we shall be laying an order to establish a milk development council for England and Wales. This is in response to proposals submitted by the National Farmers Union. The object of the council will be to continue certain functions of the MMB, such as the financing of research and development, which would otherwise be likely to lapse. In order to establish how much support for such a body exists among producers my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I recently carried out a postal ballot of producers in Great Britain. In England and Wales 67 per cent. of the forms sent out were returned. Some 74 per cent. of those voting favoured the establishment of a development council. The Secretary of State for Wales and I conclude that this meets the requirement for
  646
  substantial support set out in the relevant Act. We hope that a development council will be operational from 1 November or soon after. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering whether Scotland should join in.

  The granting of approval of the board's reorganisation scheme opens up the prospects of a brighter future. I am pleased, therefore, that the board has agreed to take an important step towards clearing up some of the unfinished business of the past by setting up an arbitration mechanism to deal with claims by certain producers against payment of levy on direct sales of low-fat milk from 1 January 1992. This follows the decision of the European Court of Justice in March that low-fat milk comes within the board's purchasing monopoly. It has been argued that some producers have claims, based in particular on the principle of legitimate expectations, which should limit their levy liability. The board's decision is intended to establish a more flexible and less expensive means of resolving the issues than would be available through the courts. I very much welcome it.

  Returning to the board's reorganisation scheme, the Act requires the principles of the approved scheme to be published. We have already published more detail of the proposed scheme than the Act requires in our March consultation document. We are now depositing in the Library of the House two further documents setting out the effects of amendments to the reorganisation scheme submitted by the MMB since March and of the modifications proposed by myself and the Secretary of State and accepted by the board.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Facilities (Children)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans he has to improve facilities for children of hon. Members and visitors including changing facilities for babies in the House and its out-buildings.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I understand that child care facilities for Members and staff are at present under consideration by the Administration Committee and the House of Commons Commission. The Accommodation and Works Committee would be prepared to examine accommodation requirements arising from any decisions that are taken.

  The provision of facilities for the families of Members was among the bids put forward for space in the phase 2 building. The Committee has yet to decide to what extent that request can be accommodated within the limited space available. No change is at present contemplated for the families room. I am confident that the issue of changing facilities for babies will be considered in the context of any planned development of appropriate accommodation.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each year since its establishment by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b)

  647
  staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has been in existence only since April 1992. To date no job offers have been reported by staff in this Department under the requirements of the rules on acceptance of outside appointments.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has not issued any consultation documents where the intention has been to make individual responses available to the public. If such an occasion arose, the Department would make it clear that the response would be made available unless the respondent wished it to remain confidential.

  Royal Palaces (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been raised from admission charges to Windsor castle and Buckingham palace.

  Mr. Sproat
  Gross income, excluding VAT, from admission charges to Buckingham palace state apartments in 1993 was £2.277 million and from admission charges to Windsor castle between 4 January and 31 March 1994 was £0.754 million. Net income from Buckingham palace state apartments and from charges for the precincts of Windsor castle go towards the cost of the restoration of Windsor castle.

  Private Members' Bills
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested parliamentary counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Sproat
  Parliamentary counsel does not draft amendments on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. On that authority, amendments were drafted by parliamentary counsel on instructions from my Department and subsequently made available following the Government's decision to support Lord Perth's Treasure Bill.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance his Department has given, directly or indirectly, to the sport of rugby union in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  648
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: None.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to introduce a citizens charter for participants in sport.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: None. The main providers of sports facilities in the public sector are local authorities, a number of whom have been awarded the charter mark for their sports and leisure provision. The Sports Council is working towards a set of charter standards for its own services.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Urban Regeneration
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the regeneration of areas of deprivation in Belfast, South.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The recently published strategy proposals for the "Making Belfast Work" initiative sets out how the Government propose to tackle deprivation in Belfast.

  Equine Exports
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many equines were exported from Northern Ireland for human consumption in the past year; what was their value; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no exports of equines for human consumption from Northern Ireland direct to Europe. Horses are exported to both Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland but there is no information available on the number or value of Northern Ireland horses which may be consigned to licensed abattoirs in either country. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Anglo-Irish Talks
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest discussions he has had with the Irish Government relating to Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I periodically meet members of the Irish Government to discuss matters of mutual interest. The last such meeting was with Mr. Spring on 23 May. Our discussions are necessarily confidential but are generally the subject of a joint statement at their conclusion.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks he has had with the Irish Government relating to a constitutional framework for Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Consultations are continuing with the Irish Government on the construction of a framework conforming to the principles of the joint declaration. This would facilitate a comprehensive political settlement involving the main constitutional parties, and covering all the main relationships in accordance with the statement of 26 March 1991.
  649
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he will be putting to the Irish Government for advancing the peace process in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government are consulting closely with the Irish Government on the construction of a framework conforming to the principles of the joint declaration which would facilitate a comprehensive political settlement involving the main constitutional parties, and covering all the main relationships in accordance with the statement of 26 March 1991.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with political leaders from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland about prospects for peace.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have continued, with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), to hold such discussions, which necessarily remain confidential.

  Inter-party Talks
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about the progress of the inter-party talks.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) earlier today.

  Downing Street Declaration
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the benefits to the security situation in Northern Ireland following the Downing street declaration.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I assess that the joint declaration, which is a declaration for democracy and against coercion, has beneficially still further isolated from public support and toleration those who employ violence for political advancement within our democracy.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on the Downing street declaration.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

  Open Government
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application to the Northern Ireland Office of the policy on open government.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office is committed to the application of the principles contained within the code of practice on Government information, which came into effect on 4 April 1994.

  Security
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security.
  650
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Co-operation north and south of the border on matters of security is a matter of great importance for both Governments, and continues to be very effectively practised.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Irish Republic regarding cross-border security.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

  Integrated Schools
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support he is giving to integrated schools.

  Mr. Ancram
  Integrated schools receive 100 per cent. recurrent funding immediately and become eligible for 100 per cent. capital grants when viability is confirmed. In March 1994, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland provided a £1 million grant to the integrated education fund for the development of integrated education. This is in addition to annual grant aid of some £250,000 to the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education.

  Domestic Heating
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Housing Executive houses are heated by(a) electricity, (b) solid fuel and (c) other means.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I am advised by the chief executive that there are 25,605 houses heated by electricity, 125,427 by solid fuel and 1,900 by other means.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest figures on inward investment to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The financial year from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 has been the most successful 12-month period for inward investment since the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland was established in 1982.

  During the year, 13 projects were secured offering a potential 2,309 jobs. Associated investment in these projects amounts to £259 million.

  I am much encouraged by this success, and by the prospects for securing further inward investment for the Province.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations led to the decision to cease the issuing of vehicle registration licences through post offices in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is an operational matter for the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Northern Ireland. I understand that he wrote to the hon. Member on 6 June 1994 setting out the reasons for his decision.

WALES

  Nursing Students
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the number of health visitor students and district nurse students in training expressed as whole-time equivalents in March of each year from 1988 to 1993.

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

  Students in Training in Wales1

  Year

  Health visitor

  Type of Student District nurse

  Enrolled nurse converting2

  1988

  61

  62

  32

  1989

  58

  61

  25

  1990

  54

  50

  —

  1991

  41

  37

  6

  1992

  43

  30

  19

  1993

  42

  29

  14

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Church in Wales Children's Society

  21,894

  82,693·90

  112,350·00

  89,077

  Barnadoes in Wales

  5,000

  3,000·00

  1,531·76

  1,531

  National Children's Home Action for Children, Cymru

  105,459

  135,300·00

  121,470·00

  94,800

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Wales/Cymru

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Save the Children Fund in Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to issue a Welsh language version of the document on the "Implications of Local Government Reorganisation in Wales for Health Boundaries and Proposals for Restructuring Health Authorities"; if he will make it his policy to issue all consultation documents in bilingual form; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no plans to issue this paper in Welsh.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet representatives of water companies and the Office of Water Services to discuss the replacement of the present system of basing charges for water and sewerage services by reference to the rateable value of properties.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Decisions on methods of charging are a matter for the water companies in conjunction with the Director General of Water Services. Under existing legislation rateable values cannot be used as a basis for water charging after 31 March 2000.

  Radioactive Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research is currently being conducted in Wales(a) by his Department, (b) on behalf of his Department and (c) as notified to his Department on the levels of radioactive pollution.
  652
  1 Number of students, as at March of each year. Figures for whole time equivalents are not available. Source: Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  2 Enrolled nurses who are converting to 1st level district nursing ie qualifying as a district nurse.

  Children's Charities
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of funding his Department has provided for each year since 1991, to(a) Church in Wales Children Society, (b) Barnadoes in Wales, (c) the National Children's Home in Wales (d) the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Wales/Cymru and (e) Save the Children in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the support for child and family services grant scheme, some of these organisations have had awards to support various projects from 1991–92 to date. The table sets out, where applicable, the total amount granted in each financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Full details of the Welsh Office's environmental research programme in Wales is published annually in "Research Wales", copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. Current research projects on radioactivity involve a study of tidal washed pastures on the eastern Irish sea coast, jointly funded with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and on plutonium in soils in Wales.

  As reported in the annual environmental digests for Wales, also placed in the Library of the House, continuous monitoring of radioactivity is carried out on behalf of the Welsh Office by a number of organisations.

  Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further commitments he intends to make to publish further reviews of environmental research and the ranking of priorities of environmental protection initiatives in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As stated on page 9 of "The Environment in Wales: Third Report", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, a review of environmental research priorities has been completed by the Welsh Office. There are at present no plans for a further specific review but the programme continues to be monitored.

  Paragraph 12 of the third report sets out the Government's broad objectives for environmental protection in Wales.
  653
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts were made to publicise the publication of his Department's third report on the environment in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A press release was issued by the Welsh Office on 10 May to announce publication of the report. Copies of the report were also sent to a wide range of interests in Wales including all local authorities, public bodies and voluntary organisations. Copies were also placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Out-of-town Shopping
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) out-of-town shopping centres, (b) out-of-town warehouse parks and (c) warehouse clubs are (i) currently under construction and (ii) have planning permission but have yet to start construction in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what quality indications are used by GP fundholders in determining the hospitals at which they will place contracts for their patients.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The quality measures used to inform the contracting process are a matter for individual GP fundholders. They will include patients charter standards, the quality of clinical care and patient satisfaction.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the details of the circumstances in which GP fund holders cannot refer a patient extra-contractually without the permission of his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The guidance covering extra-contractual referrals from GP fundholders, for non-fundholding procedures, is the same as that for non-fundholder GPs. The Department is involved where GPs wish to refer patients abroad. All other extra-contractual referrals are subject to health authority procedures, and are not affected by fundholding status.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines he issues to chief ambulance officers in Wales on the timing and release of information to the press following a 999 call requiring the attendance of an ambulance at a serious road accident.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no central guidelines for the release of information by chief anbulance officers. In the event of a major incident, the responsibility for dealing with the media lies with the receiving hospital. A copy of the guidelines dealing with such incidents—Welsh Office circular WHC(93)(69)—has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Planning
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue new guidance on the charging policy of local authorities and on minimum standards for providing access to planning documents by local authorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has not issued general guidance on local authority fees and charges and has no plans to do so in the near future.

  Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires local planning authorities to keep a register of planning applications and to make it available for public inspection. This duty is referred to in planning policy and minerals planning guidance notes produced by the Welsh Office. Welsh Office circular 11/86 gives guidance on the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. My right hon. Friend has no proposals to issue new guidance.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it a new duty for local authorities to supply copies of planning documents on request.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 provides for public inspection of certain background papers about local authority proceedings. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 removed certain impediments on copyright and permits the copying of material open to public inspection.

  Medical Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the names of the medical consultants who currently hold merit awards in Wales; and if he will indicate the grade that each has been awarded.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information about the awards status of individual consultants is confidential.

  Prostheses
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that any directly managed unit or NHS hospital trust which changes the prosthesis used for hip or knee replacement surgery informs all purchasing authorities before such changes are introduced.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The type of prostheses used for hip and knee replacements is currently a matter for agreement between commissioning authorities, GP fundholders and hospitals, when agreeing contracts. Commissioners are able to stipulate that they wish to be informed before any changes are made.

  Surgical Appointments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been re-referred in the last three months from in-patient surgical appointments at the Carmarthen and district NHS trust to the Pembrokeshire NHS trust.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the health authorities and GP fundholders involved. The information is not held centrally.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library details of the statutory indemnity existing for Dwr Cymru Cyf in respect of costs, damages and expenses not otherwise covered by insurance arising from claims against Dwr Cymru Cyf on the grounds of harm to health arising solely from fluoridation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Arrangements have been made to do so.

  Oystermouth Bus Station
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the public planning inquiry was held at the Guildhall, Swansea into the proposed development at the Oystermouth bus station; and on which date he announced his decision.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The public local enquiry was completed on 16 March 1994. The Secretary of State will announce his decision as quickly as possible after the inspector's report is received.

  Home Care Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now issue further guidance to local authorities on the principles to be supplied in determining discretionary charges for home care services.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance on charging for non-residential social services for adults was issued on 18 January 1994 under cover of Welsh Office circular 4/94. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums have been provided by the Welsh Office for health promotion initiatives to combat drug and alcohol misuse in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A number of statutory and voluntary organisations undertake initiatives to combat drug and alcohol misuse as part of their overall remit. It is not possible to disaggregate this expenditure from total allocation. Additional Welsh Office support is provided for specific national activity. In 1993–94, £90,000 was provided and for the current financial year, some £100,000 is available.

  Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that any directly managed unit or NHS hospital trust which introduces a new form of surgical intervention should inform all purchasers before such changes are introduced.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is a clear expectation that any significant change or development in the pattern of treatment and care should be subject to a dialogue between hospitals and commissioners prior to their introduction.

  Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the findings of the investigation into the incidence of cancer around Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear installations.
  656
  Mr. Redwood
  I have today published the report of an investigation into the incidence of cancer around Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear installations over the period 1974 to 1986. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The report gives the results of a statistical analysis of the incidence of seven groups of cancer near to the two installations. The results have been examined by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, which concluded that the study demonstrates that there is no association between the incidence of the cancers studied and residence near Wylfa and Trawsfynydd nuclear installations.

  In the light of COMARE's conclusions and advice I do not propose any further investigation of the incidence of cancer in the vicinity of Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear installations. The full text of the committee's advice is as follows.

  COMARE STATEMENT
  Investigation of the Incidence of Cancer around Wylfa and Trawsfynydd Nuclear Installations
  Background
  A detailed investigation of the incidence of cancer around the Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear installations has been undertaken by the Welsh Cancer Registry. The study has now been published.
  The Study
  The object of the study was to investigate the incidence rates from 1974–1986 of the following groupings of cancer: all leukaemias, lymphoid leukaemia, all lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, brain cancer and thyroid cancer. These cancers were selected because of their suggested links with radiation in the medical literature at the time the study was undertaken. The geographical regions were defined as the pre-1974 local authority areas within Gwynedd. The time span was the years for which data were available from the Welsh Cancer Registry. Data were analysed by Stone's method for all ages combined and further analyses of lymphoid leukaemia and thyriod cancer were undertaken for three age groups (0–24 years, 25–64 years and 65 years and over).
  Results

  (i) For both Trawsfynydd and Wylfa no significant results were found for all leukaemias, all lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, brain cancer or thyroid cancer.

  (ii) The analysis of lymphoid leukaemia was undertaken separately for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). However, in attempting to undertake these analyses account had to be taken of the approximately 9 per cent. of registrations which were recorded neither as ALL (ICD code: 204.0) nor CLL (ICD code: 204.1) but as 'other and unspecified lymphoid leukaemia' (ICD codes: 204.2, 204.8 and 204.9). It was not possible to determine the type of lymphoid leukaemia for such cases and therefore the analysis was undertaken in two ways, either with the cases recorded as unspecified lymphoid leukaemia analysed as if they were all ALL or with the cases recorded as unspecified lymphoid leukaemia analysed as if they were all CLL;

  The results analysed in these two ways were as follows:
  Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia (ALL)

  (a) Trawsfynydd. No significant results were obtained.

  (b) Wylfa. No significant results for ALL were found for all ages and in the age groups 0–24 and 25–64. If the single case of unspecified lymphoid leukaemia was included as ALL a significant result was obtained in the age group 65 and over (P=0.027, two cases observed in the area containing Wylfa compared to 0.25 expected).

  Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL)

  (a) Trawsfynydd. No significant results were obtained for CLL when analysis was undertaken for all ages and for the age group 65 and over. Considering the age group 25–64 four cases were observed in the

  657
  area containing the installation compared to 0.57-0.66 expected with the relative risk decreasing as the distance from Trawsfynydd increased (p< 0·01).

  (b) Wylfa. No significant results were obtained.

  (iii) Data for 1987 and 1988 became available during the period of the study. No further cases of lymphoid leukaemia were recorded in the local authority areas containing either installation.
  COMARE'S ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT
  COMARE considered and welcomed this study.
  The Committee endorsed the statistical methods used.
  In interpreting the results on ALL at Wylfa, the Committee noted that the statistically significant increase in ALL rests on a single case of unspecified leukaemia being included as acute lymphoid leukaemia rather than chronic lymphoid leukaemia. It was considered that this finding could be disregarded for the following reasons:
  Statistical associaton based on a single case is extremely unreliable.
  Placing weight of opinion on a finding based on reclassification of a case of unspecified leukaemia to ALL in the 65 years and over age group was felt to be unreasonable, since in this age group chronic leukaemia is very much more common than acute leukaemia.
  Equally, the finding of cases of CLL around Trawsfynydd should not give rise to public concern because:
  The overwhelming weight of evidence from international studies leads to the conclusions that CLL is a leukaemia sub-type which has not been shown to be associated with, or induced, by ionising radiation. This fact alone should be sufficient to allay concern that environmental radiation might have played a part in causing such cases observed in this study.
  CLL is an indolent disease, predominantly of the elderly, which may cause few symptoms over long periods. Diagnosis is often the result of investigation of an unrelated complaint and incidence in a geographical area depends on the intensity of such investigations. Hence the baseline incidence is uncertain, particularly for relatively small areas and it is unwise to calculate rates, raised or otherwise, in subgroups in such areas.
  Given the number of statistical tests undertaken on this body of data there is a strong likelihood that at least one subgroup will show a statistical association by chance.
  The Committee noted the considerable effort that had been made to confirm the diagnosis in the cases investigated. Further research to establish the diagnosis with greater certainty was not felt to be justified.
  The Committee concluded that the study demonstrated no association between the incidence of the cancers studied and residence near Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear stations. No further work to investigate such an association is recommended.

SCOTLAND

  Health Care International
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his policy that Health Care International will be permitted to seek contracts to treat NHS patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Health Care International business plan is based on overseas and private business. If however, health boards wish to use HCI to the benefit of patients and they provide value for money my right hon. Friend would not object to HCI or any other private hospital accepting NHS patients in circumstances where the hospital could offer a specific medical technique not readily available elsewhere or where the NHS saw a need for particular waiting lists to be reduced more quickly than the service itself was in a position to achieve.

  European Council
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the European Council of Ministers took place in the past year; how many Scottish Office Ministers have attended in each case; which Minister attended; and what was the subject discussed at each of these meetings.

  Mr. Stewart
  The European Council of Ministers meets on average 125 times each year.

  Since the beginning of 1993 Scottish Ministers have attended the following meetings:

  Date

  Minister

  25 January 1993

  Environment/Transport Council

  Secretary of State

  18 March 1993

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  24 June 1993

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  20 September 1993

  Joint Foreign Affairs/Agriculture Council

  Secretary of State

  21 September 1993

  Agriculture Council

  Secretary of State

  20 October 1993

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  29–30 November 1993

  Justice/Interior Issues

  Lord Fraser

  20 December 1993

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  12 April 1994

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Fraser

  27–28 May 1994

  Justice/Interior issues

  Lord Fraser

  3–4 June 1994

  Regional Policy

  Mr. Stewart

  In addition to the above, Scottish Office officials have also attended a further 15 Agriculture Councils and four Education Councils since the beginning of 1993.

  Agendas for meetings of the Council of Ministers usually cover a number of different subjects, but all within the area of responsibility of the particular Council. Ministers generally report to Parliament on the outcome of discussions at the Council of Ministers.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings and discussions his right hon. Friend the Minister of State was involved in the prosecution of the case of Raymond Gilmour when the right hon. Gentleman occupied the office of Solicitor-General for Scotland; what were the subjects of discussions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the policy of the Crown to reveal details of private meetings and discussions between prosecutors. Such matters must, for sound reasons of public policy, remain confidential.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures are used by Ayrshire and Arran health board to arrange appointments for women for breast screening; in what circumstances this is done without the patient's prior approval; whether this procedure is adopted by other health boards; and if Ayrshire and Arran health board has assessed the costs to them of arranging appointments where the patient has failed to turn up or cancelled her appointment.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  National appointment procedures are followed in each breast screening centre. An initial letter inviting the patient to attend on a specific
  659
  appointment date is sent to each patient based on a list which has been endorsed by the patients' GPs. Experience has shown that if they are offered a firm date, some 80 per cent. of women invited in this way are able to attend without the need for any further letters. The screening centres have assessed the economic implications of call-up and have taken this into account by calling up enough patients to ensure that the maximum numbers are screened after allowing for non-attenders. This still enables all patients to be screened timeously.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the national health service has spent on its breast screening programme in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: Expenditure on the Scottish breast screening programme has been as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Revenue

  Capital

  Total

  1989–90

  1·7

  3·0

  4·7

  1990–91

  2·8

  0·7

  3·5

  1991–92

  3·4

  —

  3·4

  1992–93

  3·5

  —

  3·5

  1993–94

  3·7

  0·2

  3·9

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people not on waiting lists for treatment were waiting to see a specialist in the national health service at the end of March.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 June 1994]: Information on waiting times to first out-patient appointment 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.

  Crosshouse Hospital
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department will be taking to seek further compensation for design faults at Crosshouse hospital from the architects Boissevain and Osmond.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: None. In December 1989, Ayrshire and Arran health board accepted an offer of payment from Boissevain and Osmond of £470,000, together with the abandonment of the architect's claim for outstanding professional fees. I am satisfied that this represented a reasonable and acceptable conclusion to the dispute.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the contacts between his Department, the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust and Ayrshire and Arran health board concerning the further repair of Crosshouse hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: The management executive of the national health service in Scotland maintains regular contact with all health bodies concerning major capital investment proposals.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the latest faults in the roof and drainage 660
  systems of Crosshouse hospital were identified; and whether these were included in Ayrshire and Arran health board's original damages claim with the architects responsible for the building of the hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: Faults in the roof and drainage systems of Crosshouse hospital have been evident since the hospital opened in 1982 and were included in Ayrshire and Arran health board's damages claim against the architects responsible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  May Report
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that Sir John May's report will be published before the summer recess.

  Mr. Maclean
  The final report of Sir John May's inquiry will be published as soon as practicable.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount given by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the last five years; how many people were compensated in each of the last five years; how many were compensated for loss of earnings; and if he will break down these figures by category of occupation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information about the total amount paid and the numbers of people compensated each year are given in the board's annual reports, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The board does not collate centrally information about the numbers of people compensated for loss of earnings or categories of occupation. The available information is summarised as follows:

  Year

  Compensation Paid £ million

  Number of Awards Made

  1989–90

  72·7

  27,926

  1990–91

  109·3

  35,190

  1991–92

  143·7

  39,249

  1992–93

  152·2

  36,638

  1 1993–94

  165·7

  40,635

  1The figures for 1993–94 are provisional, and subject to audit·

  West Midlands Probation Committee
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs his Department incurred in defeating the High Court action by the West Midlands probation committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will write to my hon. Friend when the costs have been settled.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of 16-year-old(a) men and (b) women being held in prison establishments in England and Wales on 10 June.

  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.
  661
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 16 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the number of sixteen year old (a) men and (b) women being held in prison establishments in England and Wales on 10 June.
  The latest available provisional information is for 30 April 1994. On that date there were 386 sixteen year olds (377 males and 9 females) held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the prison population in England and Wales is serving a life sentence.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 16 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what percentage of the prison population in England and Wales is serving a life sentence.
  The latest available information is for 31 March 1994. On that date life sentence prisoners accounted for 8.8 per cent of the sentenced prison population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  London Church of Christ
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy toward the London Church of Christ.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our policy towards new religious movements, including the London Church of Christ, is that such groups must be allowed to practise freely so long as their actions remain lawful. We do not believe that legislation should be introduced to restrict the establishment or operation of cults or new religious movements. The existing criminal law is sufficient to regulate the behaviour of individuals who may infringe the rights of others.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Home Office research into the reasons for the termination of cases by the Crown Prosecution Service was completed; and what were its findings.

  Mr. Maclean
  A report on the Home Office study of termination of cases by the Crown Prosecution Service is nearing completion, and will be published later in the year. An article summarising key findings of the study was published by the Home Office research and statistics department in research bulletin No. 32. A copy of the bulletin is available from the House Library.

  Domestic Burglaries, London
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest trend in domestic burglaries in London.
  662
  Mr. Maclean
  The information available centrally shows that there were 114,778 offences of burglary in a dwelling recorded in the Metropolitan police district in 1993. This represents a fall of 10 per cent. over the previous 12 months.

  Child Crime Victims
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy concerning the establishment of a service which would specifically help children who are the victims of crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no plans to establish a service specifically to help child victims of crime. Government help for all victims of crime is provided principally through the voluntary organisation Victim Support, which helps families when they or their children have been victims of crime. Help for child victims is also available from other sources, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Childline, as well as from statutory agencies.

  Immigration
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 253, when the hon. Member for Linlithgow may expect to receive the letter on the case of Mrs. Carole Raja.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 June.

  Sentencing
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of(a) male juveniles and (b) female juveniles convicted of an indictable offence received a custodial sentence in 1993–94;

  (2) what percentage of (a) men and (b) women convicted of an indictable offence received a custodial sentence in 1993–94.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1993 will not be available until the autumn.

  Information for 1992 on persons sentenced to immediate custody by age and gender is published in table 7.15 of the Command Paper "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1992", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Prisoners (Mental Health)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales were made subject to hospital orders under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and how many were transferred to hospital under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: Some 156 persons were made subject to hospital orders with restrictions—sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983—in 1992, of whom 51 had previously been transferred from prison to hospital under section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Information for 1993–94 is not yet available.
  663
  Information on prisoners transferred to hospital under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is published annually in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders England and Wales" of which the latest edition is that for 1992.

  Prison Statistics
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prisoners per 100,000 population in(a) each EC country, (b) each other Council of Europe country and (c) the United States of America at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: All the EC countries are covered by the statistics collated by the Council of Europe. The latest available information is given in the table.

  An article on "International Comparisons of Prison Populations" by Collier and Tarling—Home Office research bulletin No. 23, pages 48 to 54—showed that the figures for different countries are unlikely to be strictly comparable because the definitions of prisons and prisoners vary from one country to another, reflecting different legal and administrative systems. Examples of differences in the definitions are the inclusion or exclusion in a country's figures of juvenile offenders and mentally disordered offenders. The table is not a reliable indication of punitiveness since it takes no account of the relative levels of crime or of the proportions successfully prosecuted.
  664

  Comparisons of prison population per 100,000 of national population by country, 1992

  Country

  Number per 100,000 population

  Austria

  88

  Belgium

  71

  Bulgaria

  102

  Cyprus

  32

  Czech Republic

  129

  Denmark

  66

  Finland

  65

  France

  84

  Germany1

  79

  Greece

  60

  Hungary1

  146

  Iceland

  39

  Ireland, Republic of

  62

  Italy

  80

  Luxembourg

  92

  Netherlands

  49

  Norway1

  59

  Portugal

  93

  Slovak Republic

  123

  Spain

  90

  Sweden

  63

  Switzerland

  77

  England and Wales

  91

  Scotland

  105

  Northern Ireland

  114

  USA

  547

  1 For these countries 1992 data was unavailable, published 1991 data has been used instead.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Marquess of Ailsa The Marquess of Ailsa —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Farriers: Training
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is a danger that the education and training of farriers is becoming principally college-based and not retaining sufficient of the strong practical input of the present apprenticeship scheme with approved training farriers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is for the employers in the farriery industry to decide which type of training suits them best. Presently there is the traditional apprenticeship system with employers or introductory college training prior to getting a job in the industry.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is very important that the apprenticeship scheme has priority over any college-based equivalent? Does he further agree that it is important that the horses are looked after by farriers who are sympathetic to them and who understand how to deal with them? At the same time, they have to be good craftsmen and know how to make proper shoes for the horses. Therefore, is it not of paramount importance that the apprenticeship scheme should continue roughly as now and that it should not become over-college-based, as I fear may happen?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the fact that it is the welfare of the horses that is the most important point to consider. However, I believe that there is validity in both systems. I can tell my noble friend that the Farriers Registration Council is under review at the moment. It is clear that whatever the outcome of the review, the quality of the training will be the most important matter. The issue of the long-term recruitment and training policy, under any new terms, will be a matter for the industry to decide. I understand that the farriery industry has expressed interest in being involved in the new modern apprenticeships announced by my right honourable friend last year.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the National Vocational Qualification is available for this craft and, if so, whether steps are being taken to ensure that it can be obtained?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the NVQ. I understand that a contract to develop it in farriery has now been signed.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the welfare of horses is best protected by farriers who have been apprenticed to appointed or qualified trainer farriers rather than having a training that is purely college-based? Does he agree, for example, that, although horses understand and respond to language, it might not be possible to take college examinations in that language?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, I believe that there is validity in both systems. It is a matter for the Farriers Registration Council, which keeps a register of qualified farriers, to maintain the appropriate standards of practice. I can give my noble friend an assurance that it is illegal for an unregistered farrier to shoe horses in England or Wales.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the greater use of horses by many foreign countries as compared to this country, to what extent is our training available to farriers from those countries? Would not such training help to secure improved animal welfare abroad?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend may be aware of a funding appeal by the Princess Royal some years ago. That was to some extent superseded by the training and enterprise councils after about £0.5 million had been raised. I understand that the balance is being re-targeted to establish an international institute of farriery for foreigners coming to the United Kingdom. It is also important to make the point that the farriery industry is very interested in having its qualifications and competence recognised in Europe. I understand that the second diploma directive covering this matter, which was agreed, I believe, in 1993, will come into force in a couple of days' time.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that excellent farriery training facilities are available at the Ministry of Defence's animal centre at Melton Mowbray? Are those services offered to all comers—in other words, are they on offer outside the armed services?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the excellent facilities available at Melton Mowbray. As regards his substantive point, I am afraid that I cannot help him. I can, however, assure him that the officer in charge of that establishment is represented on the Farriers Registration Council.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend. Is he aware that the Farriers Registration Council is not wholly respected by all farriers because they suspect it of veering away from the apprenticeship schemes towards over-college-based training? Can he bear that in mind when seeking the advice of the council and ensure that any scheme has the backing of all farriers, particularly those offering training?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the important point is that the Farriers Registration Council keeps a register of qualified farriers. No one can act as a farrier who is not registered by the council. As I made clear, the council is under review at the moment and obviously the outcome

1811
of that review has yet to be finalised. What is important is that in the end the long-term recruitment and training policy, under any new terms, will be for the industry itself to decide.

Disabled Persons' Civil Rights: Legislation
3.13 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they continue to take an attitude of "benevolent neutrality" towards the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Government are committed to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. However, we do not see comprehensive legislation as the most effective and practical means of achieving that aim. The Government have made clear their concerns about the potential costs and burdens of this Bill. We intend to consult on a range of measures to combat unjustifiable discrimination. The five areas for consultation are employment, access to goof's and services, financial services, the impact of building regulations on disabled people and the creation of an advisory body on disability.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is Helpful for the House to know the Government's attitude to the Bill before we debate it next Wednesday? The Government's objections have now been met by changes to the Bill. Is the Minister also aware that the Government's £17 billion cost assessment is wildly inaccurate because the costs of several departments were duplicated? No account was taken of the economic benefits that would be derived from countless numbers of disabled people returning to work and, above all, the Government assumed that the entire Bill would be implemented within five years. However, under the Bill as it now stands, implementation is completely open-ended; it is entirely at the discretion of the Government. Undue hardship on business or on any other organisation is specifically banned by the Bill—specifically banned—and any provisions for disabled people must be reasonable. Does the Minister agree that in view of those factors it would be entirely wrong for the Government to oppose the Bill?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, while the Government support the aims of the Bill, we do not support it as drafted. The drafting is defective in a number of areas and insufficient account has been taken of the potential huge costs of implementation. We still believe that to be the case. No doubt, when the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, introduces his Bill in this House next week, we shall be able to discuss the cost and how the figure of £17 billion cornea about.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for nearly 20 years many Members of all parties have wanted a Bill on these lines and that the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is a great improvement on its predecessors? As the Government are still worried about the alleged cost, is my noble friend further aware that two simple amendments will deal quite simply with that problem, if they have an open mind on the matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, of course we have an open mind. I am well aware of the level of support for anti-discrimination legislation and the Government have listened carefully to the arguments of those supporting it. While acknowledging the conviction of those views, we have not yet been persuaded that comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation represents the most practical way of promoting opportunities for disabled people.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is the first opportunity that many of us have had to express our absolute disgust at the way in which a similar Bill was dealt with in the House of Commons? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the new Bill, which is being presented on Wednesday by my noble friend, will give the Government, if they have an open mind, an opportunity of getting this issue back on track in a way that we know your Lordships wish? We have twice passed similar Bills which conformed with the wishes of the organisations for disabled people.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Bill was debated in another place on 20th May and fell to return at a later date this Session. If and when it returns, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will take the opportunity once again to set out the Government's proposals for combating discrimination. We have announced the Government's proposals and we intend within six months to consult on them. The consultations will take account of the views of everyone with an interest in disability. After consultation, we will be prepared to consider assisting in drafting workable and practical legislation, which will be identified by the process of consultation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned 20 years. Is my noble friend Lord Astor aware that I introduced the first of these Bills in another place 26 years ago? It was defeated on Second Reading by the Government, with Government Whips as Tellers. Therefore, governments of all kinds have had difficulties with such Bills, even though mine would have cost almost no money at all. However, would it not be best for this matter to be discussed next Wednesday?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. This is a complicated area. We believe, for example, that the Bill was not specific enough to give a clear indication of timing or impact and it made it impossible to identify some of the costs over the unspecified period. Therefore, that could not be taken into account. The compliance cost assessment was

1813
prepared on the best information available. We looked carefully at that Bill and the Government decided that it was not practical nor the right way to go forward in helping disabled people in that way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that the noble, Lord Renton, spoke for the entire House when he said that this House has a proud record of supporting the rights of disabled people.
In response to an earlier question, the Minister said that he supported the aims but not the drafting of that Bill. In that case, will he not take the Bill sufficiently seriously to amend it in this House, if that is what is necessary for its success, rather than see the Bill return to the Commons and risk a repeat of the fiasco which so shamed the parliamentary process?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness that it shamed the parliamentary process. The Bill was dealt with in another place, and a Bill must stand or fall on its merits. I can tell the noble Baroness what was the Government's view. We judged that it was not possible to turn the Bill into a viable statute and that is why we did not support it. I have announced the Government's proposals for future consultation. Consideration will be given to specific legislation which it may be possible to introduce in the future.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that if the alleged implementation costs of £17 billion are correct the Government have absolutely no business sitting on the fence and saying that returning to the matter is no concern of theirs? Would it be possible to make available a detailed breakdown of the £17 billion before next Wednesday's debate?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said earlier, our views on the Bill were made very clear in another place. I believe that the figures for which the noble Lord asked are best dealt with when we debate the Second Reading of the Bill next week in this House.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister twice said that the Government approach this subject with an open mind. By that, does he mean that the Government are sympathetic towards the principles and objectives of the Bill and that appropriate drafting will enable the Government to accept something along those lines or does open-mindedness on the part of the Government mean something rather more restrictive?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made the Government's position entirely clear but I am happy to repeat it in order to do so. The Government support the aims of the Bill. They do not support the Bill as drafted. The drafting is defective in a number of areas and insufficient account has been taken of the potentially huge costs of implementation. When the Bill went through another place the Government judged that it was not possible to turn the Bill into a viable statute.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the noble Viscount said to the House that those figures would become available next Wednesday. If the Government have the figures, surely it must be
1814
possible for them to be presented before next Wednesday to the people who are interested in the Bill. They should not be produced like a rabbit out of a hat at the last minute.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the difficulty can be seen by looking at the Bill itself. It does not give phased-in times for commencement but provides that the Secretary of State has power to specify in regulations the exemptions for various periods. Amendments which could be readily quantified were taken into account when preparing the compliance cost assessment; for example, on phased-in times. That assessment was prepared on the best information available based on the assumption that compliance with the Bill's requirements would be immediate or deferred for a five-year period. The compliance cost assessment showed that it would cost more than £17 billion and that there would be a year-on cost of £1 billion.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Minister is entitled to correct any defects in the drafting, but the Bill has been checked by eminent lawyers like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the Law Society and all who support it. The Minister complained about the timing. The sponsors of the Bill have leaned so far back that they have left that to the Secretary of State. If he wants to wait for 10 years, he can do so; if he wants to wait 20 years, he can do so. Some people believe that we have leaned back too far to oblige the Government. That is why the Government are quite wrong not to make a specific commitment to accept the principle of the Bill. Its implementation can then be fitted in to suit the Government.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government have always made it clear that they do not believe that comprehensive legislation like the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is the best way forward. We believe that we should consult on specific legislation which can take into account the very real needs of people with disabilities.

Small Businesses: Late Payment
3.25 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the reported increase in late payments to small firms.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we are concerned about late payment. That is why we consulted the business community and why we have announced in the White Paper on competitiveness a package of new and practical measures to address that important problem.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am glad to know that the Government attach so much importance to this matter. Is the noble Lord aware of the full extent of the problem; that of the £40 billion owed at any one time to small firms, no less than £20 billion is paid late? That £20 billion is roughly equivalent to their bank overdrafts,

1815
which are extremely costly. Is he aware further that, in a wide-ranging inquiry in 1991, 80 per cent. of small businesses said that they thought that they would be paid more promptly if there was a statutory obligation to pay interest? In that regard, the Government have said that they are going to wait another two years. Should they not make up their minds now?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course the Government have made up their minds and we shall not legislate at this stage until we have introduced the very important practical measures which we announced in the competitiveness White Paper. The figures used by the noble Lord were the latest in a long line of very different figures used by a variety of people to support their particular case. That is one of the problems. However, when we consulted the CBI Small Firms Council and the Federation of Small Businesses, both agreed that legislation was not the way forward.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that it is probably about 10 years or more since a committee set up by the government of the day reported in favour of interest to be paid for non-payment of simple debts, and that that interest should be enforceable by the courts? I wonder why it is that no governments have supported that recommendation in the interval, because it seems a very simple provision.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the problem is that at the moment the courts can already enforce contracts which require prompt payment and interest. To add a statutory right to interest simply gives powers which already exist. That is why this Government have not acted. We much prefer to look at speeding up court procedures and making the Government lead by example. We are looking at a variety of educational and informational means to make sure that people have their bills paid on time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that traditionally the building industry has been the biggest culprit as regards this practice? In order to assist their own cash flow problems, the very large companies have delayed payments to smaller companies doing sub-contracting work. Very often that has resulted in small companies being driven into bankruptcy. Is the Minister further aware that I am distressed to see that there has been an increase in late payments to small firms? I had understood that the situation had improved, but if that is not the case, is it not time for urgent action?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right when he says there is a quite specific problem in relation to the building industry. The construction industry has an endless stream of contractors and sub-contractors. That means that people have consistently been paid badly. That is why the Department of the Environment is presently consulting the construction industry; and that is why the CBI has supported specific schemes to try to solve the problem. Those schemes are showing some success.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that in 1980 I asked the selfsame Question as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the answer today has been just about equivalent? Is he also aware that in 1991 I asked the same Question and the Minister responding from the Front Bench said that government departments were instructed to deal with their bills within 30 days of receiving invoices?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, for a long time I have believed that the primary causes of late payment are either the recession or high interest rates. However, we are now firmly into recovery and we have low interest rates. That is why, uniquely in Europe, it is British payment times which are falling, whereas on the recession-hit European Continent they are still increasing.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister remind us of the policy of Her Majesty' s Government regarding payments owed by government departments in relation to both their commercial transactions and moneys that they have committed themselves to pay to various voluntary organisations? If such a policy is not adequately carried out, what is the procedure to enable such organisations to gain redress?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as part of our announcement in the White Paper, we declared that government departments would stick to the code of practice issued by the CBI, which obliges departments to pay in accordance with contract terms. I do not know whether that also includes payment to voluntary organisations, but I shall make it my business to find out.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I cannot understand why the Government will not take a statutory route towards tackling such a difficult problem? After all, the Inland Revenue does it in reverse; indeed, it charges small as well as large taxpayers who do not pay on time interest. Why on earth should the same procedure not operate with industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I have already explained, at the beginning of the year we carried out a wide-ranging consultation process. There was no overwhelming consensus for legislation. Many people believe that a statutory right could be positively harmful.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am slightly surprised by the Minister's reply. Is he aware that many small business men have been in contact with me? They say that they would very much like a mandatory right to interest on late payments, subject to one point: the law should be drafted so that they do not end up with even more expensive litigation, which is their real worry; in other words, there should not be yet another subsidy for lawyers. Is not the main problem that late payment means that small business men are spending their time on matters which are not germane to the central activities for which they went into business and that they spend their time on anxiety-creating attempts to stop their businesses going bankrupt because of poor

1817
cashflow when in fact they are not in the financial game? In the circumstances, should not the Government be acting rather more powerfully and rapidly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, many people believe that the simple fact of having a law against late payment will somehow, by magic, solve the problem. Of course, it will not. Many smaller firms suffer because they have poor credit control. They do not send out invoices and they do not have contracts. Those are the matters that we need to tackle.

Insolvency Rules: Judgment Implications
3.32 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the judgment of Mr Justice Ferris in the High Court on 12th May 1994 in the case In re Cranley Mansions Ltd., they will give urgent attention to an immediate amendment to Rule 5.17(3) of the Insolvency Rules 1986.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the implications of the judgment are being carefully considered and the relevant rules will be amended if appropriate to do so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answer. However, is he aware that the provisions of Rule 5.17(3) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, together with a similar rule, Rule 1.17(3), which deals with companies, play an integral part in procedural terms of activating those provisions of the Insolvency Act 1985 which provide for voluntary agreèments between companies and their creditors for the purposes of reconstruction? Is the Minister also aware that those arrangements have proved very beneficial to many companies, individual firms and partnerships in the United Kingdom in effecting successful reconstructions where, otherwise, such businesses might have gone into liquidation or bankruptcy?
Is the Minister further aware that the judgment in the case in question goes completely contrary to what has become accepted practice over the past eight years, where the insolvency practitioner, as the chairman of the creditors' meeting, has been given very wide powers to determine the value of unascertained liabilities and unsatisfied but unqualified claims presented at any time prior to midday on the day previous to the creditors' meeting? The taking away of that particular discretion is a grave matter; indeed, it threatens the whole base of the application of the voluntary arrangements envisaged in the Insolvency Act 1985.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that I am well aware that that has been the practice of insolvency practitioners over the course of the past few years and, indeed, that it is an integral part of their operation. Further, I should add that CVAs— that is, company voluntary arrangements—are schemes that we are anxious to do what we can to encourage. However, we need to find a fair and workable solution as a result of the judgment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that the House will be most indebted to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington for placing the matter before us. When his officials advise him on the whole interpretation of the decision, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that were he to bring forward an immediate or, in this case, a quick amendment to Rule 5.17(3) of the Insolvency Rules, he would have the full support of the Opposition? Assuming that the whole process works by having to be voted on—which I am not even sure is the case—I do not believe that there will be any problem in getting the matter through. We would support very quick action if the Minister were minded to act.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to have the Opposition's support on the matter. As the noble Lord recognises, it is of some importance. That is why we are considering the matter urgently. However, we need to discuss it with the profession. If a rule change is necessary, we shall have to consult with the Statutory Rules Committee, because the impact of the judgment on meetings and all types of insolvencies will need to be considered. As soon as we have a reply, we shall come very quickly to a decision.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. However, is he aware that, with the limited experience that I have in the field, I am available to offer my services in determining a correct substitute for the present rule?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is being overly modest as both his experience and knowledge in the field are very highly regarded in all parts of the House and, indeed, outside.

Parliamentary Commissioner Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 154C:
Before Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
("Offence of selling confidential financial information
—(1) It is an offence to offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of a person which is not in the public domain.
(2) 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;

(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: The above amendment is the sequel to a Starred Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, earlier this year. For

1819
those not familiar with the problem, perhaps I may sketch in the background. There is an organisation with branches throughout the country which offers to sell confidential, financial information at a price. I have with me the price list for 1993–94. The agency offers to supply information about people's financial affairs at prices which range from £100 to £1,000.
The agency offers to supply information as to a person's current bank balance for £245 and one's average bank balance over the past six months will cost an inquirer £250. Details of one's overdraft facilities will be provided for £300, but a copy of one's last bank statement is expensive: the inquirer will have to pay the agency £1,000 for it. Moreover, information as to one's overseas tax havens and numbered accounts is, I suspect, very expensive because the price list simply says, "price on application".
An ex-directory telephone number can be found for £150, but a copy of all one's itemised telephone calls over the previous quarter, which of course can be very informative, would cost £750. The agency describes itself as,
"the widely acknowledged market leader in the procurement of highly sensitive personal information".
It boasts,
"There is no security system that cannot be circumvented".
Ironically the price list ends with the words,
"Absolute confidence and discretion observed".
My amendment is designed to stop this outrageous activity. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in her Starred Question, asked whether the Government considered the activities of such agencies, offering to sell commercial and personal information of a confidential nature, were legal and in the public interest. In his reply the Minister said,
"I know that a number of people have received the leaflet to which the noble Baroness refers. I agree with her: I thought that what it was proposing sounded pretty awful".
A little later he added,
"We have to make it clear beyond doubt that a person who obtains unauthorised access by deception to personal data is guilty of an offence".—[Official Report, 24/3/94; cols. 742-3]
I wrote to the distinguished chairman of one of the big five banks to ascertain his reaction to this sale of confidential financial information. He replied to me in a letter dated 15th March:
"There are clearly real difficulties in this area for all financial institutions … One of the real difficulties is that the activities do not appear to contravene the criminal law. We are advised that they are not contrary to the data protection legislation, and that the acquisition of such information is not to be regarded as theft at common law … We believe that there is a strong case for amending legislation in order to outlaw such conduct".
I wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions, enclosing a copy of the leaflet. She replied in a letter dated 22nd March,
"The mere publication and distribution of the leaflet does not, I think, amount to any offence in itself.
Possible offences would include contravention of certain provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. There may be some way in which the services offered, distasteful and alarming as they undoubtedly are, could be carried out without contravening the criminal law. One can only speculate about that".
The position is that the distribution of this price list and its offer to sell confidential financial information is not an offence. That is stated unequivocally by the
1820
Director of Public Prosecutions. The attitude of the Government is equally unequivocal. I quote again the words of the Minister (at col. 743 of the Official Report):
"We have to make it clear beyond doubt that a person who obtains unauthorised access by deception to personal data is guilty of an offence".
I am sure that every Member of the Committee wants this disgraceful activity stopped, and stopped now. That can be very easily done by adding a few lines to this Bill. The amendment which I have tabled merely states:
"It is an offence to offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of a person which is not in the public domain".
The penalties are then set out
I wish to add a few words in explanation. I purposely kept the wording as simple as possible. First, my amendment does not cover, and is not intended to cover, all breaches of privacy. Secondly, the amendment is so worded that it would not touch reputable credit agencies who obtain their information from proper sources. Thirdly, I do not think it is possible for the Government to say, if they were so minded, that the wording is flawed. "Information not within the public domain" is an expression well known to the courts. I give an example. The identity of the bank where I keep my current account is not confidential. It is in the public domain. Every time I write a cheque I disclose where I bank. However, my bank statement is not in the public domain unless I choose to make it so.
The amendment is supported by the British Bankers Association, which represents over 300 member banks. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, regrets his absence but has authorised me to say that the amendment is wholly supported by him. It is supported by every noble Lord to whom I have spoken.
I do not know the attitude of the Government. They may say that they intend to introduce appropriate legislation at a later date, perhaps by amending the Data Protection Act or the Computer Misuse Act, or by a privacy Bill. But that, in my respectful submission, is simply not good enough. We do not want to stop this mischief in one or two year's time—we need to stop it now. This amendment in this Bill is our opportunity. We can put the amendment into the Bill and that will cure the greater part of the problem. I hope that a sufficient number of your Lordships will feel inclined to support this amendment so that if the Minister is not willing to accept it here and now he will at least say that he is prepared to take it back for consideration. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I rise briefly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I feel the most important point he made is that we need to deal urgently with this problem and this is our opportunity. It may be helpful to the Committee to know that since March I have spoken to a great many Members of this Chamber about this matter. Of the 40 or so to whom I have spoken, only one felt that the matter was not important. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
Lord Boardman: I strongly support this amend-ment. The Committee may wonder where this information comes from which is so readily sold. One of

1821
the problems is that computers today can, at the press of a button, disclose an awful lot of information about a person's accounts, his address, and other such matters. The computers are available to a great number of people. I am not suggesting that all those who have access to computers fraudulently use that information, or sell it for gain. There may be the odd black sheep who does so, but certainly in my experience the desire to keep this kind of information confidential extends right across the financial sector, certainly as regards all respectable banks.
The real danger lies in the duplicity that is used by those who try to seek this information. As the noble and learned Lord just said, it is not difficult to find out to which bank someone belongs. Nor is it difficult to find out someone's account number, because the number is printed on that person's cheques.
If someone rings up the branch and claims that he is Mr. X, gives a great deal of information and says, "I would be grateful if you would let me have particulars of my account", the recipient of the call is placed in a difficult position. Staff do not want to offend a good customer by saying, "I don't know who you are. You must come into the branch and disclose your identity". If the caller gives enough information concerning personal details, which are available from a chequebook, Who's Who and other sources, bank staff may well give information which they would not willingly give to anyone but the account holder.
Information can be given in all innocence by people who hold that information. It is therefore right that people who seek such information should be placed under financial penalties. They should not be rewarded. They should be penalised severely for the duplicity or corruption that they deploy in obtaining confidential information and using it for their personal gain. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: At the request of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I should like briefly to express my support for the amendment and in particular for its immediate and urgent introduction into law. The British Bankers' Association says that it wishes to put an end to this unsavoury business and without the law on their side banks cannot enforce their own codes of practice. I merely wish to add those remarks in support of immediate and urgent action.
Baroness Young: I should like to support the amendment most strongly. First, I should declare an interest as a non-executive director of the National Westminster Bank.
I agree entirely with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said. He put the case very clearly. There is an urgent need to stop this disgraceful practice, which is of great concern to the whole of the financial services industry.
On looking again at the report of the debate on the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I detected a hint that my noble friend the Minister might think that this matter perhaps ought not to be dealt with in this Bill and could be put off until a later stage. If that is his view I hope very much that he will think again. A number of
1822
other issues besides bank accounts are involved, such as medical records and so on. Therefore, it is a much wider issue.
It is my experience in public life that: frequently the best can become the enemy of the good. We have an opportunity here and now to deal with a specific point. The amendment unquestionably has the support of all Members of the Committee. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Everyone to whom I have spoken agrees that this ought to be included in the Bill. I hope very much that my noble friend will consider the matter urgently and if the amendment is not absolutely correct will review it and bring the matter back to us at Report stage.
Lord Tugendhat: I was not one of those to whom either of the noble Lords spoke, nor am I the chairman of the financial institution to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, wrote. But as chairman of Abbey National I certainly have an interest to declare.
After listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to understand how the Government could reject the substance of the case. If they are not prepared to accept the amendment which the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness opposite propose, then it should be incumbent upon the Government to find an alternative form of words and introduce another amendment on Report.
Much of what has already been said in this brief debate sums up the nature of the problem very clearly. In essence the amendment seeks to resolve not one but two problems. It seeks to resolve the problem that arises from the sale of confidential information about individuals. Consequentially upon that, it also seeks to resolve the problem that those who sell such information, and who almost invariably obtain it by nefarious means of one sort or another, if not by suborning bank staff then by deception, are at present protected by the law. That is the problem to which the chairman to whom the noble and learned Lord wrote referred. It is extraordinary that the Government should permit a loophole of that sort to continue.
I must stress that the banks themselves and other financial institutions are under an obligation to maintain strong security systems and internal procedures to protect the confidentiality of their customers' data. That goes without saying. But surely the law should underpin and support those procedures rather than undermining them and making it easier rather than more difficult for people to carry on the practices to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred.
As my noble friend Lady Young has just said, there is a problem not only in relation to financial information but also other forms of information: medical records, educational records, tax matters and other information of that sort. I can well understand that the Government might wish to table an amendment or amendments which gathered up those matters as well. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said in introducing the amendment, we are dealing with an

1823
urgent issue, the urgency of which has been demonstrated by breaches of confidentiality that all of us have read about in the newspapers.
Therefore, while emphasising the responsibilities of the banking industry and its commitment to the greatest degree of confidentiality and to the most watertight forms of security system, I urge the Government to pay heed to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said and either to accept this amendment or to undertake to bring forward another amendment in the same sense at Report.
Lord Peston: I rise mainly to ask a question, wearing my trade and industry hat. I find it curious that what I regard as an industry matter is dealt with as a matter of criminal justice. I do not doubt for one moment that the mischief to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, with my noble friend Lady Nicol, addresses himself and his amendment needs to be addressed, but I question whether it can be demonstrated more strongly than it was by the noble and learned Lord that an amendment of this type will not interfere with legitimate business.
In particular, when I first saw the amendment I thought that it would get in the way of perfectly legitimate credit rating businesses. I agree that there may be a technical definition of "public domain" in the law that I do not understand, but a great deal of the information which those bodies sell I would regard as private information. It is information relating to the creditworthiness of individuals, including failure to pay bills.
My concern is not related to the need to deal with the mischief. I was as horrified as anybody by the story which the noble Earl himself told us a few weeks ago. However, I should like some reassurance from the noble and learned Lord and the Government that there is not the slightest chance that this amendment, given how broadly it is drawn, could undermine an important part of the financial activities of the City.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like to add my humble words in support of what my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman said. In general I am not in favour of using this Bill as a vehicle for introducing a great many new criminal offences. However, I believe that this is an exceptional case and that my noble friend would be wise to treat it as such.
I merely put one question to my noble and learned friend about the amendment. That is that the amendment appears to make it an offence to offer to sell information but does not seem to make it an offence actually to sell the information. I dare say that that was intentional but I should like to know why.
Lord Brightman: I hope that the Committee will allow me to answer those questions now. To answer the last question first, because it is clearer in my mind, I do not think that it is possible —if I remember my law books correctly—to sell without one side being an offerer and the other side being an acceptor. Therefore it is quite sufficient to use the phrase "offer to sell". I
1824
have used that terminology because what I really want to do is to stop the circulation of this outrageous price list.
I turn now to the question about reputable credit agencies. As I indicated, they would not in any way be prejudiced because reputable credit agencies get their information from sources which form part of "the public domain", to use the expression that I have adopted. They obtain their information from court records, and so forth, which disclose to anyone who cares to read them the warrants which have been issued by way of execution, bankruptcies made, and so on. I do not believe that there is any possibility of a reputable credit agency being attacked. If I am wrong in that, perhaps with the greater skill which can be produced by parliamentary draftsmen, the matter can be amended at Report stage if the Minister will be good enough to consider it in the meantime.
4 p.m.
Lord Elton: The Financial Services Act, passed by the House in 1986, was designed to protect the interests of those using financial services. As one who spent two and a half years seeking to implement and operate that Act, perhaps I may add my words of support to the pressure for immediate action. I hope that my noble friend will not be tempted to wait for an amendment to that or any other Act which has been suggested, or to sweep everything into a new Act, and that he will act swiftly. If the amendment proposed is insufficient, I hope that at Report stage he will come forward with a provision that is sufficient.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: When my noble and learned friend moved the amendment, I was horrified to hear him say that the firm is apparently offering to find out and sell people's ex-directory telephone numbers. The amendment does not cover that. Ex-directory telephone numbers are an important part of many people's security arrangements. I should like that matter to be considered also.
Lord Inchyra: I am the current Director General of the British Bankers Association, among whose members I am pleased to include the bank of which the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is chairman. The British Bankers Association wholeheartedly supports the contention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that urgent action by the Government is required. It also supports the intention underlying the amendment that he proposes.
However, the association has some reservations about the language of the amendments. In the first place, it feels that the amendment is too narrowly focused on financial information and that it ought to embrace all forms of confidential information that are held about individuals in various places. It is also uneasy that the amendment does not make the obtaining of information by deception an offence. At present, under the Theft Act, it is an offence to obtain goods or services by deception. It is the belief of the British Bankers Association that it ought to be an offence, under this Act if possible, to obtain information by deception.

1825
In order to overcome those reservations about the wording of the amendment, the British Bankers Association has had drafted an amendment which aims to deal with the problem comprehensively. The proposal has been sent to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I hope that this afternoon I shall hear the Government's preliminary thoughts on the adequacy of the suggested amendment and that he may be willing to bring forward that amendment, or a near relative of it, at Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: When I saw the amendment on the Marshalled List, I knew that we would have an interesting debate. I did not anticipate that many would disagree with the noble and learned Lord in his amendment. As usual, the noble and learned Lord has made a devastating speech in an enormously persuasive fashion. When I read his amendment and heard his speech, I longed to say, "Yes, let us accept all this". But, of course, very often when one becomes motivated by enthusiasm one finds many reasons why the specific solution cannot work in that way.
Perhaps I may give the Committee the Government's view on the matter. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, for having written to me about the concerns of the British Bankers Association. The matter is of considerable moment. It concerns the private interests of people who find information about their affairs being made public—something which causes great anxiety to everyone. That anxiety has been expressed this afternoon. But I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that we have to be careful that, in aiming for the best, we do not find that it becomes the enemy of the good.
The noble and learned Lord gave some examples of the staggering claims made by some organisations that they can obtain and then offer for sale personal information of various kinds about other people. That is a pretty distasteful operation. In the view of many it is an infringement of the privacy of an individual. Having been on the receiving end of some of that, I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy from that point of view. It is especially objectionable when personal information is sold for pecuniary advantage.
There is the difficulty that if we address the sale of information we may be tackling the problem from the wrong end of the stick and be undermining some perfectly legitimate forms of activity.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, quoted my words to the effect that a person who obtains information of a confidential nature such as this must be guilty of an offence. The noble and learned Lord did not quote me; he shakes his head in dissent. In that case, I shall remove my objections to what he said; I had thought that that was what he said.
The focus of the law at present over these matters is upon protecting private information against improper disclosure. If one is protected from improper disclosure, the person will not have the ability to sell the information. We have the common law of confidentiality which protects against the disclosure of information which has passed between two parties in confidence in certain circumstances.
1826
There are also the provisions contained in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 which prohibit unauthorised access to computer systems—which is commonly known as "computer hacking". There is the: Data Protection Act 1984, which applies to all computerised personal information. As the Committee will be aware, the Data Protection Act subjects computerised personal data to a set of data protection principles which are set out in statute. It requires all users of such data to register with the Data Protection Registrar. They have to supply details, among other things, of the sort of data which they hold, the purposes; for which the data are held and the categories of recipients to whom they intend to disclose those data. It is an offence for the data user, or for any of his employees, knowingly to disclose data to any person who may be in a category which is not covered by the entry in the register. One then asks: how do inquiry agents and others get hold of personal information which is stored on a computer? It seems to us most likely to occur in one of two ways: first, with the knowing co-operation of an employee of the firm concerned; and, secondly, with the innocent co-operation of an employee of the firm concerned when that person is led to believe that the disclosure in question has been authorised and is above board.
In the first case—where someone on the data user's staff deliberately makes an authorised disclosure—it is pretty clear that an offence will have been committed under the Data Protection Act and that the person who incited its commission is probably guilty as well.
It is a different matter in the case of the unwitting disclosure—and this is where we think there may be a gap in the law, since the employee in those circumstances does not commit an offence. And because the employee commits no offence, it is our view that the third party—the outsider who got him to make the disclosure in the first place—has probably not committed an offence either. That is the perceived gap in the law which I told the House on 24th March that the Government wish to fill.
That is the approach which we think it is best to take. It deals with the point of disclosure rather than the particular use which is made thereafter of the information which should not have been disclosed in the first place. There are several advantages in approaching the problem this way round. One is that it would cover all types of information which are covered by the Data Protection Act—not just financial information. That would deal with many of the points which Members of the Committee are concerned about relating to medical records. Another is that it would apply to disclosures for any purpose, not just when the subsequent intention is to offer the information for sale.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said in a persuasive way that we could put it all right by adding a few lines to the Bill. The biggest trouble with the noble and learned Lord's amendment—and this was the trouble with which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was concerned—is that it would outlaw activities which are perfectly legitimate. The noble and learned Lord said that credit reference agencies would not be covered and

1827
that it is not possible for them to be covered. That is what he said in his last speech. My view is that the credit reference agencies would be covered by the amendment.
Credit reference is a well-established and vital financial service. It depends upon credit reference agencies holding detailed financial information about a large proportion of the population on the basis of which decisions can be made by the financial institutions about the wisdom of their entering into further transactions with the individual concerned. For example, if a person wants to open an account with one of the major stores or take out a credit card, the firms concerned will naturally wish to check that the individual is likely to be a responsible person who will meet his bills. To do that they get in touch with one of the credit reference agencies who keep records of people's credit commitments and their previous financial history. It is in the customer's interests, as well as those of the firm concerned, that those checks should happen—and happen quickly. There are protections for the customer under both the Data Protection Act and the Consumer Credit Act. The point is that this is information, most of which is not in the public domain, to which the amendment refers. It is information which, perfectly legitimately, is offered for sale to other institutions by the credit reference agencies. My information is that they would be caught by the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
I suspect that there are other cases where a legitimate trade in information would be outlawed by the amendment. For instance, it would affect some forms of direct marketing which are not in themselves undesirable. The amendment might even make it an offence for a bank to charge a customer for sending him his own bank statement.
Those are some of the fundamental problems which the amendment produces. I do not believe that small adjustments to the drafting would necessarily solve them. The prime difficulty with the noble and learned Lord's amendment—attractive though it is—is that it makes it an offence to sell the information. What we wish to do is make it an offence and ensure that the person should not have the unauthorised information in the first place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That being so, what do the Government propose to do about it? The noble Earl has explained what he describes as deficiencies in the noble and learned Lord's amendment, but that being so and accepting, as he did, that there is widespread public anxiety about it and that there is a gap in the law, what precisely will now happen? Is the noble Earl prepared to indicate that at the Report stage of the Bill he will introduce an amendment in terms acceptable to the Government and to the House in order to deal with this mischief? We cannot go on, year after year, with this wholly objectionable behaviour carried out by a number of self-interested people.
Earl Ferrers: I quite see that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will recall that the substance of the amendment has not appeared in the criminal justice Bill before. He will also recall that many noble Lords have
1828
complained about the number of new offences which the criminal justice Bill incorporates and the number of extra areas it covers. This is a new area which the noble and learned Lord seeks to cover and as the Bill becomes longer and longer, so more offences are created.
I accept that there is a problem. I am prepared to take the matter away and consider it between now and Report stage. I cannot give the noble Lord the guarantee that I will produce an amendment, but I shall certainly consider the points which have been made strongly and, if I may say so, quite rightly.
Lord Brightman: I am most grateful to all those who have spoken in favour of the amendment. I am glad to be able to say that I am grateful too to the Minister for stating that he will take the matter away and consider it. In those circumstances, I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 154CA:
Before Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
("Criminal Injuries Compensation
. In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the following shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
"(2) Sections 108 to 117 of, and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force six months after the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 receives Royal Assent.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: For almost the past 30 years, since August 1964, successive governments have acted fairly and justly towards victims of violent crime by providing them with compensation through a scheme operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That compensation has been based essentially on what the victim would have received if he or she had successfully sued the criminal in the civil courts. It has come to be known as the common law basis for damages for personal injuries. It is that scheme which the amendment seeks to continue in existence.
When the scheme started life, there was, of course, no previous experience on which to draw in assessing how it would work out in practice. Accordingly, it was brought in on a non-statutory basis, the payments being ex gratia. The scheme operated smoothly for some 15 years until the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury—the Pearson Commission—reported in 1979. It considered and commended the scheme but recommended that it should be put on a statutory basis. That was no doubt because permanent and substantial public expenditure was involved and therefore, as a matter of parliamentary propriety, it should have a proper statutory basis so that Parliament would be in a position to control it.
A few months later, the Home Secretary confirmed the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the Pearson Commission; firstly, that the scheme should be put on a statutory basis, and, secondly, that compensation under the scheme should continue to be paid on the common law basis for damages.
Nothing happened for some four years until a debate was initiated by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who much regrets that he is unable to be present today. He was a member of the Pearson

1829
Commission and drew attention once more to the need to put the scheme on a statutory basis. At the end of the debate, the Government confirmed that it was and remained their intention to do precisely that.
Now comes the Criminal Justice Act 1988 referred to in my amendment. That implemented the Government's undertaking to make the scheme statutory. Detailed provisions concerning the scheme are to be found in Sections 108 to 177 and Schedules 6 and 7. Section 171 places a statutory obligation on the Home Secretary to bring the relevant sections into force. My amendment seeks to ensure that the will of Parliament, as recorded in that Act, is now carried into effect, thereby putting the scheme on a statutory basis and obliging the Home Secretary to do what he obviously does not wish to do, which is to obtain parliamentary approval for any alterations which he may thereafter desire to make to the scheme.
Members of the Committee may well ask: what happened between 1988 and today? First, in 1989, because of the unprecedented rise in applications and the very sizeable backlog of cases, with consequent delays to all claims, it was decided not to make the scheme statutory at that date—and I emphasise those words—because it would disrupt the work and create further arrears. It was therefore agreed for the immediate present to delay the making of the scheme statutory but to streamline it in certain respects.
Now comes the rub. On 23rd November 1992 the Secretary of State, in a Written Answer to a parliamentary Question, gave notice that the Government intended to introduce a new tariff-based scheme to compensate the victims of violent crime. He said that the scheme offered,
"the best prospect of providing quicker payments to claimants through a means that is fair, straightforward and understandable". —[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/92; Col. 458.]
In December 1993 the Government presented, without any consultation with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, a White Paper (Cm. 2434) setting out their plans in more detail. The opening paragraphs stated that,
"the aim would be to provide a better service to the victims".
In my respectful submission, those protestations were sheer hypocrisy. We now know that the real aim and purpose of the non-statutory ex gratia tariff scheme proposed in the White Paper is to cut the future cost of the current scheme by, it is said, about half. But that reason has never been part of the consultation process and the validity of the Government's projected figures has, as a result, never been properly investigated or tested. But if money is to be saved, the means to be employed by the imposition of the Government's proposed tariff are grossly unfair, since those who suffer the more serious injuries and the more substantial losses —that is, the most vulnerable—will receive but a fraction of the compensation which is now provided.
Paragraph 38 of the White Paper is a stark statement of the Government's intention to disregard the will of Parliament. Some may think that it bears the hallmark of elective dictatorship. It reads as follows:
"Provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for the scheme to be placed on a statutory footing … With the impending demise of the current scheme"—
I interpolate: merely by reason of the imposition of the tariff scheme—
"the provisions in the 1988 Act will not now be implemented. They will accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs".
In the debate on the Unstarred Question which I asked on this very subject, which took place on 2nd March, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, drew attention to the fact that on the previous Monday the Government had tabled some 17 new clauses to this very Bill, which was then being debated in another place, and he suggested that they should table one further new clause since here was "a suitable legislative opportunity" within the meaning of paragraph 38 of the White Paper that I have just quoted. The Government decided that they would not give Parliament an opportunity to debate their proposals. That was not altogether surprising since the Government had so little confidence in the merits of the proposal fundamentally to change the basis of compensation that, as I have previously said, they did not even bother to consult the chairman or the members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Indeed, not a single organisation that supports victims has come out in favour of the Government's tariff scheme.
I shall now seek to justify my assertion that the proposed scheme is grossly unfair. Under the common law damages system, each application is individually considered so as to compensate the individual victim for the loss and injury that he has actually sustained. There is a conventional sum for pain, suffering and loss of amenities consequent upon, for instance, the loss of sight of an eye, the loss of a limb, etc. In serious injuries by far the major part of the total award reflects the loss of income, loss of pension, medical treatment and often the very large expenses that are involved in making the home in which the injured person lives capable of being used effectively by him.
The tariff system that is proposed by the Government does not take into account the vastly differing effects of similar injuries on different persons. No regard is to be had to such fundamental matters as the age, sex, occupation or way of life of the victim, all of which are reflected enormously in the effect which an injury may have on an individual. For instance, severe facial scarring of a girl of 15 is to be compensated with the same figure as that for an old woman of 90. No account is taken of loss of past or future earnings, of past or future medical expenses, or of structural or other alterations to the home. A very recent example, which occurred just before the debate on the Unstarred Question, involved a man in his mid-forties who was paralysed from the neck downwards. He received an award which involved £72,000 for loss of earnings (that is, £6,000 calculated by a 12-year purchase); a sum for future medical and care costs and support of £726,000 over a 15-year period; and for alterations to his house, special care, special transport, etc., £255,000. None of those figures would he get under the proposed scheme.
Perhaps I may take the example of an airline pilot who loses the sight of one eye and as a result ends his flying career. He will receive the same figure as an elderly pensioner with a life expectation of a few

1831
months. The figures in the tariff are based, it is true, on an analysis of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's awards and are generally comparable with the pain and suffering element of general damages. It is true that because of the averaging process employed by the Government each award contains a degree of loss of earnings. But that simply means that those who have had no loss of earnings will be compensated slightly more than they are at present, but at the expense of those individuals who have lost earnings.
Prior to the debate last March I gave the Government a lengthy list of recently reported cases illustrating how those who had suffered most would, if the tariff scheme had been in operation, have had their compensation savagely cut. Briefly, I shall cite a few examples. A paraplegic had a total award of £689,000, loss of future and past earnings being £100,000 and future care over £280,000. He would have received nothing for those two items, and his total under the new scheme would be £175,000. In a brain injury case where the victim required continuous care day and night, the total award was over £500,000, of which future care accounted for £234,000. Under the new scheme he would receive only £40,000. Those were two cases of injuries of the greatest severity. But there are those with less severe injuries where the earning capacity is seriously affected. For example, a psychiatric nurse whose arm was badly injured received a total of £126,000, of which only £17,720 was attributable to general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Under the new scheme she would be awarded £5,000. There was a case of a wrist injury which did not unite properly, leaving the applicant with a continuing disability in her dominant right hand. She received a total of £55,000. Under the tariff scheme she would receive only £3,000. There was a case of a back injury to a male police officer aged 34. He received for future loss of earnings over £61,000 which, together with other items of special damage, amounted to £121,000. Under the tariff scheme he would receive £7,500.
The other quite distinct category which would suffer most seriously by the application of the tariff system would be the families of victims of murder and manslaughter. Under the provisions of the Fatal Accident Acts dependency awards to a wife or dependent children are based largely on an assessment of the amount of financial support provided by the deceased and for how long it would have lasted. Future loss of earnings feature prominently in such calculations.
Let me give one example of a case decided in June 1993 which involved a female aged 38 at the time of the hearing who witnessed her husband die following a stabbing at the front door of their home. She was married with two children aged six and four. She suffered the deepest distress as a result of that traumatic experience. She received general damages of £17,500 but in addition nearly £120,000 for loss of dependency, making a total award of over £137,000. Under the new scheme she would receive the stock figure of £10,000 by reason of the death of her husband and £7,500 for her condition, making a total of £17,500, plus funeral
1832
expenses. That case illustrates that the innocent families of manslaughter and murder victims whose financial security was previously provided for by dependency awards will receive nothing for the future.
The issue as to whether the Secretary of State has acted unlawfully and therefore ultra vires in deciding to implement the tariff scheme came before the Divisional Court last month on an application for judicial review. The application failed and an appeal to the Court of Appeal is now pending. The Divisional Court was of the view that, unless an Act of Parliament in terms specified when an Act should come into force or specifically imposed an obligation on a Minister to bring an Act into force by a certain date, the Minister had in law a discretion not only as to when but also as to whether a particular Act of Parliament should take effect at all. The court effectively held that a Minister of the Crown has power to ignore the will of Parliament expressed in legislation unless Parliament specifically imposes an obligation on the Minister to bring the Act into force.
I find that surprising, as no doubt do those who have advised that the present appeal should go forward. However, we are not concerned with the technical legality of the Minister's action. We are concerned with whether we should condone a serious affront by the Government to parliamentary democracy. We are concerned with whether we should allow a Minister, without first seeking parliamentary approval, to frustrate the will of Parliament by refusing to carry into effect Parliament's clearly expressed intention to put the current scheme on a statutory basis. We are concerned further with whether he should be allowed to compound that refusal by replacing the current scheme with a non-statutory ex gratia tariff that ignores a fundamental tenet of justice and fairness which has consistently been applied by our courts throughout this century; namely, that compensation must be matched to individual circumstances.
I respectfully submit that the answer to those concerns is to be found in the amendment. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In rising to address the Committee I must declare an interest as chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I have held that office for the past four years.
I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I support it not so much because I believe that at this moment it is essential that the existing non-statutory scheme should be made statutory; nor that the scheme as proposed to Parliament in 1988 may not be capable of further improvement. I support it in particular because I believe that this is the only way to persuade the Home Office to think again before implementing its new scheme for compensating victims of crime which it proposes to implement backdated from 1st April this year.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the new scheme fundamentally changes the way in which victims of violent crimes are compensated. It abolishes the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—which is a wholly independent body, at the moment responsible for

1833
assessing the amount of compensation to be paid in individual cases according to the principle of common law damages—and replaces it with a scheme to be run administratively, which is to compensate individuals on a total tariff basis. As we have heard, it takes no account whatever of the different effect of similar injuries on different people; nor does it take any proper account of the loss of earnings or loss of future earning capacity. In our debate of 2nd March, I had the opportunity to express the unanimous view of the present membership of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The board considers that the Government's proposal is fundamentally flawed in that it is both unfair to individual complainants and in certain aspects will be found to be unworkable in practice. Perhaps I may go further. I believe that the proposed new scheme is far less fair than the present one. It was brought in without any form of consultation and I believe that the method of introduction can fairly be described as an abuse of Parliament. The scheme is contrary to our international obligations, and the grounds advanced to justify the change will bear little scrutiny. The now accepted principal ground of saving money—with which I do not in any way disagree-—proceeds on a false basis and is supported by statistics which, to say the least, are wholly misleading and by assumptions about future expenditure which I believe to be unjustified.
I accept what has often been said; namely, that in this country since 1964 we have had the most generous scheme in the world for the compensation of victims of violence. I accept also that the scheme introduced at that time is not necessarily the right framework for a wholly different situation 30 years later. I go further and say to the noble Earl that I accept that much has changed since 1988 when the present Government commended the present scheme to Parliament for its approval. The changes may justify looking again at aspects of that scheme. But that cannot possibly justify changing the fundamental principles on which compensation has been based without consultation and without recourse to Parliament.
What is fundamentally wrong about a wholly tariff-bound system, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said when he dealt with this point at length, is that it takes no account of the widely different effects of injuries on different people. As he said, none of the most obvious and fundamental aspects, such as age, sex, occupation and way of life, are taken into account in a tariff system.
I shall not attempt to repeat the speech I made in this Chamber on 2nd March. But perhaps I may add one more example to those already given by the noble and learned Lord. It is quite absurd to suggest that a seriously fractured ankle is no more damaging to a young and skilled building labourer, who may be many months off work and whose future ability as a steeplejack, say, may be gone for ever, than it would be to a retired man in his 70s; nor for a girl model to be scarred on the face compared to a similar scar on a man of middle age.
While the tariff figures arrived at are generally comparable with those currently being awarded for pain and suffering, there is no proper attempt made to
1834
compensate for loss of wages or earning capacity. That means that all the savings it is aimed to achieve will be at the expense of those who have the worst injuries—in many instances, the most deserving of cases. As regards its being unworkable, I can only repeat that in cases such as sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder or scarring, the effects vary so enormously in different people that to use any form of tariff is meaningless.
I turn to my other criticism; that it is being brought in without any attempt at consultation. I find that extraordinary. The board which has been responsible for running the scheme for 30 years was not consulted in any way before the decision of principle to change the basis of compensation was taken. I was asked to go and see the then Home Secretary and was informed that he would be announcing his decision to Parliament the following day. I returned and immediately wrote a letter to Mr. Clarke. I said,
"I feel, therefore, that I must express in writing to you my concern at the effect [of] what is intended and in particular to express my surprise and very great concern that the Home Office should decide to alter the very basis of the Scheme without any prior consultation with the Board as to the practicality of what is proposed, and with apparently little serious thought having been given to its consequences".
It is not only the board that has not been consulted. As far as I know, no other body has been consulted. It is clear that consultation was intended. When the Home Secretary made his Statement in November 1992 he said that it was intended that the White Paper should be produced in early 1993. In a debate in the other place in March 1993, Mr. Michael Jack, the then Minister of State, said,
"Of course, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider our proposals when the White Paper is published". — [OfficialReport, Commons, 18/3/93; col. 508.]
In the end the White Paper was not published until 13th December last year on the eve of the adjournment of Parliament with no possibility of debate or consideration. In February the details were published.
Surely, on a matter which should be as non-political and non-contentious as compensation for victims of crime, that is not the proper way for the Home Office and Government to proceed. I said that it was contrary to our international obligations. As I am sure Members of the Committee are aware, we are a signatory—in fact I believe the author—of the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes. We signed that convention in February 1990. It states,
"Compensation shall cover, according to the case under consideration, at least the following items: loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and as regard dependants, loss of maintenance".
Those are the very words which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, the present tariff scheme totally ignores, and the White Paper accepts that it does so.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned the lack of assistance for dependants. In the White Paper, in paragraph 25, justification is given for having a single award of £10,000. It is said that only 25 out of 250 awards were in excess of that sum and therefore most claimants will be better off. Tell that to the dependants of the young constable with three young children who was killed on duty endeavouring to protect other people!

1835
Is it an abuse of Parliament? I find it extraordinary that a government who take a Bill through Parliament to put into legislative form a board which shall be responsible for determining compensation payments should then not only not implement it—I accept that they have the right to do that —but actually introduce a scheme whose organisation and basic principle of compromise is totally in conflict with what they commended to Parliament, and should do so by the use of executive power without regard for parliamentary approval. What is Parliament's purpose if one can commend one action to Parliament and then decide to do something totally different without going back to Parliament for approval?
I apologise for perhaps speaking too long, but I want to turn to the justification put forward by the Government for the scheme. I said that it bore little scrutiny. Originally, it was put to me in the letter I received from the Home Secretary in terms,
"that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is, in its present form, intrinsically incapable of delivering the sort of service which victims now expect—that is, a service which produces awards quickly and in a way which can be seen to be fair, straightforward and understandable".
I do not accept that. Any scrutiny of that view shows that while clearly there will be some saving in time, it will be nowhere near as great or significant as the Government suggest.
Above all, I want to turn finally to what is accepted as the real reason for the proposal; that is, that the cost of compensation has become unsustainable. The moment the Government decided to make the medium rather than the average award the basis of the tariff, then any suggestion that the scheme was even in its introduction to be cost neutral was dropped. The compensation will be reduced by some 20 per cent. That will mean a saving of some £30 million—a not insignificant sum. All I say is that it should not be done at the cost of the worst injured rather than by other means.
I hope that my noble friend will not rely on the same statistics the Home Secretary chose to use in the House of Commons in order to justify the phrase he used in a recent letter; namely, that the costs of the scheme were "spiralling out of control". That just is not so. It is misleading. To compare, as the Home Secretary did, the number of applications made in any year with the amount of money spent on compensation in the same year, to do it for three different years, and then show that the increase in the cost was vastly greater than the increase in the applications is a totally bogus exercise. The amount of compensation in any year has no relationship whatever to the number of applications received during that year. We are not comparing like with like. The amount of compensation depends not on the amount of applications but on the number of cases resolved during that year. Even more accurately, it may mean the number of awards made. Further, not to take any account in the examples given of the drop in the value of money over a 30-year span is ridiculous. And if we take that ridiculous premise we may end up with a ridiculous answer.
1836
The Home Secretary said that since 1987–88 there had been only a 50 per cent. increase in the number of applications but a threefold increase in compensation. But if, as I say, we look at the number of resolutions, in fact they have more than doubled during that period. If we take account of the effects of inflation the result is dramatically different. Taking it as being strictly accurate and only awards made, and relying on the papers in the Home Office's White Paper at Annex A, the average award at 1993–94 prices in March 1988 was £3,486. In March of this year I can tell the Committee and the Minister that it was £3,778. It is an increase, but there is no suggestion that the cost is spiralling out of control.
Even more stark is the other figure which the Home Secretary gave. He stated that the increase was hugely out of proportion and that since the scheme came into effect in 1965–66 applications had risen by 27 per cent. and compensation had risen by 378 per cent. If instead of comparing applications we compare the number of cases, and if we take into account the tenfold reduction in the value of money in that period, we find that on their calculation the average award in 1965 was £3,458 and it is £3,778 today, which is something less than a 10 per cent. increase in a period of 29 years.
Equally, what is clear is that the amount of money has gone up. The reason for that is that the number of people claiming has increased and more people are being compensated, and the reason for that is the increase in the amount of violent crime, combined with the very commendable efforts made by the Government to encourage victims to apply. Do noble Lords remember the Victim's Charter and the encouragement to the police to tell people to apply for compensation? I agree with my noble and learned friend that it is somewhat hypocritical to claim that we are putting the victims first when we encourage applications to the board specifically for compensation and then say that the bill has to be cut because we cannot afford it.
As far as the projected savings are concerned, I do not accept the figures. I do not understand, because we have not been told, how the figures for the projection of £500 million by the end of the century have been arrived at. I believe that the assumptions are wholly spurious. I am told that they assume a 9 per cent. increase in applications every year between now and the turn of the century. I should like to say to the Minister that I do not believe that that will be the situation. Over the past two years, if one takes out the jump in March because of the new incoming scheme, the figures have been the same, and for April and May of the past three years the figures have run at a consistent number. In addition, they have added an increase of 10 per cent. per annum in cash terms onto the awards. That is not something that I accept.
One can find a very simple answer to the projections. If we are right in the assumptions that have been made, if the figure in the book is increased by 19.5 per cent., for the last year we should have spent £180 million; but we have spent £165 million. Therefore, in the first year of that progressive calculation they are £16 million out when compared with what occurred.

1837
I apologise to noble Lords for having spoken at such length. If the position of the Government is that we cannot afford to pay as much compensation as we have been doing, let them say so and let us get round the table to work out a system which is fairer than that which is proposed. However, to propose savings, all of which will fall upon those most injured or those most deserving, in my view and in that of the board is wrong. It is a proposal that I hope the Government will not persist in.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: May I briefly explain why I am pleased to support the amendment, which also stands in my name on the Order Paper. We have heard two remarkable speeches with which I so completely agree that I do not need to detain the Committee for more than a few moments.
I suggest that the matter before the Committee is not one of law, which is for the courts and will have to be determined by the Court of Appeal, and, if necessary, by the Law Lords, but a matter of serious constitutional propriety. Parliament has spoken in 1988, implementing not only an international convention which we ratified two years later but also the report of Lord Pearson's Royal Commission. Parliament's intention has been treated by the Government, I am sorry to say, as if it were written in water. That is an abuse of Parliament, if not an abuse of power. It is surely important that today Parliament should exercise its law-making powers by supporting the amendment and, therefore, ensuring that its intention is given effect to within six months of the coming into force of the Bill before the Committee.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I spoke on this issue in March, when the matter was last before your Lordships. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for bringing it before the House once more on an occasion when we have an opportunity to vote. I believe that the amendment will and should carry support across your Lordships' Chamber.
I do not think that I can sufficiently remind the Government of the sharp contrast between what they now propose for criminal injuries compensation and the calls at last year's Tory Party Conference for more to be done for the victims of violent crime.
On the previous occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, stated,
"we estimate that the majority of applicants will receive as much or more under the new scheme as they would have done under the existing one. Current estimates suggest that about 54 per cent. of applicants will be in that position".—[Official Report, 2/3/94; col. 1116.]
This is a Government who are presiding over a rising tide of violent crime at the same time as they are drastically reducing compensation for those who suffer most from violent crime.
As the noble and learned Lord stated, the argumentation of the White Paper is humbug and, I would add, not even high quality humbug. The objective of the Government is stated to be to provide a better service to victims; so the 46 per cent. who will get less are told that there will be a superior service in giving them less. We are then told that everyone who sustains
1838
a similar injury will be treated in a similar fashion. What that suggests, although it is not true, is that like cases will be treated alike: emphatically, they will not be.
The financial consequences of personal injury are infinitely variable. The true position is the opposite of the suggestion made in the White Paper. The new scheme is incapable of doing justice because it will treat fundamentally different cases as though they were the same.
The point about the existing scheme—and I say existing because, pending the outcome of the appeal to the Court of Appeal and perhaps beyond, the new scheme is not being implemented—is that the compensation paid distinguishes among victims according to the impact of the injuries on their individual earning capacities. Is the noble Lord unwilling or unable to acknowledge that, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, his Government, on pure cost-cutting grounds, will be doing drastically less for those who have lost their livelihoods from violent crime?
I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the principled reason for distinguishing between compensation for personal injuries caused by the negligence of another at a workplace or in the street and compensation for criminal injuries. In the ordinary personal injury case compensation is not confined to an injury-related tariff: common law damages, which provide compensation for loss of past and future earnings, apply. If it is right that that should be the compensation for personal injuries caused by negligence, why should victims of violent crime, who suffer the greatest loss, not continue to receive compensation on the same common law basis?
On the previous occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, stated that fortunately the very serious incapacitating or life-changing injuries are rare indeed. If that is the case, can the noble and learned Lord not show some flexibility of the kind that was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle? Can he not agree that the new scheme should at least continue to provide compensation on a common law basis in that small number of tragic cases? A concession along those lines might greatly affect the decision of many noble Lords if that issue is to be pressed to a vote.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, have, in my view, made devastating speeches, and we look forward to hearing some form of response from the noble Earl.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that in parliamentary terms what the Government have done is improper. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, drew attention to the inconsistencies and the deep unfairness of what it is proposed should be introduced. The changes to the scheme will, as we all recognise, have a severe effect on those who in future are going to be very seriously injured and for whom compensation from the scheme will, apart from state benefits, be their sole means of support.
Perhaps I may give some examples of what will follow and in particular mention one occupational group that is most likely to be at risk of assault from criminals;

1839
namely, the police. In last year's report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis it was revealed that nearly 12,000 officers in London were injured while on duty. Taking account of their manpower, on average nearly every other officer was affected by injury. Since then, Sir Paul Condon, the commissioner, has indicated his serious concern about the escalation in the number of violent attacks on police officers. Yet this is the moment chosen by the Government to announce cuts in the awards made to such officers.
I shall quote the views of one firm of solicitors. Russell Jones & Walker have, as lawyers for the Police Federation, acted for police claimants for the past 30 years. Few other law firms can claim such a comprehensive knowledge of the principles and the operation of the scheme. This is what the firm has told the Police Federation will be the consequence of the Government's new scheme:
"The proposals will result in the vast majority of your members who are seriously injured receiving significantly lower standards of compensation".
I cite the case of an officer who has been totally blinded as a result of an attack by a criminal. Under the new scheme the award would be £75,000, yet at the moment in such a case it is common for the board to award £85,000—£10,000 more—for pain and suffering alone. How can it be right to allow a blinded police officer, injured as a result of his duty to protect members of the public and deprived of the opportunity to continue his career, to have his compensation cut as a result of a decision by Ministers?
I shall give another example which was touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner: the case of a 75 year-old man who suffers perhaps a serious leg injury which causes paralysis. He will get a one-off payment of £25,000. It may be argued that that is reasonable given the expectation of life of that elderly man and his likely financial commitments. But precisely the same award will be paid to a 25 year-old police officer, with a young family, who had expected to serve for another 30 years in the service. That is wholly unjust.
Ministers have told us repeatedly that more should be done to help the victims of crime. They have told us also on innumerable occasions of the gratitude they feel to police officers who often have to confront vicious and violent criminals in the course of their duties. It seems extraordinary that in the light of those statements the Government are intending to make these savage cuts in the payments made to some of the most seriously injured victims of criminal attacks.
5 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: I wish to join the debate from a different angle. I am aware that in doing so I expose myself to the risk of crossfire between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who spoke with such force in moving the amendment, and the Minister who will reply. I must declare a personal interest in the issue of compensation for victims because two years ago, at the invitation of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, I
1840
succeeded him as President of Victim Support, the national association of the many victim support schemes throughout the country. I speak today in a personal capacity and not on behalf of Victim Support, but what I have to say will not depart very far from the policy of that organisation.
Financial compensation for injury sustained as a result of a criminal action has been of central concern to all those working with or for the victims of crime ever since the discretionary scheme was first inaugurated 30 years ago. Over time criticisms have developed—not unnaturally, perhaps, over a period of 30 years—of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board procedures, which we have heard outlined so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, the current chairman of the board. Criticisms there have been, nevertheless, and I can summarise them in the form in which they were listed in the report of a working party set up by Victim Support which reported earlier this year, soon after the publication of the Government's White Paper.
The report was headed "Compensating the victim of crime". The criticisms of the existing arrangements— the arrangements post-1964 until the recent change of policy—were as follows: first, the exclusion of many victims as a result of the lower limit on awards which was set at £1,000 in January 1992—perhaps the most common complaint of all; second, the refusal or reduction of awards on the basis of the applicant's character; third, the fact that hardship and psychological injury resulting from crimes are not classified as violent; fourth, the often unsatisfactory relationship between compensation under the CICB scheme and the payment of social security benefits; and fifth, the lack of clarity regarding the relationship between the compensation scheme and the role of insurance, the responsibility of employers, and compensation by offenders themselves.
For these and other reasons, including the very long delays which have been endemic in the CICB practice, Victim Support is not wedded to the present arrangements, based as they are on common law damages. But well before the Government published their own proposals, the criticisms to which I have referred led to much thought being given to what was or could be an alternative structure.
What should be the principles for compensating financially those who suffer from the criminal actions of others? They are easily stated. The essential requirements of a compensation scheme are, I am sure we can all agree, that it should be fair, simple to understand, and reasonably quick. The latter require-ment conflicts with the present arrangements based in common law damages that individual assessments conscientiously investigated and carried out are no longer suitable for the huge number of cases that have to be considered each year. Next, the exercise of discretion by any discretionary body should be contained within a clear and published framework. Compensation to victims of crime should surely relate to the victim's pain and suffering resulting from physical or psychological injury, or both, and to loss of amenity. There should be no minimum level designed to exclude all but the most "serious"—I put that word in

1841
inverted commas—injuries. Nor should there be exclusions based on a person's character or conduct, apart from provoking or colluding in the offence, or financial circumstances. There should be no distinction drawn between those who are regarded as deserving and those believed to be otherwise. Compensation or financial support should be available on the basis of need to victims of property crime who have suffered serious loss which affects their livelihood.
If those are the principles, what then are the features which should underlie a compensation scheme? Despite the strength of the defence we have heard of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, it is inevitable that there will be changes. So it is a question of how an alternative scheme should be constructed and what it should embrace.
I suggest that the features of a new compensation scheme should include the following. First of all, the victims of crimes of violence should receive compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and for psychological injury. In addition, there should be compensation for particularly damaging psychological injury caused by other types of crime, including burglary and racial harassment.
We have been thinking along tram-lines for 30 years as we have compensated victims of crime. Victim Support believes that the time has come for a new social security payment called a "criminal injuries benefit" to meet victims' loss of earning capacity. That is a crucial point which is covered under the present arrangements but which will not be covered by the new arrangements. The payment should be non-contributory and non-means-tested. Loss, of, or damage to, essential material possessions where the victim is in need should be covered by social security payments. They should be means-tested, but should be made in the form of grants, not loans.
I come now to a vital matter that has already been raised in the debate. I refer to the victims of homicide. Let us not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of talking of murder victims. We are talking about the victims of homicide in all its forms. Relatives bereaved by homicide should receive a bereavement award above the present level. Those receiving it should include a spouse or partner, children in the same household or in regular contact, and a former spouse if dependent; or, where the deceased was not married, parents, brothers and sisters in the same household, parents living elsewhere if still in regular contact and children if still dependent. Victim Support has proposed that the basis of such a scheme could take the form of a tariff. Injuries would be rated on a fixed and published scale. However, an important reservation—before the Government Front Bench embraces us as allies—is that no such tariff should be adopted until the rest of the package is in place.
To summarise, tariff scales should be set at acceptable levels, with regular review and updating. A new criminal injuries benefit should be established within the social security system to compensate for victims' loss of earning capacity. There should be the removal of the £1,000 lower limit. Exclusions relating to character and previous convictions should be
1842
abolished. Payments should be made without deduction of social security benefits and should not lead to loss of those benefits.
I have spoken for rather longer than some other noble Lords, but I do so in order to broaden the debate and to set out an alternative approach lying between the Government's scheme and the preservation of the existing arrangements, which have been so eloquently defended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I too share their reservations about the way in which Ministers have handled this issue. It has been unfortunate. I should be surprised if there were not some embarrassment in the Home Office. However, looking forward to the future, I urge the Minister, and the Committee of the House, to consider the alternative proposals I have put forward.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it is not my intention to go into details of comparison between the old scheme and the proposed government scheme because it seems to me that there is one overriding principle upon which the amendment depends—and that is that the basis of the scheme should be one that is prescribed by law and approved by Parliament and not one that is decreed by ministerial discretion. That is what the amendment is really about.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken for having put in one sentence my own fundamental objections to the proposal. I wish to make a brief comment atout the proposals outlined by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. I find them difficult to understand. As I understand it, my noble friend says that individual assessment is no longer possible, yet when he expounds the principles of his new proposals, I do not understand how they could ever be implemented without an individual assessment.
On the main point made by other noble Lords, I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies he will consider four points in particular: the manifest injustice of the tariff scheme; its absence of any flexibility; the manifest abuse of Executive power which has ensued; and the fact that various justifications that have been advanced by the Home Office have been demonstrated to be manifestly misconceived. I hope that my noble friend may be able to. give us some constructive and helpful advice.
Earl Ferrers: We all have the greatest sympathy for all those who become the victims of terrible violence and crime. I sympathise as much as anyone with those who wish to ensure that the victims receive adequate compensation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made it clear that the purpose of his amendment is to reverse the introduction of the tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation which was started on 1st April this year. His amendment aims to bring into force those provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which would place the criminal injuries compensation scheme on a statutory basis.

1843
Under the scheme that was set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, compensation would be assessed on the basis of common law damages and not on the basis of a tariff. To most intents and purposes, such a scheme would be the same as the non-statutory scheme which has been operating for the past 30 years or so. It would therefore continue to have what we see as all the disadvantages inherent in that scheme.
The provisions of the 1988 Act were not brought into force for two very good reasons. The first was that my noble friend Lord Carlisle, who was, and is, the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, requested a postponement so that the board could concentrate its efforts on dealing with the large backlog of unresolved cases. The second reason was that it became increasingly evident that the old scheme needed fundamental revision. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for saying that and for correctly addressing our minds to the fact that when something has been in operation for 30 years, it sometimes needs altering.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, stated that the tariff scheme reflects the objections of the Government to the will of Parliament. He described its introduction as "elective dictatorship" and stated that it was an affront to parliamentary democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, stated that as the part of the 1988 Act which indicated the will of Parliament was not introduced it might as well have been written in water. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, stated that what the Government were doing was improper.
I can understand people holding those fairly strong views. However, it is right to point out that in our view what we did was not improper. The previous scheme was an executive scheme and began 30 years ago. It was run most effectively by the board, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. It was then decided to make the scheme statutory and that was why it was put in the Bill. However, for the reasons that I have given, it was also considered improper to bring it into a statutory state.
There is nothing improper in that because Section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint and different days may be appointed in pursuance of this subsection for different provisions or different purposes of the same provision".
Although the Act included those provisions, it was up to the Secretary of State of the day to introduce them by parliamentary provisions as deemed necessary. So there was nothing wrong with the fact that they were not introduced.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee —and I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will remember—that every year prior to Easter I am asked why the provisions of the Easter Act 1929 have not been brought into effect. The fact is that they can be brought into effect by statutory instrument and for various good reasons they have not yet been brought into effect. I do not believe that there is anything wrong or improper in that. The old scheme was devised 30 years ago for a fraction of the number of
1844
applications which are at present received. It was a complex scheme and unwieldy to administer. Despite the best efforts of the board, which had worked hard to reduce the time taken to process applications—and I readily and gratefully acknowledge those efforts—long delays were, unhappily, still common. The scheme was no longer capable of providing the kind of service which victims of crime might nowadays reasonably expect. My noble friend Lord Windlesham acknowledged that and he made a thoughtful contribution to what is a difficult and sensitive subject.
The fact is that the costs of the scheme were escalating rapidly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle said, "Now we know the real reason why the tariff scheme was introduced". There were two reasons, one of which was the escalating costs. I make no apology for that. Of course, governments must take into account the costs imposed upon the taxpayer.
In the first full year of the scheme, which was 1965–66, there were 2,500 claims and the amount of compensation paid was £400,000. My noble friend Lord Carlisle criticised my right honourable friend for saying that costs were spiralling out of control. What are the facts? By 1987–88, when the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was being considered by Parliament, there were not 2,500 applications but 43,000 and the compensation paid was not £400,000 but £52 million. Last year—just six years later—the number of applications had risen to 73,000 and the amount of compensation within the same six-year period had risen to £166 million. That is a threefold increase in six years. If we had not changed the scheme, at the turn of the century —which is only six years away—the actual cost of compensation was likely to have exceeded some £500 million. My noble friend Lord Carlisle says that he does not accept those figures. We must make projections—all government departments do. I can say only that those figures were arrived at after careful scrutiny. I remind the Committee that usually when government departments make projections they turn out to have erred on the side of underestimating and then the Government are cursed for that. They are now being faced with greater expenditure than they had anticipated.
Change was essential in order to control what were the spiralling costs of the old scheme, although my noble friend does not like me to say that. It was also desirable to provide a better service to those who made claims. We believe that the tariff scheme, which started on 1st April, will meet those needs and I do not believe that it would be right to return to the old scheme.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle said that there had been no consultation about the matter. However, governments must take decisions on principles. Once the decision was announced in November 1992, there was considerable discussion with the board and we had many helpful suggestions for the refinement of the scheme.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle argued that in disregarding the provisions of the 1988 Act and bringing in a tariff scheme by executive action we were somehow behaving in an unlawful and

1845
unconstitutional manner. I have referred to that, and I say only that the Government's action was challenged by way of judicial review. In a judgment on 23rd May, the High Court ruled that the Government's action was not illegal and nor was it improper or irrational. The application was dismissed. An appeal has now been lodged but no date for the hearing has yet been fixed. Until the Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment, I do not believe that we can go much further on the question of the propriety of the Government's action.
However, I believe that it would be right for me to try to explain what we are trying to achieve with the tariff scheme and what we are not trying to achieve. The White Paper which we published on 15th December last year explained that there is no objectively "right" sum of money which can compensate an individual for the pain and the hurt which are suffered as the result of an injury. That is what the old scheme tried to do on a basis comparable to common law damages.
Under the tariff scheme we are no longer aiming to provide finely judged "compensation". Instead, we are providing a tangible and still very generous payment in recognition of society's concern for the blameless victims of violent crime. The tariff scheme has one substantial advantage. It is simple, easier for the victims to understand and less complex to administer.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle say that it takes no account of the age, sex, occupation or way of life of an individual. That is perfectly true. All victims with similar injuries will be treated in the same way and victims will have a good idea in advance how much compensation they are likely to get. That was far from the case under the old scheme. The basic rales for eligibility have been left broadly as they were. Therefore, anyone who might have expected an award under the old scheme should be eligible under the new tariff scheme.
There is also a new appeals system which is demonstrably independent from those who are administering the scheme. My noble friend Lord Carlisle asserted that our costings were wrong but adduced no evidence. I can say only that our costings were based on trends during the past 10 years as regards new applications, the number of awards and the average awards. We believe that they are as accurate and defensible as it is possible to make them. My noble friend referred to the average awards, but I do not think that it is helpful to quote average awards for any one month. If we are to quote average awards we must do so over a whole year. The average award in 1987–88 was £3,486. It increased in 1992–93 to £4,297. Both those figures are at 1993–94 prices.
The tariff levels were based on nearly 20,000 recent awards which were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. They reflect what actually happened in practice under the old common law damages scheme, to which some Members of the Committee have indicated they would prefer to return. In our view, it would not be right to substitute someone's subjective view of what the tariff award should be for a particular injury for the more objective approach that we have adopted.
1846
We estimate that under the new scheme 60 per cent. of beneficiaries will get the same or more than they would have done under the old scheme; and they will get their money more quickly. We accept that some people will get less. But most awards are comparatively small. In 1992–93, 86 per cent. of awards were under £5,000. And in the last three years for which figures are available, only seven awards a year on average exceeded the tariff scheme's upper limit of £250,000.
We must remember, too, that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is not the only source of state aid for victims of crime, or, indeed, victims of other misfortune. Generous long-term help is available from the National Health Service and the Department of Social Security. Many claimants also benefit from occupational pension and sickness schemes.
It is right that the state should support victims of violence. But state support should reflect the deed which was done and not the loss of earnings or the employment which the person concerned had. The compensation available from the state for, for example, having your face slashed or your nose broken should be the same whether you are a dustman or, as my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said, a glamorous model. If you are in the latter category and have high earnings as a consequence, you might reasonably be expected to insure against loss of earnings for damage to your person—from whatever the cause. It is not reasonable, I suggest, to expect the taxpayer to pay out a greater sum to a glamorous model, or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, an airline pilot, just because she is a glamorous model or he is an airline pilot than to the dustman who has incurred equal pain, sorrow and distress but who has not enjoyed the advantage of high earnings.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Will my noble friend not agree that the present scheme has a limit on earnings which is one and a half times the national average? Therefore, although the noble and learned Lord and I may have given examples of an airline pilot and a model, in fact the people who are earning about the national average, or up to one and a half times the national average, will lose out. People whose earnings are extremely high will be compensated only up to one and a half times the national average.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say, but that does not alter the point that, where one is" dealing with state compensation and the payment of taxpayers' money, that should be directed to the deed that has been done to the person as opposed to the occupation that he enjoys.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to police officers. Police officers injured on duty will receive the full benefits of sick pay, which is unlimited, and the benefits of a pension scheme which provides for disablement in addition to the tariff award.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred also to savage cuts by the Government. I do not believe that that is either true or fair. Our compensation scheme is by far the most generous in the world. In the most recent years for which figures are available, France paid out

1847
£20 million, Germany paid out £6 million and Great Britain paid out £152 million in compensation. Of the total sum of money paid out by state compensation schemes to victims of crime throughout the world, France paid out 4½ per cent., Germany paid out 1½ per cent., and Great Britain paid out 35 per cent. of all the money paid out in the world. Even the United States of America, where the population is five times higher than ours, where the gross national product is many times higher, where the amount of violent crime is greatly in excess of ours and where about a million people are in prison, paid out only some £10 million in total more than we did.
Our tariff scheme will still be the most generous state compensation scheme anywhere in the world. By the year 2000, it is estimated that we shall be paying out a sum approaching £250 million a year. And between now and then —only six years away—we expect to pay out a total approaching £1,400 million. We pay out, in fact, far more compensation than all the other European countries added together. That cannot be represented as savage cuts.
To revert to the old scheme—which is what this new clause aims to bring about—is simply not a viable option. Its cost was soaring—and I make no apology for saying that the Government have to look at all costs which the taxpayer is obliged to pay—and it was not providing the sort of service which claimants should expect. The time had therefore come for change in the interests of claimant and taxpayer alike.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked whether we would consider a common law basis for the worst cases. I do not believe that that would work because a hybrid scheme would retain the worst elements of common law damages—that is, loss of earnings—and would make for great complexities and delay. It is difficult to set a defensible limit at the extreme end of the scale. There would be great scope for judicial challenge in borderline cases.
We have of course studied very carefully what was said in your Lordships' House on 2nd March, but we think our new tariff scheme is the right way forward. However, as we have made clear on several previous occasions, we shall monitor very closely the way it works. The terms of the tariff scheme are not set in stone. We shall listen to the views of responsible people and practitioners and, if the scheme can be refined or improved in the light of experience, we shall not hesitate to make the necessary changes.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, said that he thought it should be a statutory scheme. Once the new scheme has settled down, and once any necessary changes have been made, it will be our firm intention to put it on a statutory basis as soon as the opportunity occurs. But we must of course be satisfied that the scheme is working as effectively as possible first. That is why we could not use this Bill to make the tariff scheme statutory. It is simply too early for that.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise why we have made the changes that we
1848
have. These are not savage cuts. A great deal of money is being paid out to those people who, very regrettably, are the victims of crimes of violence.
Lord Colnbrook: Before the debate draws to an end, perhaps I may make two brief comments on what the Minister said. I have not joined in the debate because both my noble friend and noble Lords generally know my views on this issue. I made them quite clear in the debate on 2nd March. I do not like the tariff scheme and I am unhappy that it is not to be on a statutory basis.
I must tell the Minister that, having listened to the whole debate and having heard what he said, I still do not like the tariff scheme. However, I understood him to say that the Government would be prepared to alter it if suggestions were made to them about it. Many persuasive suggestions have been made to the Minister this afternoon. I am sure that many more suggestions will be made and I assure him that I shall be one of those to make suggestions because I still do not believe that it is a good scheme. However, the Minister has moved that far and he has agreed that the scheme can and will be altered if it can be shown that that is necessary. Therefore, I must congratulate him on moving that inch or so towards meeting the objections that have been raised.
I still believe that it should be a statutory scheme. I am sorry that my noble friend did not feel able to say that he would seek a legislative opportunity to make it statutory. He merely said that it would become statutory if an opportunity arose. I hope that he will not wait for such an opportunity to arise but will look for it, because all noble Lords believe that the scheme should be statutory, as I do.
Therefore, I offer a small measure of congratulation on moving a little towards recognising that the scheme that has been proposed is not absolutely right. But I am less pleased about what he said with regard to making the scheme statutory.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord proposes to press the matter to a Division. In view of what was said, I shall not vote against the amendment but I do not believe that I can support it.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend was good enough to say that I had moved an inch towards the accommodation which Members of the Committee seek. Perhaps I may congratulate him on congratulating me on an inch of approval which my noble friend apparently thinks I have given to the scheme.
I can quite understand that my noble friend prefers the previous scheme. Other noble Lords have expressed the same opinion. But for the reasons that I have given, we think that it is right that there should be a tariff scheme, and those reasons are wholly justifiable.
My noble friend wishes it to be a statutory scheme. One difficulty is that once it is put on a statutory basis it is set in stone. I said that we would be prepared—as, of course, we will be—to see how the scheme runs and, if it is possible to amend it and improve upon it, we shall be absolutely happy to consider so doing. If it is necessary to carry out such alterations, it would then be our intention to make it a statutory scheme.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I should be most grateful if the Minister could tell Members of the Committee whether he agrees that when Parliament enacted the 1988 Act and provided that the Secretary of State should bring that legislation into force on a day or days of his choosing Parliament must have intended that the Secretary of State would bring the Act into force on some day or days and not merely ignore the enactment of the statute and bring in a completely inconsistent scheme under the prerogative? Can the Minister also indicate whether he agrees that the European convention to which reference has been made requires that loss of earnings should be included in compensation for victims of violent crime? If that is right, how is it consistent with the tariff scheme?
Earl Ferrers: With regard to what Parliament considered at the time the legislation was being dealt with in 1988, I do not believe that it would be right for me to comment. The fact is that we have to do what the Act says. The Act says that the scheme shall only come into operation on a day appointed by the Minister. That does not mean to say that the Minister has to appoint the day; indeed, I gave the Easter Act as just one example. The provision is there but the introduction is a matter for the Secretary of State of the day. As regards the European convention, we have no reason to believe that our tariff scheme contravenes such conventions in any way.
Lord Ackner: I have two quite separate points to make. The first relates to the criticism of the common law basis for the assessment of damages. I can well understand criticism being made as to how one evaluates the pain and suffering and the loss of amenities. However, that has not been the subject matter of criticism. What has been criticised—as, indeed, it has been by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and which I find so difficult to follow—is the award of a figure for loss of earning, for the expense of medical matters and the like.
The whole purpose of the civil remedy for compensation is, as far as possible in financial terms, to put the victim back into a pre-accident state. One does that so far as concerns loss of wages by taking his annual figure and giving it the appropriate year's purchase based upon his expectation of working life—that may be, 12 or 15 years. One puts him back into the position in which he was previously by reimbursing him the cost of medical expenses past or future. One puts him back into the state in which he was previously by indemnifying him against the cost of having to alter his house or home. All of that is perfectly simple, straightforward and, I should have thought, wholly intelligible to the man in the street.
My second and entirely different point is that the Minister has totally failed to deal with a very serious constitutional point raised by the debate. Why did the Government ignore Parliament, some may say almost contemptuously, by refusing the opportunity given by the Bill to seek to amend the 1988 Act by modifying as they saw fit the provisions of the scheme provided for in detail by that legislation? I submit that the answer to the question is simple and twofold. First, the Government
1850
fully appreciated that the gross unfairness and impracticability of their proposed tariff scheme would have been unacceptable to Parliament. Secondly—and this is far more disturbing —by putting even a modified scheme on a statutory basis, it gives control of that scheme to Parliament where it should be and takes it away from the Minister who, as Members of the Committee have now seen, considers that he can do anything he likes without consulting Parliament.
Once more, this is a debate as to where power should reside. Should it reside with the legislature or with the Executive? It is as simple as that. Those of us who believe passionately in parliamentary democracy will, I believe, wish to support the amendment. Therefore, I press my amendment with enthusiasm.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 154CA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Addington, L.

Healey, L.

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Aldington, L.

Hooson, L.

Annan, L.

Howell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hughes, L.

Barnett, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bath, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Beloff, L.

Ilchester, E.

Benson, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jacques, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Brain, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Jay, L.

Brightman, L.

Jeger, B.

Brimelow, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Broadbridge, L.

Judd, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Kagan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chichester, Bp.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Craigavon, V.

Longford, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dainton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Diamond, L.

Mersey, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dundonald, E.

Monson, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ennals, L.

Nathan, L.

Falkland, V.

Nelson, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Templeman, L.

Russell, E.

Thurlow, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Tordoff, L.

Seear, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Warnock, B.

Shannon, E.

Weatherill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wharton, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

White, B.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Wigoder, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Stedman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Strafford, E.

Woolf, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Long, V.

Addison, V.

Lothian, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Lucas,L.

Annaly, L.

Lyell, L.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Astor of Hever, L.

Chancellor.]

Astor, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Balfour, E.

Mancroft, L.

Bauer, L.

Marlesford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Birdwood, L.

Melville, V.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Milverton, L.

Boardman, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cadman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Moyne, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Newall, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Norfolk, D.

Clanwilliam, E.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Courtown, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V.

Prentice, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Prior, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

De L'lsle, V.

Reay, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Salisbury, M.

Downshire, M.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Dudley, E.

Seccombe, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erne, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Flather, B.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

[Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Sudely, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teynham, L.

Hanson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harrowby, E.

Torrington, V.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kitchener, E.

Vivian, L.

Knutsford, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.54 p.m.
Clause 134 [Powers to test prisoners for drugs]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 154D:
Page 108, line 8, after second ("authorisation") insert ("obtained from the court upon cause shown").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 154E. Amendment No. 154D would impose an obligation on prison governors to obtain court sanction for carrying out testing of prisoners for drugs. The Bill allows prisoners to be tested for drugs by amending the powers of governors under the Prison Act 1952. There is no requirement under the Bill for any independent assessment of the need for any such testing and this amendment ensures that the governor can authorise testing if court authority is sought and obtained.
Amendment No. 154E deals with roughly the same point. As regards the question of authorisation, the amendment proposes imposing an obligation on prison governors to obtain court sanction for carrying out tests for drugs. The Bill allows the prisoners therefore to be tested for drugs by amending the powers of the governors under the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989. Again, there is no requirement under the Bill for any independent assessment of the need for such testing, but this amendment ensures that the governor can authorise testing if authority is obtained from a court. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): As the noble Lord will appreciate, drugs are a serious problem not only throughout our society but also in our prisons. We are introducing these measures which will permit drug testing because we believe this will act as an important deterrent and a powerful signal that drug misuse in prisons is completely unacceptable. Prisoners who test positive for drugs will be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
The prison services are responsible for managing prisons. Powers are given to prison governors to allow them to do this as effectively and efficiently as possible. In carrying out their duties governors do not need to seek authorisation from the courts for other activities —not even those which might appear, on any ordinary test, to affect both the dignity and the privacy of prisoners, such as strip searching. I think it is generally accepted that such powers are necessary to maintain proper security and control.
I see no reason why authorising prison officers to require urine specimens for drug testing should be treated any differently. The Government will, of course, take into account their responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights when establishing policy under the testing powers.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that what he said in the latter part of his reply provides me with the opportunity to withdraw the amendment, although I will of course read carefully what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154E not moved.]

1853
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Powers to search by authorised employees in prisons]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 154F:
Page 109, leave out line 6.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 154F I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 154G. These are really probing amendments because it seems to us that there is a potential contradiction in the Government's proposals where there are non-prison officers—in other words, civilians —acting in prisons. One of the particular problems is the use of reasonable force in searching prisoners. As has been confirmed, prison officers are also constables and they have the powers of the constable. Therefore, they have necessarily the power to search using reasonable force. However, civilians are not constables and it is not proposed that they should be constables, and they will have to be asked to carry out searches. If they are asked to search, as part of their duties, if the search is to be effective they will also have to be asked to use reasonable force. It could be argued that they stand in some risk. For example, they could be taken to court for assault if the reasonable force tips over the borderline between reasonable and unreasonable. Who knows exactly what the borderline will be in any particular case? Who knows what happens if a prisoner refuses to be searched? A complication with the Bill as drafted is that civilians, not being constables, retain the right to strike. It is conceivable that they could do so in order to avoid that risk, which I have identified, of being taken to court for assault.
We are concerned that the use of civilian staff instead of prison officers who are constables should not be used as an excuse for low staffing in prisons. An escape from Dartmoor prison last month highlighted the lack of staff on duty in prison workshops. Where there were once prison officers on duty in the workshops now those on duty are civilians rather than prison officers. If the clause had been in place at the time it would not have stopped the escape. Only officers overseeing the workshop would have done so.
I suggest that the Government are in a difficulty. I hope that they will respond positively, at least to the thinking behind these simple amendments. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may begin by saying to the noble Lord that while, of course, he is correct in saying that on this side of the Border a prison officer has the powers of a constable, in Scotland he does not have the same powers. That forms part of the provisions in a later clause. It does not bear directly on this provision, but I thought I had better make that point clear.
As the noble Lord explained, the purpose of the clause is to give "authorised employees" in prisons (not only in England and Wales but also in Scotland) limited powers to search prisoners. The amendments would
1854
remove the provisions which provide that reasonable force may be used by authorised employees when searching prisoners.
Clause 135 enables governors to authorise some non-prison officer grades to conduct "rub-down" searches for unauthorised items. In our view it would be useful for certain grades of civilian staff who regularly supervise activities involving prisoners—for example, when prisoners are leaving a kitchen party or workshop and are given a pat-down or rub-down search to check that they have not concealed any knives from where they have been which might subsequently be used as weapons. In those circumstances, I should have thought that there was good reason to do that rather than allow a prisoner to move out of that particular area and to be searched by a prison officer later. To do it immediately would be good sense.
It is certainly not envisaged that civilian staff would be used to search prisoners who would be likely to create difficulties or that they would be required to search forcibly a prisoner who resisted. If that happened they would be advised to call on prison officers to carry out any such search.
The provisions allowing the use of reasonable force are viewed as a sensible protection for staff. They would protect those carrying out searches under this power against allegations of mistreatment arising from normal searching procedures.
The provisions on reasonable force are a necessary part of the clause. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that without it the sort of difficulties which he envisaged might arise in courts would be all the greater if the provision were not included.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I still see a contradiction in the Government's point of view. They argue on the one hand that authorised civilian employees will not be called upon to search prisoners in conditions where they might resist and therefore force may be required, and at the same time they say that it is a reasonable precaution that they should be authorized to use force regardless.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: How could they possibly make such a judgment as to when they should intervene in this way and when they should not? It seems quite extraordinary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for anticipating my next sentence. I do not believe that one can tell in advance.
This is not a matter on which I seek to divide the Committee. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154G not moved.]
Clause 135 agreed to.
Clause 136 [Prohibited articles in Scottish prisons]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendments Nos. 154H and 154J:
Page 110, line 21, leave out ("in relation to which he has committed or is committing an offence under") and insert ("to which").

1855
Page 110, line 23, after ("1993") insert ("applies").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 154H to 154P collectively and also to Amendment No. 154Q.
Amendment No. 154H leaves out the offence requirement provisions of the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993. As the Committee will know, that Act provides that it shall be a criminal offence to carry or have in one's possession knives and other blades with a length of more than 3 inches. The Bill creates an offence of introducing an article which is contrary to the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 into prison. In our view there is no defence outwith the reasonable excuse of the provisions of Clause 136 for introducing such an article into a prison. Amendment No. 154J is a consequential amendment.
Amendment No. 154K is necessary because, on occasion, a child will instruct a solicitor in respect of his business and as this relates to the alleged commission of a serious offence it is important that the child is fully and independently advised as to his rights and responsibilities.
Amendment No. 154L is a consequential amendment. Amendment No. 154M ensures that the child's solicitor shall have access to the child who has been detained under Clause 136(3).
The provisions in respect of parents who may have been involved in the offence under Clause 136(3) do not apply to solicitors. Accordingly, it is appropriate that such a provision allows a solicitor access to the child in the event of detention under Clause 136(3).
Amendment No. 154N clarifies the persons who may be informed of the child's detention under Clause 136(8). Amendment No. 154P ensures that not only those who have physical possession of the child are entitled to knowledge of the detention. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting forward Amendments Nos. 154H and 154J. These amendments will indeed make the provision easier to apply in providing for consistency of treatment under the proposed Section 41(1) of articles to which Section 1 of the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 applies. It would be my advice to the Committee that Amendments Nos. 154H and 154J should be accepted.
Turning to Amendment No. 154K, the provision in Clause 136 with regard to children reflects the safeguards to be found in Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in respect of temporary detention there by the police. The intention is to ensure that the legal guardian of the child is informed without delay of the child's temporary detention. It must then be for the parent or guardian—not the prison authorities —to inform whosoever he or she pleases, possibly a solicitor.
As regards Amendments Nos. 154L and 154M, the provision for access to the child is solely to provide the child with company in a strange environment. If the
1856
police decide to arrest the child then the child will have the same rights to have a solicitor present as any other arrested person would have in similar circumstances.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 154N and 154P, following the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, there are only two kinds of "curator" known to Scots law. A "curator ad litem" is a person appointed solely for the purpose of instructing the conduct of actions raised by, or defences to actions raised against a child. A "curator bonis" is a person appointed, essentially, to administer the property of a child, while a "safeguarder" is a person appointed in our children's hearing system to provide separate representation for the child at that hearing in the unusual circumstances of a conflict of interest having arisen between that child and his parents. The extent to which those persons can act as an agent for the child is limited. I see no need, or advantage, in seeking to inform such a person. It seems to me that the clause as drafted is sufficiently wide to ensure that the appropriate person is informed.
Nor is Amendment No. 154Q appropriate. It is the parent or guardian of the child who should be informed. They have the legal responsibility for the child. The person nominated by the child might not.
I have indicated my view on the first two amendments. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his other amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting those amendments. In the plethora of reading, I was not exactly sure which amendments he accepted.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Amendments Nos. 154H and 154J.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 154K to 154P not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154PA:
Page 112, line 28, leave out ("child") and insert ("person under 16 years of age").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 154Q not moved.]
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 155 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 156:
After Clause 136, 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: The amendment has the effect of placing a statutory responsibility on the Government to provide assistance with housing and employment, in particular, for all those who leave prison. I shall speak briefly on the subject if only because I introduced a debate on 18th May and noble Lords may read what I said on that occasion.
Perhaps I may venture to repeat one point that I made at the beginning of that debate. I do not believe that anyone will seriously argue that the prospects today for prisoners who leave prison are any better than when I, with the help of others, founded the New Bridge for Ex-Prisoners nearly 40 years ago. On the one hand, a great deal has been done by voluntary bodies, to whom all honour; and the Government have done not a little. On the other hand, there has been a great increase in unemployment since those days and the prison population is much larger. On the whole, if one left prison today the prospect would be no better than it was 40 years ago.
At the end of the debate on 18th May I submitted three propositions. I shall refer to only one. I urge the Government to provide more generous assistance to the voluntary bodies and to multiply the number of excellent resettlement provisions that they have begun to establish. That brings me to the subject that I put forward today. I urge the Government to accept statutory responsibility for helping all those who leave prison to find jobs, and accommodation in particular
At present, under the 1991 Act there is a statutory responsibility on the probation service for supervising all those who have served more than one year in prison and have been sentenced since the autumn of 1992. My proposal extends that responsibility in more ways than one. On the one hand, I should like responsibility extended to all prisoners whenever sentenced and whatever the length of sentence. On the other hand, I admit that it should no longer be a supervising responsibility—a rather negative role—but a respon-sibility actively to help those prisoners find jobs and accommodation. It is a straightforward case. On the last occasion the Minister showed a good deal of sympathy for what I said. I accused him of painting a rather ideal picture, but that was better than painting no picture.
I make no secret of one factor. My proposal is bound to mean an increase of resources; not on a vast scale, but in numbers of probation officers. They are already extremely hard-worked people and this proposal adds to their duties. That means an increase in the government resources devoted to the probation service. I refer to the probation service in relation to its assistance to prisoners. Those resources at present are not large. The Government spend £40 million in helping the probation service to look after prisoners from a total of £1,400 million on the prison service. That sum could be greatly increased—I do not speculate on the figure—without breaking the Bank of England.
That is my case. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will show sympathy for it. I recognise that I am asking for an increase in resources and I do not expect it tonight. I do not expect him suddenly to say, "Yes, there is some money available that we had not thought
1858
of before". However, I expect him to say that it is a desirable target and an objective which the Government share in principle.
If the Minister cannot go quite so far as that, perhaps he will tell us what guidelines are being issued to the probation service with regard to helping, not simply supervising, prisoners. On the last occasion he indicated that there were such guidelines. I am informed by the Home Office that there are helpful guidelines. May we at least be told that? Perhaps he will go further and express general sympathy for the objective that I have stated. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendment. Indeed, I go a little further than the noble Earl. We all welcome the fact that the Home Office has issued guidelines to the probation service to put much greater emphasis on the employment of ex-offenders. The amendment proposes that help should be given to prisoners when they come out of prison. However, it would greatly strengthen the position if more care were to be taken to prepare people while they are in prison for obtaining a job when they are released. The probation service has made it quite clear that the chance of recidivism greatly recedes when an ex-prisoner can obtain a job.
It would be useful for the Government to consider what has become common practice in Germany. From the very beginning of a sentence the question of training for subsequent employment is taken on board and is ranked high in the planning of the sentence so that training can be given in prison to enable the ex-prisoner to obtain a job. The fact is, as the recidivism figures show, that if a man or a woman —fortunately perhaps there are far fewer women involved—has little skill, even with no criminal record it is extremely difficult to obtain a job. If a man has little skill, poor education —those factors apply to a great many prisoners—and a criminal record into the bargain then (as I once dared to say to a meeting of the Metropolitan Police) in his own interests he had better settle for burglary as a career because he has no chance of earning a living in any other way.
The amendment puts great emphasis on the enormous importance of providing relevant—that is the important word—training in prison. The one thing that prisoners have to an unlimited extent is time. Surely we can use that time to train prisoners, and do so for relatively little expenditure compared to the cost of keeping them in prison and returning them to prison, which is so common. Training prisoners with an eye to the jobs that they can obtain after prison involves collaboration with employers. An increasing number of employers are prepared to give that collaboration if the prison service will provide the resources for relevant training—I stress relevant training—while people are in prison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to support my noble friend and the valuable points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am sure she is right. It is what is done in prison rather than after release from prison that will be effective in ensuring that ex-prisoners find suitable employment.

1859
I disagree slightly with my noble friend when he says that it will cost more money. Of course, in the short term it will do so in the sense that the modest £40 million budget of the probation service in dealing with prisoners will immediately require an increase. But in the longer term, surely, bearing in mind the much larger cost of the prison service as a whole, the amendment will stop prisoners going back into prison. That is the really important point. There are far too many cases of people coming out of prison and finding themselves without either a job or somewhere to live or both and virtually going straight back into prison in order to find something to do and somewhere to live. Even in the most modest, minimal sense, it may well be that the provision of resettlement advice for which my noble friend asks will save money rather than cost money.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. As the noble Earl indicated, we had an interesting debate last month on just this subject. From that debate it was clear that while there may be differences of emphasis, there is a clear appreciation that it is part of the system for which there should be real anxiety.
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. Effective supervision challenges offenders to accept responsibility for their crimes and seeks to gain their co-operation in avoiding offending in the future and becoming responsible members of the community.
Effective supervision also helps offenders to resolve personal difficulties linked with offending and to acquire new skills. It follows that the focus of supervision is then primarily on tackling offending behaviour. Intervening to address practical difficulties, including accommodation and employment, forms an integral part of that supervision. However, the point I wish to make to the Committee is that it is just one of the many elements that combine to form supervision.
Offenders are individuals. Some may require assistance and advice in order to secure accommodation or employment where others may not. Some may need, for example, to attend a treatment programme in order to tackle offending behaviour; others may not. To be effective, therefore, a programme of supervision must be adapted carefully to the individual circumstances of the particular offender. It should also take into account and, indeed, build on the work carried out with that individual offender during his time in custody. I wholly share the objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, sought to impress upon us.
To accept the amendment would, in our view, place undue emphasis on what is just one part of the overall picture. It would shift the focus of supervision away from tackling offending behaviour and it could even hinder the supervising officer in determining, within the framework of national standards for the probation service in England and Wales, the most effective programme of supervision for the individual offender.
1860
The proposed amendment extends to offenders sentenced to less than 12 months' custody. As the noble Earl will appreciate, such offenders are released unconditionally at the halfway point of sentence. They are not subject to licence or statutory supervision and no form of assistance or advice can therefore be imposed on them. Having said that, the probation rules in England and Wales make it a duty of a probation officer to advise, assist and befriend any offender who is released from custody other than on licence who is willing to be assisted. Provision already exists therefore for offenders in this category to receive supervision on a voluntary basis. In practice, voluntary supervision often means advice and assistance, again with practical difficulties, including accommodation and employment. So I say to the noble Earl that the amendment would serve no useful purpose other than to duplicate existing arrangements.
While being unable to accept the amendment, the Government recognise that securing employment and accommodation can be very important factors in helping an offender to establish a settled and law-abiding lifestyle. Those issues are being actively addressed by both the prison and the probation services during the custodial and the community parts of the sentence.
It would take time to elaborate and we have been over some of the detail in the previous debate, but I do not consider that there is any real difference between us other than that, although we share the objective, I would not wish to give an undue emphasis when the individual circumstances of an offender might require a different emphasis to be given.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am rather disappointed by that reply. The noble and learned Lord said that he was not in favour of the amendment because it would give undue emphasis to the two factors spelt out in the amendment. However, that is a wholly bogus argument. As chairman of the Parole Board, I found that when looking at cases my colleagues and I examined those two specific issues because they were absolutely critical in determining whether a person was likely to return to custody at some stage in the future. If there were unsatisfactory accommodation arrangements, the likeli-hood of re-offending increased substantially. The same was true as regards employment.
The real reason why the noble and learned Lord does not want to accept the amendment has nothing to do with the argument he put forward this afternoon. The real argument is about resources. I recognise that this is a difficult matter for the Government. Like previous governments, they have undoubtedly increased resources available to the probation service by a significant degree. They are also increasing expenditure on prison accommodation at a far more rapid rate because of the great increase in the prison population due to the "prison works" philosophy of the present Home Secretary.
It seems to me that it is ill-judged to attempt to resist an amendment of this kind which could have the effect of limiting the likelihood of people getting into trouble with the police after their return from prison. I find it depressing because it seems to me that for a relatively modest increase in resources—and there would be

1861
additional expenditure—one could limit the remorseless increase in the prison population. On Monday this week the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at col. WA 83 of Hansard, gave a Written Answer to a Question which I put about the pressure on local prisons. The Answer showed that in the overwhelming majority of local prisons, where short-term prisoners tend to congregate, there is massive overcrowding. Month after month, those figures increase. Here is an opportunity for lessening pressure to some degree on local prisons. Yet the Government resist an amendment which might have a significant effect on some prison service establishments. I find that depressing because we are confronted with a most alarming increase in the prison population in local prisons. We still have a substantial number of prisoners in police cells and yet here is an amendment which could have a useful effect in terms of limiting the likelihood of re-offending by short-term prisoners. But the Government resist it. That is a pity.
The Earl of Longford: I am very grateful to my noble friend the acting Leader, to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for their support of this amendment. I entirely accept the correction that was offered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the supplements that were provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
I shall speak very briefly. I am rather conscious of the fact that I made many of the important points on the last occasion. But I am bound to say that I was astonished at the reply that was given by the noble and learned Lord. I accused him on the last occasion of painting an unreal picture. I certainly do so now. For some years I have visited prisons, on average one a week. What the noble and learned Lord told us is unrecognisable in relation to the situation of those who leave prison today. Anyone who visits prisons knows that perfectly well.
In the circumstances I should like to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, how we should proceed at the next stage, but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 156A:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973
.—(1) Schedule 1A to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 5(2) after the words "medical practitioner" there shall be inserted the words "or a clinical psychologist".
(3) In paragraph 5(3) (c) after the words "medical practitioner" there shall be inserted the words "or such clinical psychologist".
(4) In paragraph 5(6) after the words "medical practitioner", in the first place where they occur there shall be inserted the words"or clinical psychologist", and in the second place where they
occur there shall be inserted the words "or a clinical psychologist".
(5) In paragraph 8(a) after the words "medical practitioner" there shall be inserted the words "or clinical psychologist".").
The noble Baroness said: This is a new clause to allow conditions of treatment for a mental condition in a probation order to be carried out by a clinical psychologist.
This issue has been raised with the All-Party Penal Affairs Group by the North West Thames forensic psychiatry service, which has pointed out that the present law appears to restrict such treatment conditions to treatment carried out by or under the discretion of a duly qualified medical practitioner. However, multi-disciplinary treatment in psychiatric services has ensured that clinical psychologists have developed expertise in providing treatment to offender-patients, and in some cases that is the most appropriate form of treatment.
A note provided to the group by the chief psychologist for the North West Thames forensic psychiatry service states:
'The problem behaviours for which psychological help is particularly applicable are aggressive behaviour, anger control problems and sexual deviancy, which invariably means treatment for associated psychological states, namely anxiety, depression, inter-personal skills deficits, bereavement problems, neurotic and personality disorders. A considerable number of cases are offenders who have themselves been victims of physical and sexual abuse. A psychological approach is particularly appropriate for persistent offending not apparently motivated by gain, for example for shoplifting, talcing and driving away, gambling and arson.
Psychological treatment may be carried out in a number of ways. The offender may be seen by the psychologist individually or together with his/her partner or family members or it may be appropriate for the offender to be seen as a member of a group of offenders. The length of time over which treatment may be provided and the frequency of treatment are also likely to be variable. Some treatments can be delivered intensively over a brief period, others require a regular contact over an extended period while still others may involve a number of episodes of intensive treatment interspersed with breaks in treatment. These variables … may result in complex treatment programmes, in which eg a period of individual treatment might be followed by a period of group treatment while occasional family meetings continue throughout".
Courts sometimes use the provisions for making requirements as to activities to get round this problem by, for example, requiring a sex offender to present himself "to Miss X at hospital Y for 100 days". However, this is a clumsy way of approaching the issue because it removes clinical responsibility for the appropriate frequency and duration of contact, which may as time goes on turn out to be more or less than 100 days.
The better solution would therefore be to give courts the power in appropriate circumstances to make treatment conditions to a clinical psychologist on the same basis as to a psychiatrist; and this is what the new clause provides. This amendment is very uncontroversial. I hope that it is helpful and that it can be accepted quite quickly. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides the courts with the power to attach to a probation order, as an additional requirement, that the offender should undergo treatment for a mental condition.
The Act also specifies that, under those circumstances, the treatment should be by or under the direction of a duly qualified medical practitioner who, under Section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983, is one who has been approved by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder.

1863
The purpose of the noble Baroness's amendment, as she explained, is to provide the courts with the additional option of a clinical psychologist—that is, a person who is listed on the charter of the Royal College of Psychologists—to oversee or to carry out the treatment.
The amendment would have the effect of clarifying the practice of what is, in fact, already being done. 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 and this practice is considered by the Department of Health to be quite effective in treating their offending behaviour.
I recognise the helpful intention which lies behind the noble Baroness's amendment. There is undoubtedly some force to the arguments which she has adduced in support of it. The amendment, as it is, though, would not be acceptable, for technical reasons. What I should like to do, if I may, is to give some consideration to what the noble Baroness has suggested. If she would be kind enough to withdraw he amendment, I should like to reflect on the full implications of what she seeks to do. If after such reflection we conclude that it would be right to amend the 1973 Act, I should like to consider— without commitment—the possibility of bringing forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister very much for that helpful reply. With the promise that it will be looked at and considered, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 156B:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
("Harassment, alarm or distress
Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress In Pan I of the Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
4A.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words orbehaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visiblerepresentation which is threatening, abusive orinsulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed ina public or a private place, except that no offence iscommitted where the words or behaviour are used, or thewriting, sign or other visible representation is displayed, bya person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed,alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason tobelieve that the words or behaviour used, or thewriting, sign or other visible representationdisplayed, would be heard or seen by a personoutside that or any other dwelling, or

(b) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone hereasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.".").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to provide higher penalties for those whose language or behaviour deliberately harasses, alarms or distresses another person. This new clause fulfils a commitment that was given by the Government at an earlier stage of the Bill when it was in another place. We indicated that we wanted to bring forward a provision that would enable the courts to deal more effectively with serious racial harassment, particularly where it is persistent. I must apologise to the Committee for having been unable to table the amendment sooner, but it has proved particularly difficult to draft a measure which does not create anomalies but which is nevertheless effective.
Although we set out to address the problems of racial harassment, race is not mentioned in the clause. To have done so would have meant that prosecutors were faced with proving not only the fact of the offence but also that it was racially motivated. Proving motivation beyond reasonable doubt is particularly difficult. We would not want someone to escape the higher penalties which are provided by this new offence simply because it was difficult to prove the motivation, even where his actions were unpleasant and deliberate. The new offence will therefore apply equally to harassment on other grounds, such as being offensive, for instance, to people who are in wheelchairs or who suffer some other form of impediment or disability. It is obviously right that the same punishment should be available for behaviour causing the same distress, whatever the motive may happen to be.
We have also deliberately not referred in this amendment to persistence. It proved impossible to define persistence in a way which would allow the police and the courts to operate with any certainty. Whatever definitions were chosen would inevitably have led to anomalies and absurdities. For example, would two offences in two months be persistence; or would it have to be two weeks; or two hours? It would also not be possible to deal satisfactorily with different offences of varying seriousness which were committed against the same victim over a period of time.
We have therefore based our offence on the existing Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986; that is, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress. Section 5, which is the lowest in the series of public order offences does not require anything more than threatening, abusive or insulting conduct within the hearing or the sight of a person likely to be caused harassment. It is punishable with a maximum fine of £1,000. For the new offence there is the added element of intent and the requirement for a person to be caused harassment. Those are important if we are to distinguish the new offence from the very wide range of behaviour covered by Section 5 and to justify moving from a fine of £1,000 to a maximum of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000.
I do not feel that they will prove a difficulty in dealing with the incidents of racial harassment with which too many people in Britain are only too familiar.

1865
Abuse or threatening behaviour which is directed at individuals or households will clearly have an element of intent and someone will have been harassed. The repetition of offensive behaviour, whether it is within two hours, two weeks or two months, could also indicate intent to cause harassment. A new power of immediate arrest has also been added. In our discussions with the police it was clear that they felt that the new arrest power would help significantly in enabling them to take immediate action against offenders and to reassure the victims of racial harassment.
Perhaps I may also say that we have considered very carefully the different possible approaches to dealing with the problem of racial harassment. We believe that this amendment offers an easier and more effective way of tackling the issue than do other suggestions. It does so without creating anomalies and it keeps within the general framework of public order legislation. The Government have wanted to use the opportunity of the Bill to bring forward changes to the law which are effective in dealing with these problems and are consistent with other criminal law provisions. I believe that we have done that.
The Government will continue to look at ways of further improving the ability of the criminal justice system to deal with such terrible crimes. Next week we expect the publication of the report of the Home Affairs Committee into racially motivated crime. The Government will look very carefully at its recommenda-tions. The problems of racial violence and harassment are matters which the Government take very seriously indeed. We shall continue to look for effective ways of dealing with them. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: There are three amendments on the Marshalled List which relate to harassment: the amendment just moved by the noble Earl; Amendment No. 159E in my name, which we shall come to later; and Amendment No. 159H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. The noble Earl's amendment, as he explained, would create a new offence of intentionally causing a person harassment, alarm or distress. It would have to be proved both that the person charged had the specific intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress and that that was actually caused.
I have four basic criticisms to make of the proposed new clause. I must also observe that there is nothing in the clause to indicate that in the Government's view racial harassment is a more serious matter than other types of harassment. First, the clause is limited to conduct which involves the use of,
"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or … a threatening, abusive or insulting"
display or representation.
As the noble Earl said, that largely repeats the current provisions in Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The words or conduct must be threatening, abusive or insulting.
There is a range of conduct which is either a trespass or a nuisance but which is not covered by this clause. That is our first concern. For example, it would not
1866
cover the intentional playing of loud music outside the home of the victim, nor the deliberate creation of a din in neighbouring premises. That would not qualify as disorderly behaviour, which connotes physical disturbance or disruption. It would not cover entry on the victim's premises which is not threatening but designed to cause annoyance or irritation. It would not cover daubings on the walls of the victim's home unless those daubings were either threatening, abusive or insulting. It would not cover the distribution of pamphlets or other written material to the victim's house which was offensive without being insulting.
In Cozens v. Brutus in 1973, this House, in its judicial capacity, held that conduct which was annoying or irritating, or which showed a disrespect or contempt for the rights of others, did not necessarily qualify as insulting, no matter how much resentment it induced. It must also be highly questionable whether the dumping of refuse in the victim's garden would qualify as insulting as distinct from being deeply offensive. The scope of this provision, therefore, is such that it does not effectively deal with the problem of low level harassment, which the Government recognised in the other place was not covered by the existing Section 5.
Secondly, the amendment refuses to recognise that racial harassment is prevalent, that it specifically selects its victim and singles out him or her because of race or colour. That is not expressly covered by the clause.
Thirdly, it is difficult to understand how it can be possible for conduct involving the deliberate harassment or the intentional causing of alarm or distress to another to be reasonable. I invite the noble Earl to give some examples. Nor can I understand why it should be a defence, as subsection (2) provides, that the harassment is carried out inside a building in circumstances in which the victim is also inside the building. I find that provision puzzling. No doubt the noble Earl will be good enough to explain.
Finally, although the range of conduct covered by this new clause is no wider than that covered by the current Section 5, the prosecution will now have the burden of proving both the intent to cause harassment and that it was in fact caused. The only benefit to be derived from the imposition of those additional hurdles is that the offence is now punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
So the noble Earl's amendment covers broadly the same grounds as Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. It does not address other forms of harassment which in the other place the Government described as low level harassment, presumably because they found that too difficult. When, subsequently, I commend Amendment No. 159E to the Committee, I shall endeavour to explain how it fills the gaps from which this amendment suffers.
There is one other concern that we desire to express about this amendment. There is a risk that in one respect it may be inappropriately wide. It covers any kind of threatening or disorderly behaviour or abusive or insulting written words; and it could be a one-off incident because the new clause does not specify that the behaviour has to be repeated. Therefore, having criticised the amendment for its gaps, I now criticise it

1867
on the basis that, because it does not require any racial element to be involved, it is potentially a very wide-ranging offence couched in very general terms.
The concern has been expressed that an offence of such width and generality could be used disproportionately against young black people engaging in what the new clause calls "disorderly behaviour". I invite the noble Earl to respond to the perceived danger that the clause could be of only limited effectiveness in combating racial harassment on the one hand, but that on the other hand it runs the risk of inappropriately criminalising young black people—and indeed other young people—who are engaging in a one-off incident of low level disorder. I suggest that the amendment is subject to those criticisms and invite a detailed response. I imagine that it will not be opposed—not on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread but rather on the basis that a crumb is better than no bread.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I support the new clause which seems to cover much useful ground. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, it increases the penalties for threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. It also, usefully, no longer contains the provision found in Section 5 of the Public Order Act that:
"It is a defence for the accused to prove … that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress".
The omission of that defence seems to me helpful and constructive.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord opposite made a number of valid points. However, some of them seemed directed more towards the merits of his own amendments rather than to the demerits of the new clause. I am not at all persuaded that it would be inappropriate for both to be accepted. I see merit in addressing the racial issue specifically, as we shall have the opportunity to do when we debate later amendments. But my noble friend made a good case in saying that often it is beneficial to treat disorderly behaviour which may be racially motivated on the basis that it is causing harassment, alarm or distress without necessarily always highlighting the racial hatred component.
There is only one element which excites my concern a little; it is, the requirement 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."
At the end of the sentence we see the words,
"thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress".
I should have thought that if a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour and thereby causes another person harassment, alarm or distress, that would be sufficient grounds for the offence without it being necessary to demonstrate that there was in addition an "intent" to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress. The causing of that harassment, alarm or distress could well be regarded as sufficient without the need to demonstrate intent. I shall be interested therefore to hear my noble friend say a few extra words on that point. In general, the new clause is useful.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I can first apologise because I shall have to leave due to a prior important engagement and therefore will not be present when the other amendments are being moved on this important issue. Normally I would not have spoken unless I thought that I had something a little constructive to add to the debate.
A substantial number of the citizens of this country as they now are look to Parliament in both Houses—where we are considering this public order Bill—for assistance in their protection. I use the word "protection" advisedly. Members of the Committee will have noted with alarm and sadness the increase in the number of incidents, some of a serious nature, of racial incitement and insulting behaviour towards those of another colour. I hope therefore that no mere argument over words will stop a provision or, if necessary, a couple of provisions being included in the Bill to deal with the serious matter of racial incitement and insulting behaviour.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that it is difficult when one reaches court to prove an intent. The burden in the clause is upon the prosecution to do so. One would have thought that a court was well able to deal with the facts before it where the prosecution in any event must prove that there has been threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or the display of the writing described in the amendment, and that it caused another person harassment, alarm or distress. Surely the onus is then properly placed upon the defendant to say that he had no intention of so doing, in spite of the fact that the prosecution proved that element. In that regard I respectfully agree with what was said.
Perhaps I may take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg; but I go further. When dealing with the defence the clause includes the words:
"It is a defence for the accused to prove… that his conduct was reasonable".
I can foresee, as, no doubt, can other Members of the Committee, what may happen in a case with which we are all familiar. The opportunity is given to a defendant to say to the court, "My propaganda was reasonable". The court must listen to him in order to decide whether or not that plea succeeds. I envisage a case of writing on a wall in a white district and the writing on the wall says, "Wogs back home". In a case of that kind, if the amendment be accepted, the defendant will be allowed to say, "There is a political party in this country that is permitted quite lawfully to propagate the policy that we should repatriate black people who come over here, especially over a certain number." He may even quote the propaganda to the court and say, "I belong to that opinion and from my point of view it was completely reasonable, in a white district, to try and obtain support for that point of view. I am not on a platform—I could have been—on a street corner saying that that is my policy. I am not much of an orator and so I put my belief in short, sharp form by printing on the wall —I have not been accused of any crime connected with writing on a wall—the words, 'Wogs back home'. I am saying that I was reasonably putting forward a point of view. It was

1869
in a white district. I did not even think that anyone who was black would see it. Even if they did, am I not permitted to express that view?"
I ask the Minister and the Committee to concentrate on the amendments which deal with that scourge and to see to it that whatever comes out of the Bill eventually deals properly and practically with something which I know the Committee, like myself, hates.
7 p.m.
Baroness Flather: While I welcome the intention behind the clause, I regret that it contains a lot of pitfalls. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will have another look at it.
The question of whether racial motive can be proved has been with us since the time of the second Race Relations Act. My memory does not go back to the first Race Relations Act but we have always been told that, if there is a specific law that relates to racial aspects, there will be difficulty in proving those aspects and, therefore, that we should not go down that road.
The time has come when we need to go down that road because there has been a great deal of anxiety about the increase in racially motivated crimes of all kinds, and particularly the increase in harassment. I am delighted that the Government have acknowledged that there is a gap, but the way in which they have chosen to fill that gap will, in my opinion, not work. If there is a need to address the problem of racial harassment, then that is what we should be doing. We should not be trying to create a catch-all situation which may catch nothing at all. I am very anxious that, while there are other forms of harassment that need to be dealt with, we should concentrate our resources on doing something about racial harassment.
Once of the major anxieties about the clause is the fact that there has to be an identifiable victim. One may well ask what is wrong with the requirement that there should be an identifiable victim. However, that victim has to go to court and give evidence. Many incidents of harassment take place on housing estates with the perpetrators living on the same estate as the victim. It is very frightening indeed for a victim to stand up in court, give evidence and then return to his home, with the person who has been fined, or even sent away for a short period, back again in his or her house and more reprisals likely to follow.
One of the problems is that the police can in no way protect those who give evidence from future harassment and violence. In this case it is absolutely essential. It is not a certain type of behaviour, it is not a behaviour which society will condemn, but there has to be an identifiable victim who gives evidence. That is a very serious defect in the clause which will cause an enormous amount of anxiety to those whom the clause appears to be designed to protect.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, mentioned Clause 2, which is quite incomprehensible to me. In places like Tower Hamlets there have been a number of incidents that have taken place at the homes of people living on estates. It is possible that on some occasions the breaking down of a door might amount to an offence, but anything that happens after the door has
1870
been broken down will not be covered. It is an extremely odd situation; if you push past somebody who has opened the door to you and then you do whatever you wish in their home, if it is a woman or a child, it is not covered by the clause.
Clause 3 should also be looked at very carefully. Both Clauses 2 and 3 need to be reconsidered. If they are not reconsidered, we need a full explanation as to why the draftsmen chose the exclusions. I have not understood them and one or two people whom I relied upon to explain matters to me, have not understood them either.
We are living in a time when we have seen a great deal of violence and the kind of behaviour that is condemned by the clause on the continent of Europe. There has been a rise in that kind of behaviour. The last thing we want is for it to be imported into this country. We have been very well served so far and this is the moment to grasp the nettle and make sure that a very strong message goes out that we are not going to accept that sort of behaviour and that we are not going to accept racial harassment. That is what the clause should be doing: it should be making racial harassment a specific offence.
Lord Wigoder: We on these Benches wish to support the proposed clause, but before proceeding I should like to ask the noble Earl to intervene at once if the next point that I raise is based upon a misconception.
The Bill does not repeal Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. There is no conceivable reason why both clauses should continue to be part of the law because there are very few practical differences between the proposed new clause and Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
The existing Section 5 provides:
"A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, or abusive or insulting words or behaviour … or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation … within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".
The offence may be committed in a public or a private place, except that it is no offence when it is displayed in certain circumstances by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling. It is a defence for the accused to show that he had no reason to believe there was any person within hearing or sight likely to be caused harassment. There is also the defence, about which there has been much comment, that the accused can prove that his conduct was reasonable. There is a power of arrest without warrant, etc.
Section 5 covers almost word for word the same matters as are covered by the proposed new clause. I can see only two significant differences, both of which I support. The first is that the proposed new clause creates an imprisonable offence. That is a new provision and it is one that we support. The second matter concerns a distinction rather than a difference. In the wording of the existing section of the Public Order Act a person is guilty of an offence if he uses certain words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, whereas the proposed new

1871
clause states that the person is guilty if he acts with intent to cause a person harassment and thereby causes that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
There is very little distinction in practice between those two forms of words. I slightly prefer the wording in the proposed new clause as against the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is desirable, particularly where the offence that is created is an imprisonable one, that there should have to be proved, as an ingredient of the offence, an intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress.
I would not wish to see a situation where a piece of disorderly behaviour which happens to cause some passing old lady of an exceedingly sensitive temperament some alarm or distress becomes an imprisonable offence and part of the Public Order Act. If we are going to treat the matter with the seriousness and gravity that it deserves, we should limit it to cases where there is an intent to cause some other person harassment, alarm or distress. Subject to that, it will be a very odd statute which in due course is consolidated. It will contain this new clause followed immediately by another clause almost exactly repetitious but providing for a somewhat lesser penalty.
Lord Annan: The previous speech was very interesting. But, if the Public Order Act has not been effective, does it not suggest that we need something much stronger than the amendment which the noble Earl has produced? I very much support the views of those who say that it is too much to expect "intent" to be proved. I very much hope that we shall strengthen this aspect in the debate to come.
Lord Monson: Although the new clause as a whole would seem to strike a fair and reasonable balance, like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I think it goes a little too far in one respect. I refer of course to the absence of any requirement that the conduct in question should be persistent or even repeated. It could refer to a one-off incident of any kind, not involving race or anything remotely like it. Let us take, for example, the case of a motorist who is sitting in his car at a red traffic light with his handbrake on and is violently run into from behind by another motorist who has been chatting away and not looking where he was going. The innocent motorist gets out and uses insulting words, or possibly even abusive words, which undoubtedly will cause and are intended to cause distress—no doubt justifiable distress—to the guilty motorist. The noble Earl may well argue that in such an eventuality the magistrates might find that the conduct was reasonable under the circumstances and that would constitute a valid defence. Indeed they might, but, again, they might not. Magistrates can be very unpredictable, as we know from recent cases. I wonder whether when he comes to reply the noble Earl can reassure us on that point.
Lord Lucas: I too welcome the determination behind the amendment to tackle the problem of racial harassment and to tackle it in a way which creates a general offence and not a specific offence. However, I have some severe reservations about the wording of the
1872
amendment. First, I believe that it is worded in a way which will make it extremely hard to secure convictions. That is not only my opinion; it is clearly the opinion of the police, too. I refer to the use of the word "intent", which is a very hard test to pass without the qualification that the word has elsewhere in the Public Order Act. Elsewhere it is qualified by "likely" or "awareness". There is also the concept earlier in the Act of a person of reasonable firmness being likely to be harassed under those circumstances. Any of those concepts could well be imported into that first sentence. Secondly, the amendment states,
"to cause a person harassment".
One has to find a person who has caused harassment. One has to pick on an individual. The amendment later states,
"thereby causing that or another person harassment".
One has to produce him and there has to be evidence. As my noble friend Lady Flather said, that will be extremely difficult to do in many cases. I do not think it is reasonable to ask that. Most of these offences are offences against the generality of the community. One should not have to find an individual to show that an act is offensive.
Subsection (3) imports the wording that is used in other parts of the Act. It basically says that what a person does in his own home is his own affair and should not constitute an offence under the Act. But it includes the rather strange provision which allows a person in one flat of a block of flats to stand inside his door and insult other people in common parts, or in another flat, or to play loud music, or to create a disturbance in his flat which causes harassment to his neighbours. It allows that to pass unpunished under the law, whereas harassing someone in the street is caught by the law. If my noble friend looks at the wording of the original Act he will find that that is an anomaly and should not be imported into this new offence. The new offence ought to cover offensive behaviour to someone else anywhere except within the confines of one person's dwelling.
My other concern echoes the other concern of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that in some way the clause runs too wide and that it offers policemen powers which may be interpreted in some sections of the community as a resurrection of the old sus laws. I well remember sus from my long years in Notting Hill Gate. It was not pleasant while it was happening. Those Members of the Committee who have read the Evening Standard today will have seen an amusing account of the assault on a clown who was performing to a crowd outside a pub in Richmond—a white clown to a white crowd. He was stopped from telling jokes by a policeman because the policeman said that he considered the jokes to be offensive to people, that he was causing a disturbance and that he intended to arrest him. The policeman had beer poured on his head, his car keys were thrown in the Thames and the incident ended up as a minor riot.
That was in Richmond. If similar things happened in somewhere like Brixton and action was taken under this Bill there might well be a feeling that there was quite unreasonable imposition being made on members of the black community. If we are to bring this kind of power

1873
into effect we need to put into place in advance arrangements to make sure that any such questionable use of the powers—and they are bound to occur: they occur every day just because policemen are human beings—should be quickly and very visibly dealt with
The powers are broad. It is clear to me from reading the amendment that a builder wolf-whistling from scaffolding could be caught and that a heckler at political meetings could be caught. All kinds of every-day minor acts of harassment could be caught and made into arrestable offences. The potential for the police to misuse the powers is there. It ought to be clear that if the powers are misused the matter will be dealt with. Otherwise we shall have upsets.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Nothing is more tedious than for non-lawyers to hear lawyers talking about the law, especially when the law can only be understood by looking at a statute that noble Lords will not have in front of them. I speak only to try to clarify what may be obscure in the debate. If I get it wrong, perhaps I may be forgiven because I do not claim to have great expertise in this area.
As I understand it, the position may be summarised in this way. The Law Commission, in an extremely lucid and convincing report on offences against public order, made proposals that Parliament enacted in the Public Order Act 1986. The Law Commission was very careful, as was Parliament, not to include over-broad offences against public order, essentially on civil libertarian grounds. As my noble friend Lord Wigoder indicated, Section 5 of the existing Act penalises harassment, alarm or distress, whether intentional or otherwise, and makes it a summary offence. What the new clause seeks to do is to create the further offence against public order of intentional harassment and to make it punishable by imprisonment as an indictable offence. That is a thoroughly worthwhile thing to do. But what it does not seek to do is to amend the different parts of the Public Order Act—Sections 17 and 18— dealing with incitement to racial hatred.
Therefore, with great respect to those of your Lordships who criticise this provision for not dealing with the serious social evil of incitement to racial hatred, it seems to me that the provision which we are now debating has nothing directly to do with that. That is why it is not tied to incitement to racial hatred or racial harassment. We shall come to that when we discuss the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, which are concerned with that separate area of the Public Order Act.
Therefore, for the reasons that were given by my noble friend Lord Wigoder, it seems to me that it is worth while building on Section 5, leaving that provision in place and creating this new offence, which does not threaten civil liberties in any sense because it rightly requires proof of guilty intent. It leaves entirely open the question that we shall come to later of what, if anything, to do about the separate social evil of incitement to racial hatred. I hope that what I have said clarifies rather than obscures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure that it does. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right in saying that this new clause has nothing to do with the racial hatred section of the Public Order Act 1986. I am not sure whether the Minister claimed in his speech—he certainly made this claim in a letter that he wrote to both me and the noble Lord—that
clause fulfils a commitment which was given by the Government during Report stage … in the Commons. We said that we would endeavour to bring forward a provision to deal more effectively with racial harassment, particularly where it is persistent".
The provisions certainly do not do that, but it was claimed that that was the purpose of the clause.
Earl Ferrers: I shall come to that in a few minutes because I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is wrong. The clause deals with racial harassment. That is its purpose. However, it goes further than racial harassment. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Renfrew approved of the amendment and, indeed, that it has the approval of the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Lester. That is encouraging because we do not always have their approval. I am grateful for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that nothing is more boring for non-lawyers than listening to lawyers talking to lawyers about the law. I would say that nothing is more difficult than for non-lawyers to talk to lawyers about the law and sometimes to try to persuade them that they are not right. Fortunately, I shall not have to do that to the noble Lord this evening.
I make no bones about it. This is a very difficult area in which to try to legislate. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he hoped that no mere arguments over words would stop an amendment to the Bill which would stop racial harassment. But the noble Lord is a perfectionist over words. He uses words and, as a lawyer, he diagnoses the use of words. He will know that the use of words is a very important thing in a statute. That is why we have tried very hard to find words that deal with the problem with which we are trying to deal and which will not automatically or unfortunately catch a whole lot of other cases which ought not to be caught.
My noble friend Lord Lucas said that he had reservations. If I may say so, I thought that he made a contradiction in terms. According to my noble friend, the police say that it would be hard to secure convictions under the terms of the amendment. My noble friend then said that the powers are too wide. It does not seem to me that the two go together.
My noble friend referred to the sus laws, as did the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, although he did not use those words. He said that there would be suspicion about a person's conduct and that the new offence that we are proposing involves conduct which is already a criminal offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Where the elements of intent and a victim are present, a higher penalty would be available under the new offence.
A criminal offence can be committed by a person of any race or background. If a member of an ethnic minority commits the new offence, he will be liable to

1875
the same range of penalties as any other person. Nobody comes within the scope of this offence unless they are engaged in,
"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour".
If anyone indulges in such behaviour, they may commit an offence under the present Section 5 or the new clause. That applies equally to all races—and rightly so. It is difficult to get it both ways. Where there is an offence which is created by racial motivation, one runs into difficulties in proving that that was the motivation. It would be far more difficult to use such provisions. By avoiding a need to prove motivation, the offence is much easier to prosecute and the provisions would apply—rightly, in the Government's view—in all circumstances and to all groups. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to suggest that there is anything remotely akin to the sus laws in this provision.
Turning to motivation, I should like to refer to the important point that was made by my noble friend Lady Flather. It is here that I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and others who are lawyers. There are three steps in deciding a case. Let us take the rather extreme example of murder. A person may murder somebody with a knife. You have to prove first that a person has been murdered. You then have to prove intent. One can prove intent by saying that the first man had a knife with him which he then put into the other man, so he must have meant to murder him. It is much more difficult to prove motivation. If a man murders his wife, was the motivation for the murder that he could not stand his wife, that he thought that his wife might be going off with somebody else or that he thought that his wife had put her hands into the till? Proving motivation is very much more difficult than proving intent. That is why we did not go down that route.
My noble friend Lady Flather referred to discrimination cases under the Race Relations Act. Proving discrimination requires a much lower test. An industrial tribunal can infer discrimination. That is very different from proving a racial motivation beyond reasonable doubt in a swifter criminal case.
There is also the important issue of victim support and housing policy where neighbours are involved. If a person is to be gaoled for six months, evidence of a victim is warranted. There are other problems affecting other criminal offences also.
Perhaps I may refer to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. He said that the wording of the amendment is almost the same as the Public Order Act—he is quite right—and he wondered why it was necessary to have both provisions. I can answer that best by means of an example. Under the Public Order Act, if you use threatening, abusive or insulting words or display any such writing or so forth, you can be guilty of an offence. Let us imagine that a group of people is standing outside a pub making offensive racial remarks and a Pakistani walks by and hears those remarks. Those words would be very insulting to him and there would be a case to be answered under Section 5 of the Public Order Act because the person concerned heard the remarks which were being made in an offensive way. That is different from a case in which the same people
1876
who were outside the pub take a walk together, see a group of Pakistanis and deliberately make those offensive remarks with intent to upset and to cause distress. In the first case, there is a penalty of £1,000 for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour. Under the amendment there would be a higher offence of being guilty,
"with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress".
That would carry a penalty of £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. So there is a difference, and the amendment provides a higher test.
Lord Wigoder: I understand what the noble Earl is saying and I am grateful to him for giving way. However, in the first case involving what might be called the lesser offence, it would not be an offence simply to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. That would have to be done within the hearing or sight of a person who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. The distinction between a person deliberately using insulting language knowing that somebody who is present is likely to be offended by it and that person using insulting language with intent to offend the other person is very tenuous, is it not?
Earl Ferrers: I bow to the noble Lord's greater experience. I believe that it is not. In the first instance that I gave, people could be making such insulting remarks, which happen to be heard by the person passing by, who is deeply offended. In the second instance, those people would be deliberately going out to make the offensive remarks in order to have the intention of harassing people. That is what is behind the whole amendment. Where people intend deliberately to cause offence, and perpetual offence, they should be caught. If they are caught they will receive a substantially increased penalty.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that the range of conduct would not be covered by, for instance, playing music outside someone's house, making a din, daubing paint on the outside of houses or distributing pamphlets. My noble friend Lord Lucas also referred to the issue of making a noise. That is difficult to control or to write into law. Plenty of people find it most offensive to have next door to their house or flat someone who is playing loud music. It is deeply offensive and it can be irritating. However, it is quite difficult to say that that person should be caught under this clause. We can all see the type of reasons which the noble Lord has in mind for catching such people but it is difficult to write into statute that someone who makes a loud noise or plays loud music for a certain reason ought to be caught.
The same applies to what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, called "making a din". Of course, the distributing of pamphlets could be covered by Part III of the Public Order Act or by the Malicious Communications Act. The noble Lord also referred to the reasonable defence. Of course, the reasonable defence for using abusive language could well be that someone was shouting abuse to someone else in order to alert him that someone was stealing his car.
It is difficult to deal with low-level harassment. The clause provides an effective penalty—for instance, by

1877
covering issues such as name calling, which previously could receive only a low fine. My noble friend Lady Flather and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to the difficulties of being inside a building. This is a public order Bill and it is difficult to make legislation which relates to public order operate inside a building. The building in question is a dwelling—in other words, a house—and it would be difficult to operate public order legislation inside someone's private dwelling—
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Would it be possible to make the clause read, "lawfully inside the dwelling"?
Earl Ferrers: I shall have to think about that. Of course, if one is in a building unlawfully, that in itself is an offence. My noble friend Lady Flather asked what happens if someone barges past you and into your house and then makes nasty and offensive remarks. Of course, he could be caught for assault for pushing into the person and gaining entry into the house—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be helpful to recall that when we were dealing with matters of trespass in earlier parts of the Bill we were able to define those on land—and presumably the same applies to a dwelling—as being the occupiers or those there at the invitation of the occupiers. Perhaps that would meet the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Earl Ferrers: I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech. This is a difficult area in which to legislate. We are endeavouring to legislate for the people who cause harassment, alarm or distress and who do it with intent and on more than one occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that this provision does not address racial harassment. It does and it goes further than racial harassment because it also refers to other forms of harassment. Perhaps I may address my answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. We believe that racial harassment is awful, despicable and disgraceful. But so are other forms of harassment. I remember reading in the newspaper only the other day that some people had thrown stones at an elderly woman in a wheelchair. That is a most appalling form of harassment and it might be done because the person is in a wheelchair. That kind of harassment, done continuously and with intent to cause unhappiness, would be caught by this amendment.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that this amendment will improve the Bill, as have the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Lester.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Antarctic Bill
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
It has been a privilege for me to sponsor the Antarctic Bill. Its enactment will contribute materially to the preservation of the antarctic environment both now and for future generations. That this is a matter of widespread anxiety has been illustrated by all-party support both in this House and in another place.
The object of the Bill is to make the changes to United Kingdom law which are needed so that the United Kingdom can ratify the 1991 Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty. The speedy passage of this Bill will ensure that. I hope that the progress that we have made in this House will encourage other treaty parties to introduce similar domestic legislation and to complete their own ratification procedures as fast as possible so that the protocol can enter into force. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. First, I should like to place on record our pleasure at the imminent passing into law of this Bill and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Montgomery on the work that he has done in sponsoring it.
I would like briefly to take the opportunity to confirm certain ministerial assurances contained in correspondence from my noble friend Lady Chalker addressing anxieties raised on Second Reading. Copies of the full correspondence have been placed in the Library. But it would be helpful, I believe, if those assurances were to be given to the House.
The first point relates to the fact that certain of the permits introduced by the Bill do not have the transparency provided for them by the Antarctic Treaty system in the same way as wildlife or protected area permits. The reason for this is that in this respect the Bill has gone beyond the provisions set out in the protocol by creating a permit system to ensure rigorous enforcement. With regard to Clauses 3 to 6, I can give the House an assurance that the regulations, which will be made under Clause 14, will provide that the fact that an application for a permit under any of those clauses has been made will have to be notified expeditiously in the London Gazette. The regulations will also require the applicant to make details of the application available on request.
I can also assure the House that, when the Secretary of State is considering applications for permits, he will, in addition to complying with the requirements of Clause 15, take into account any representations which he may receive from any quarter, whether governmental or non-governmental. It will, of course, be for the Secretary of State to determine, in the light of all the circumstances, what weight to give to such representations.
The second point relates to informing third parties of the reasons why a permit has been refused. I believe that this would be wholly inappropriate. It could give rise to

1879
a situation where information, even of a defamatory nature, would be required to be given to a third party. That cannot be right. I can, however, assure the House that the Secretary of State will provide in the regulations that the applicant must be given the reasons for refusal of his permit application. It would then be for the applicant to decide whether he wished the reasons for refusal of his permit application. It would then be for the applicant to decide whether he wished the reasons to be given to others or aired publicly.
The third point relates to the public availability of initial environmental evaluations. The protocol requires that a list of such evaluations must be prepared annually, circulated to the Committee for Environmental Protection (which is to be established under the protocol) and to the other treaty parties, and be made public. The Government will ensure that that is done. Article 6(2) of Annex I to the protocol also requires that such an evaluation must be made available on request. We shall ensure that that too is done.
I hope that with those assurances, this Bill will be given the blessing of the House.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, the issues which my noble friend has mentioned were raised at an earlier stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. They cannot be here this evening but I discussed those matters with them yesterday and I know that they will be grateful for the assurances which the Minister has given this evening.
For my part, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said at all stages. I am grateful too for the support that the Bill has received in all parts of the House. I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Housing Management) Order 1994
7.41 p.m.
Viscount St Davids Viscount St Davids rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Housing Management) Order 1994. It will extend compulsory competitive tendering, or CCT for short, to the management of local authority housing. Part I of the Local Government Act 1988 contains provisions about the compulsory competitive tendering of local authority work. Section 2(2) (a) to (g) lists the activities to which the Act currently applies. This order will extend that list to include the new activity of housing management.
It may be helpful if I remind the House what CCT is and set our proposal to extend CCT to council housing management in the broader context of developments
1880
with CCT. CCT is about subjecting local authority services to the test of competition. CCT was first applied to construction, maintenance and highways work by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. CCT was extended to other blue-collar services, such as refuse collection and grounds maintenance, through the Local Government Act 1988. The value of local authority work already subject to CCT in England and Wales is about £6 billion a year. Therefore, there is nothing new about CCT. Local authorities already have a wealth of experience in testing services in competition with the private sector.
The decision to seek to extend CCT to council housing management has its origins in the Citizen's Charter, as a central element of a raft of measures designed to improve the quality of services for local authority tenants, to raise standards and to make services more responsive to the needs of the user. It also reflects our desire to extend the benefits of competition to the housing management sector. In other sectors the experience of CCT is that competition leads to improvements in the quality of services and value for money.
Local authorities currently spend around £1.25 billion per annum managing the homes for which they are responsible. The standard of housing management has undoubtedly improved over recent years. Some authorities do provide their tenants with high quality services, but even they continue to look for further improvements. We want all tenants to enjoy the highest quality services and for all authorities to reach the standard of the very best.
That requires a change of approach, a new way of doing things. Competition will stimulate that change —a change to better and more responsive services to tenants, better standards of housing management and better value for money. Councils need to stand back and look not only at the services they provide but also at the way in which they provide them. They need to look critically at existing practices and ask whether they deliver services in the most efficient and effective way. Old practices may need to be shaken up and standards of service improved, with a greater focus on what the customer wants.
Competition will also bring fresh insights and expertise into the business of housing management. It will bring benefits even for the most efficient local authorities—for all local authorities will be encouraged to think further about the standard of service they provide, whether they have the best form of organisation to deliver services and whether estates are being run in the most effective way. Therefore, we have three basic objectives in extending CCT to housing management: to improve services to tenants; to improve standards of management; and to improve value for money.
I now turn to the involvement of tenants. Tenants have a crucial role to play in the process. Last year the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act gave tenants enhanced consultation rights. It ensured that tenants will have a real say in setting the standards of housing management to be required and in seeing that those standards are maintained through monitoring contractors' performance. In the past many

1881
tenants have been excluded from the management of their homes, powerless to influence the way things which affected their daily lives were done.
Over and above the framework for consultation set out in the statute, we also want to see local authorities involving their tenants in the selection of contractors and in the evaluation of tenders. In March the Department of the Environment issued guidance to local authorities setting out the basic principles for tenant involvement in the process of housing management. We have also prepared a leaflet for tenants outlining the rights they have to be consulted and how the process of CCT will affect them. It is important that tenants do not misunderstand the purpose of extending CCT to housing management and are fully involved in it. As consumers of the service, they have a vital contribution to make to the success of CCT in their local area.
We recognise that housing management is a very important local service, serving nearly 4 million tenants and their families. We also recognise the sensitive nature of the service and the need to safeguard local accountability and the interests of tenants. We do not, therefore, propose that local authorities' strategic, policy-making and enabling roles should be subject to CCT. The local authority will remain the landlord. It will set the housing management policy framework and define, together with its tenants, the services to be provided and the standards to be achieved. The authority will also continue to be responsible for deciding who shall be allocated one of its homes, setting rents and so on. In order to guarantee that we have adopted a different approach to the defined activity for housing management from that applied to other services. We have deliberately sought to exclude from the defined activity those functions which we do not consider should be subject to CCT. That makes the Government's view very clear and safeguards the roles of members and the interests of tenants.
I assure your Lordships that CCT is not about privatisation of the housing stock; nor is it the compulsory contracting out of local authority housing management. CCT simply requires that, where local authorities want to provide housing management services using their own staff, they have first to demonstrate that those staff provide the best value for money.
In developing the arrangements for housing management CCT the Government have worked closely with the local authority associations. We have carried out four substantial rounds of consultation on various aspects of our proposals. We have had hundreds of responses from local authorities, tenants and the private sector. We have considered them all carefully. In addition, eight English local authorities have been piloting the implementation of housing management. The emerging results of their work have also informed our deliberations. All have therefore played a constructive part in the development of our proposals, even those who may not agree with the principle of CCT. The result of that co-operation is that the formal consultation on the draft of the order which we have before the House this evening showed general agreement with the approach which we have adopted.
I turn now to the order. In addition to identifying the functions which an authority must subject to competitive tendering, the order also specifies the properties to which housing management will apply and gives authorities some extra flexibility by enabling them to ignore, for the purposes of CCT, the work of employees who spend only a small amount of time engaged in defined activities.
CCT for housing management will be implemented from 1st April 1996 in England, 1st October 1997 in Wales and 1st April 1998 in Scotland. The timetable will be modified for some authorities in England and Wales to provide for either a phased introduction of CCT, a later start date, or both, to reflect the size and varying states of readiness of individual authorities.
The timetabling arrangements will be implemented through separate regulations under Section 6(3) of the 1988 Act and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. They will be made once the order we are considering this evening is approved and comes into force. The same applies to a second order which will set a de minimis threshold for housing management. That will have the effect of exempting small housing authorities from CCT.
In conclusion, extending CCT to housing management will bring benefits to local authorities and their tenants alike. The extension of CCT to housing management will lead to better, more responsive services for tenants, higher standards of housing management and better value for money for all. I hope that your Lordships will support the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount St. Davids.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for moving the Motion and introducing the order. For our part, we do not propose to oppose the order. Nevertheless, as the noble Viscount will know, we are opposed in principle to CCT —that is, not to voluntary competitive tendering, but to compulsory competitive tendering. We are in favour of tendering if triggered by tenants but not of compulsory competitive tendering and especially not in housing management.
Housing managers play an overall role in looking after the well-being of an estate. It is very important to ensure that when management of an estate spills over into other aspects, such as the removal of litter or the prevention of crime, there should be one person who is responsible. As I understand the order, CCT will not refer to any of the other aspects of housing management. If housing areas are to be put out to competitive tendering, I do not quite understand how the tender specifications will be drawn up to cover the wider involvement about which I have been talking.
Moreover, I find it odd that the order does not specify how tendering will operate, apart from the job note saying, "Replace the front door". If the job note says, "Replace the frame of the front door", the frame can be replaced five times. However, if the man carrying out the repair finds that the door is warped, he cannot replace it until someone else has looked at the problem.

1883
As I understand the order, that would then involve another tendering process. Perhaps the noble Viscount can help me on that aspect of the matter.
I have four questions for the noble Viscount apart from the points that I have already raised. First, are the Government really satisfied that this programme is in the best interests of the management of housing in local authorities? To that end have they employed consultants to aid the implementation of housing management CCT? If so, how much did it cost and what was the amount of public money involved?
Secondly, are the Government confident that local authorities have enough time to prepare for this rather radical shift to CCT in housing management? Thirdly, can the noble Viscount assure us that the introduction of housing management CCT will not undermine the important improvements in the quality of the housing service which many authorities have already made; for example, a comprehensive housing service? Fourthly, what are the costs of implementing housing manage-ment CCT? Will they outweigh the benefits for many authorities? Have the Government made such a calculation and, if so, can the noble Viscount kindly give us the results?
In conclusion, I can say that we will not oppose the order; indeed, it is not the custom in this House to do so. However, it does seem a somewhat odd arrangement. I am sorry that the noble Viscount introduced the Citizen's Charter in justification of the programme. I thought that that was the year before last's joke. Last year's was "Back to Basics". The real problem is that, yet again, the Government are trying to ensure that local authorities are downgraded in terms of their responsibilities. That is a policy which we on these Benches will oppose.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Viscount recognises the sensitivity of housing services; at least that is what he said. However, I wonder whether the Government really understand. Indeed, not only policy and strategy are sensitive; so also is the implementation of the service. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned certain matters such as the relationship with other parts of local authority services. One example that struck me was how housing management can relate to good social services if the two are separated as, indeed, they will be. Many local authorities are moving towards combining approaches to housing and social services and not trying to send them in different directions. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can give me the Government's view as to whether they are satisfied that it will be a good thing if such links are broken.
As regards the timing, I was concerned to see that in the Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments discussion on the order, the Minister, Sir George Young, when commenting on the pilot studies, explained, as we have heard tonight, that such studies had been carried out and that they would provide useful information for local authorities —and, undoubtedly they will. However, he did not appear to take on board the notion that there might be the opportunity to learn from the pilot studies before the programme goes forward.
1884
Surely, the point of pilot studies is that when they are carried out everyone concerned has an opportunity to consider them.
The Government may be satisfied with the results of the pilot studies, but they have not yet had the opportunity to share that satisfaction—or, indeed, dissatisfaction—with others who are concerned. I hope that the noble Viscount can tell me tonight what is in the Government's mind as regards pushing the programme forward without local authorities and tenants, and also those in the commercial sector, who may be putting in tenders bidding to carry out such services, having had the opportunity to consider the results of the pilot studies.
Thirdly, I turn to the detail that is to be included. I appreciate that consultation has led to a number of items being excluded and that the list has changed. Of course, we welcome—it would be churlish not to do so—the fact that the Government have listened to the comments of local authorities and local authority associations. However, from reading the list in the order, it seems to me that it highlights the problems that will arise in the specifications to be written by local authorities.
It would be consoling if the noble Viscount could at least recognise the problems that local authorities encounter in writing their specifications, and the hoops they have to go through, particularly those good local authorities which see the writing of the specifications not as an internal matter but as something in which tenants must be involved. My own local authority—I am sure it is the case with many others —has put, and continues to put, huge effort and time into ensuring that the specifications have the imprint of the ownership of the tenants who will be affected by them.
I should mention a further matter which, I suppose, comes back to my first point of the inter-relationship with other services. There is a reference in the list of services to collecting rent and service charges—that is obvious—but then there is a reference, at paragraph (c) on page 2 of the order, to negotiating an agreement for the payment of arrears. That seems to me a sensitive issue. Although one wants to see collection organised in a sensible and effective way, negotiating payment may involve all sorts of other issues such as knowledge of a tenant's circumstances. An ability to negotiate will not obviously be held by those who provide services such as mending window frames or dealing with the condition of common parts.
At paragraph (n) on page 2 of the order there is reference to the resolution of disputes between occupants. Again, that seems to me a sensitive matter which probably requires skills on the part of those seeking to resolve disputes which will be irregularly required but very necessary. The requirement of such skills will make it difficult for the specification by itself to ensure the quality of the overall provision of the service.
I understand the difficulty of listing the items but this whole matter seems to come back to the issue that local authorities should be allowed to decide for themselves what services are put out to tender. Different authorities may have different views as to whether all or merely some of the items on the list should be included. They

1885
know their own areas and their own problems. I say that the local authority should decide but that that decision must follow the wishes of its own tenants. The noble Viscount says that one must be responsive to the needs of the user. I fear that this order may not turn out to be responsive to the needs of the user.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as regards the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, relating to the door, the package for which a contractor will tender, or of course for which the local authority's own housing department may tender, will be an overall package. I do not envisage that there will be a little tender for the door and another little tender for the door frame. The contractor will know the state of the housing stock and will put in an overall bid for the management of the housing stock in much the same way as occurs on any of the large private housing estates managed by large estate management companies. I do not see that that is a particular problem.
The Government have used consultants to aid the implementation of compulsory competitive tendering. As at 1 st June 1994 the Department of the Environment has paid £266,000 to consultants and we expect the full bill to be around £300,000. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, questioned the timetable. Local authorities have had plenty of notice of the Government's intention to extend CCT to housing management. In June 1992 the Department of the Environment published its first consultation paper entitled Competing for Quality in Housing, which set out the Government's proposals. In December of that year the Government announced their intention to implement housing management CCT from 1st April 1996.
The Government have considered the timetable arrangements carefully and in answer to a further question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I should say that of course we already have considerable information from the pilot schemes. We have weighed carefully the relevant factors which include authorities' size, preparedness for CCT, and the need to ensure that tenants enjoy the benefits of housing management CCT as soon as possible. Not all authorities have to implement CCT from 1st April 1996 however. Over a third of the authorities in England will have until 1st April 1997 to introduce housing management CCT. Larger authorities—those with more than 15,000 houses —will have two or three years to complete the process. Authorities in Wales and Scotland will have longer to prepare.
Where an authority is subject to restructuring as a result of the local government review, it will have extra time to prepare for housing management CCT. Most authorities will have 18 months from the date that the new authority takes over responsibilities. We announced, however, on 18th May that certain authorities which would not be able to complete their arrangements within 18 months would receive an extra six months, giving them two years from the date of re-organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked whether the CCT programme would undermine the important improvements in the quality of housing
1886
service which many authorities have already met. I can give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks. The regulatory framework for CCT will permit local authorities to maintain a comprehensive housing service by packaging a range of services into one contract if they wish to do so. In the end, it is up to individual authorities to adopt an approach which best meets their service delivery objectives in the light of consultation with their tenants.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, also asked whether the costs of implementing CCT would outweigh any of the benefits for many authorities. I agree that there is a point where the implementation costs outweigh the benefits. That is why we propose, as I mentioned, a de minimis exemption for small authorities to exempt them from the CCT process. Where the estimated annual gross cost of carrying out a housing management defined activity is below £500,000 the authority will be exempt from housing management CCT. On the basis of the current local authority structure, we estimate that about 10 per cent. of the local authorities in England will benefit from this concession; that is, about 35 to 40 small authorities will be exempt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the integration of social services into the CCT programme for housing management. Many, many local authorities, in their wish to gain efficiency, are already able to dedicate the cost and the type of services which are already covered by a housing department, as it were, and are a discrete occupation for a local authority. The provision of the social services element of it is separate. As we see it, there is no reason why these matters should not remain separate. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, could he respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about paragraph (c) of the order which states:
"collecting local authority housing rent and service charges, and service charge loan payments arising from such service charges, keeping a suitable record of the sums collected, collecting any arrears, negotiating an agreement for the payment of any arrears, and monitoring compliance with such an agreement".
To follow the question put by the noble Baroness, are the Government seriously suggesting that that function should be put out to competitive tendering to the private sector? I have to say to the noble Viscount that if that is really what the Government intend it would be very odd for any council tenant to be faced by a private individual working for Group 4 or any other organisation to be told, "You are in arrears by this much and if you don't pay up straightaway the lads will come round tomorrow morning and will do the necessary". If that is what the Government are suggesting let them say so. However, the noble Viscount has not responded to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sorry that I overlooked the question raised by the noble Baroness. I shall now do my best to answer her. Of course we recognise that rent arrears and tenant disputes are very sensitive areas indeed. We feel that it is for local authorities to satisfy themselves that potential

1887
contractors will have the capability to take a proper and sensitive approach to such matters as rent arrears and their collection.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may pursue that issue and then raise another one.
If in putting out its contract to tender and considering tenders a local authority is dissatisfied with the approach that will be taken to such matters by potential contractors, is the local authority in a position to disregard the fact that the costs may be somewhat lower in the tender of a contractor about which it has doubts regarding those matters? Can the local authority give more weight to its concern as to whether the contractors will deal appropriately with matters such as tenant disputes and the collection of arrears? I hope that I have made my question clear to the noble Viscount.
Secondly, will the noble Viscount return to the question of the timetable? He explained that the timetable will be different for individual local authorities. That is no consolation to those which are in the first tranche and which will have to be prepared earlier than others. Can he answer the direct question as to why the Government appear unwilling to allow all local authorities the opportunity to consider the results of the pilot study before going ahead with the programme to the predetermined timetable?
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the sensitive matter of rent arrears. It is for the council itself to examine the methods by which contractors will carry out their obligations and to ensure that any contractor is responsible and capable of carrying out its obligations in the manner which the council deems to be the proper manner for them to be carried out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene yet again. Can the noble Viscount specify exactly how the council will put in the tender document, in words of one or two syllables, what is the capability or the right way of carrying out these very difficult functions?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, councils already carry out these activities. They know what they are doing. As I said, we have excluded from the CCT process the social aspect—the allocation of the properties and the priorities which are set for a particular type of tenant. That is done by the local authority and will continue to be the case. The management function is the maintenance of the buildings and the collection of rents. The council already knows, within its housing department, the functions which it carries out. When it issues its tender it will be putting out to tender all those non-social aspects. The council knows what it does, and can also put in its own tender on that basis. I do not see that there is a problem.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have not explained myself to the noble Viscount. There are no non-social aspects to the collection of rent arrears. This is a social problem, for all sorts of different reasons,
1888
which the noble Baroness, with all her experience, and I could detail to the noble Viscount if he wants. There is no non-social aspect.
I am asking the noble Viscount how on earth, knowing what it knows about rent arrears, a local authority can construct a document—which the noble Viscount assures us will be put out to tender in the most sensitive manner—which will be satisfactory and will allow a competitive bid against the local authority itself. I simply cannot understand it.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not see the noble Lord's problem. The council already carries out those functions. It knows what it does. It is putting those functions into a tender. I am sorry if I have not understood the noble Lord. I do not wish to be insensitive in this matter, but I understand that the council knows the package which it is obliged to put into the CCT tender. Those are broadly the functions which it already carries out within its housing department.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, while we are on this subject, I am not sure whether I missed this, but I hope that the noble Viscount can assist me and say how the local authority is to assess quality in these very different areas. Can it give greater weight to the non-mechanical matters as against tasks such as mending windows?
Perhaps I may give one additional example which may help to set the matter in context. There is a reference in paragraph (n) to the contractor resolving disputes between occupants. Can the noble Viscount explain how that can be dealt with separately from the allocation of properties, given that the resolution of disputes often involves people moving house?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised in relation to the timetable. I understand that the lessons of the pilot programme are now available to local authorities. They have this information before them in order to help them meet the timetable.
To return to the sensitive issue of rent arrears and disputes, councils themselves will set the standards and policies. Presumably the majority of local authorities are efficient in these matters. They will set the standards and policies which they are already following. Those may be enhanced, because the CCT operation involves consultation with tenants. Tenants will have an input. They may improve the standards. They may say, "No, we want you to do a little more". But these are the standards which will be specified in the contract which is put out to a possible tenderer. It is for the contractor to respond, indicating that he is able to follow those instructions.
I do not see that I can take the matter any further. What we envisage meets the current practice of local authorities, but if a contractor takes on those duties the contractor will continue the process. If the local authority is the best tenderer it will continue to carry on the process.
Disputes are obviously a sensitive area. The allocation of houses remains in the domain of the local

1889
authority. Once the flat or property is allocated, it is then in the housing stock, which comes under the process of the CCT contract.
Many managers of large private estates are involved in disputes in which the management acts as agent between the tenant and the owning landlord. There is much experience in that area. It is not only local authority housing estates which are subject to the problems. The problems already exist in many areas of housing management in the private sector. I do not believe that housing disputes are a unique experience in the public sector.
I wish that I could be more helpful. I seek to be as helpful as I can.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sorry to be tedious. If the noble Viscount wishes to write to me in response to this direct question, I shall understand that that may be a better way to deal with the matter. If a tender is made for, say, £500,000 but the local authority believes that the tender for £600,000 has a better, more sympathetic approach to what I have described as the non-mechanical aspects of housing management, is the local authority able to accept the higher tender?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness on that point. I remind her that the tenants play a major part in the selection of contractors. If a management contract which exists at present with a housing authority were moved to a contractor in the private sector, obviously the tenants would set some of the frontiers of the contract—the provision of services and those sensitive issues in which they would wish to be involved. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.35 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 137 [Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 112, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) In section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 for the words "racial hatred" there shall be substituted the word "hatred".").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it will be convenient for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 at the same time as moving Amendment No. 157. They have all been grouped together and it seems to me that that would be a convenient course. I beg to move Amendment No. 157, which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. In one sense, all three amendments are related but in another sense they can be looked at as separate topics.
Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 essentially seek to apply to the law of the mainland of England, Wales and Scotland the position which obtains at the moment in Northern Ireland. They do that by extending under
1890
Sections 17 and 18 of our Public Order Act 1986 the offence of incitement to racial hatred to include incitement to religious hatred as well.
In Northern Ireland, the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 makes it an offence to stir up hatred or arouse fear and defines the terms "hatred" and "fear" by reference to religious beliefs as well as race. On the mainland, the Public Order Act 1986 builds on the Race Relations Act 1976, creating the offence of incitement to racial hatred. That means that in England, Wales and Scotland the only protection that minority groups such as adherents of the Jewish faith, Sikhs, Moslems or Hindus have against serious public order offences is if they are perceived as racial groups rather than as religious groups.
However, with the resurgence of anti-Semitism and in the light of the settlement in this country of a large Moslem population and other religious minorities, the Committee may think that it is particularly important that the law should signal Parliament's recognition of groups who define themselves through their religious beliefs and that the law should offer them some measure of effective protection against words or conduct that deliberately stir up hatred against them because of their beliefs.
I should in a sense declare an interest, because I am a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, which published in January 1994 a report of a distinguished commission which was chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and which included the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, among its members. The report called for the creation of a law on incitement to religious hatred in mainland Britain, as there is in Northern Ireland. The report (I was not a member of the commission) argues that a move of this kind seems to be implied by Article 20 paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which this country is a signatory, which provides that,
"Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".
This would give effect in our domestic law to that international obligation, which is at the moment fulfilled only on the other side of the Irish Sea In Northern Ireland.
In the same way, in its report on blasphemy, to which I shall come briefly in a moment when I speak to another amendment, the Law Commission in 1985 made the point that, if it were thought necessary to replace the existing common law Offence of blasphemy with some other offence, then the candidate that the commission suggested would be precisely what is contemplated by this amendment; namely, to widen the offence of incitement to racial hatred to cover religion as well.
I suggest that Parliament should not waste this opportunity to recognise and protect communities whose reference point is their religious belief.
The first and second amendments to Clause 137 have therefore been adopted, as I say, from Section 8 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. They have the effect of criminalising acts intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to their religious belief. The

1891
offence would be committed by the use of words or behaviour or the display of written material, by publishing or distributing written material, by public performances of a play, by distributing, showing or playing a recording or by broadcasting a programme. Furthermore, unlike alternatives such as the offence of group defamation, which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, will advance later, this amendment, which focuses on incitement to hatred akin to violence, cannot legitimately, it seems to me, be said in any way to threaten the right to free expression.
One other benefit of these amendments is that they will ensure common standards in this area throughout the United Kingdom. It is hard to see why in Northern Ireland racial and religious incitement should be covered while it is not covered in this part of the kingdom.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 159, on the subject of blasphemy, which I am moving. Its purpose is to give effect to the careful, cogent and convincing recommendations made by a majority of the Law Commission chaired by Mr. Justice Peter Gibson, as he then was, in its report published nine years ago in June 1985. That report was made after extensive consultations on the working paper which it had published in April 1981. I am convinced that there is a pressing need for the removal of this antique, outmoded and unnecessary common law crime of blasphemy.
The very existence of a blasphemy law which protects only the tenets of the Church of England is, I suggest, an unnecessary source of grievance among members of the Moslem community in particular, who regard it as discriminatory. It is unnecessary because the Church of England, as the established Church, does not require the protection of a special criminal offence against those who choose to vilify or ridicule its tenets. To contend otherwise would suggest a surprising lack of confidence about the strength of the Church in this country. The Church has not needed to invoke blasphemy law in modern times. It would surely be too defensive to suppose that its abolition could possibly create any threat to the continuing strength and great vigour of the established Church of England.
I also believe that any extension of blasphemy law to protect other religions would be a source of divisiveness and intolerance as between the adherents of different religions, and would menace freedom of expression. This amendment gives an opportunity to Parliament to give a lead on this matter. I recognise that it can happen only if there is support from all parts of the Committee. I also recognise that the issue is sensitive and needs to be handled with courage, sensitivity and care. It should not be rushed, but neither should it be indefinitely deferred.
By way of background I should remind the Committee of what constitutes the offence of blasphemy. At common law, indecent descriptions applied to sacred subjects may amount to the crime of blasphemy. The offence relates to outrageous comments about God, holy personages, or articles of the Anglican faith. It is constituted by vilification, ridicule or indecency.
Between 1883 and 1922, there were only five prosecutions for blasphemy. Since 1922, there has been only one prosecution for blasphemy: the controversial case of Whitehouse v. Lemon, where Gay News published a poem about a homosexual's conversion to Christianity which metaphorically attributed hom-osexual acts to Jesus Christ. The jury convicted by a majority, and the House of Lords confirmed, by a majority of 3 to 2, the trial judge's ruling that the publisher's intentions were irrelevant, and that there was no need for the prosecution to prove any risk of a breach of the peace. Whitehouse v. Lemon was a private prosecution brought without official support. Its wisdom was, as we later read, much doubted by many distinguished Anglicans.
In 1990, because of the outrage felt among the Moslem community at the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, an attempt was unsuccessfully made to persuade the Divisional Court to rule that the offence of blasphemy protects not only the Anglican faith but also Islam. I declare an interest since I defended the publishers, Viking-Penguin in that case—
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? He said "the Anglican faith". Did he mean that, or did he mean the Christian faith?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: In terms of blasphemy, I meant the Church of England and its tenets, as I explained.
The Satanic Verses case highlighted the sense of unfairness felt by many Moslems that the criminal law gives no protection to their religion.
In its report on the law of blasphemy in 1985, the Law Commission recognised three fundamental defects in the law. The first was that its ambit is so wide that it is impossible to predict in advance whether a particular publication would constitute an offence; the second was that the sincerity of the publisher is irrelevant; and the third that blasphemy protects only Anglican beliefs (the tenets of the established Church), whereas the criminal law is not an appropriate vehicle for upholding sectional religious tenets.
The Law Commission rejected the argument that abolition would lead to the publication of a flood of blasphemous material which would be without any substantive legal control or sanction. They found this argument dubious in itself and entirely speculative as to the likely result of abolition. They found that it was likely that abolition in present circumstances would have no greater effect than the abolition or repeal of other offences which have outlived their usefulness.
The Law Commission also rejected the argument that society might see Parliament's abolition of the common law offence without replacement as in some sense the bestowing by Parliament of its approval on conduct currently penalised by the criminal law. Such an inference, it believes, would be unwarranted. Abolition would be seen, quite properly, as disapproval of an unsatisfactory and archaic offence. It might even be seen as removal of the protection by means of the

1893
criminal law of a particular religion, a particular form of protection which many in modern society, where people profess a variety of faiths or no faith at all, would regard as unnecessarily discriminatory. The Law Commission lucidly explained why the fact that material might be published which would be offensive—even acutely offensive—to some, and yet not be subject to the criminal law, is not a sufficient argument for constraints upon its publication or availability in our modern, open, democratic and plural society, with its respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech and equal treatment without discrimination.
Although some have suggested that the law should be extended to protect all religions, the Law Commission despaired of any definition that could draw workable distinctions between Baptists, Scientologists, Rastafarians, Anglicans and Moonies. The Law Commission concluded that a reformed law of blasphemy would serve no purpose necessary to a modern society. The claims of public order, morality and the rights of individuals provide insufficient justification.
As regards the protection of public order, with which this part of the Bill is primarily concerned, the Law Commission regarded the existing statutory offences protecting public order as sufficient and pointed out that, if there were a gap in the law as regards incitement to religious, as distinct from racial, hatred, it could be dealt with, if necessary, by appropriate specific amending legislation. That gap has now to some extent been narrowed by the Committee's acceptance of Amendment No. 154R earlier in the debate, because the new offence of harassment will apply to harassment on religious as well as other grounds.
The Law Commission's conclusion is reinforced by the absence of prosecutions for blasphemy in England between 1922 and 1977; by the withering away of the crime in Scotland, where there are no recorded cases since the 1840s and where it is doubtful that the offence any longer exists at all; and by the demise of prosecutions in Northern Ireland, despite the tragic sectarianism there. The scope of the offence in Wales is also uncertain because of the disestablishment of the Welsh Church in 1920. For my part, I agree with the authors of a leading media law textbook, Robertson and Nicol, that a criminal law that holds a publisher strictly liable for an artistic work liable to shock the Christian on the Clapham omnibus is inappropriate to an age in which the creeds of passengers to Clapham are many and various.
The Rushdie affair demonstrated the absurdity of blasphemy law either as a protection for Christianity or, in an extended version, as a protection for all religious susceptibilities. In that case the Divisional Court apparently favoured the abolition and certainly not the extension of blasphemy law to other religions.
If the offence were to be extended—as some people, especially some Moslem leaders or spokesmen, have suggested —to cover attacks on religious doctrines, tenets, commandments or practices other than Christianity, the existence of an extended law of blasphemy would encourage intolerance, divisiveness
1894
and unreasonable interference with freedom of speech. Fundamentalist Christians, Jews or Moslems could then seek to invoke the offence of blasphemy against each other's religion, doctrines, tenets, commandments or practices—for example, for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, for denying that the Messiah has yet to come, for denying the divine inspiration of the Prophet Mohammed, and so on. An extended law of blasphemy which applied to all religions could be used as a weapon between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland or by fringe religions such as the Church of Scientology. The fact that the offence was committed only in cases of scurrilous attacks would mitigate but not eliminate the resulting intolerance, divisiveness and unreasonable interference with freedom of expression. There are fundamental differences which would be capable of setting one religion against another under an extended law of blasphemy.
For all those reasons—I apologise for having taking
so long to summarise them—I respectfully submit that
the offence should not be extended but should be
abolished. Therefore I commend the amendment to the
Committee.
The Archbishop of York: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for speaking to the three amendments together. It seems to me that they hang together. I was a little fearful lest we should look simply at Amendment No. 158 and not see that Amendment No. 159 might be held to be consequential upon it. We need to look at the whole package.
The Church of England is totally opposed to stirring up hatred against any group, whether religious or not. Hence, one cannot possibly oppose the aims of the amendments which the noble Lord put before us. But, before the Committee considers whether the amendments are right and appropriate, we have to ask some questions. What message will their acceptance convey? Will the new proposal work? Will the proposal to have religious hatred as the key to the law adequately replace the present law, even if we grant that the present law leaves a great deal to be desired, as I think we must?
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.
At the height of the Salman Rushdie affair, Archbishop Runcie, as he then was, and I met for quite a lengthy period with a group of Moslem leaders to discuss what might be done. We explored the possibility of trying the extend the law against blasphemy to other faiths in addition to Christianity. We were conscious of the very difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, outlined. They were difficulties with regard to stirring up religious factional strife and difficulties about the definition of religion.

1895
But, interestingly, there was no enthusiasm among that group for abolishing altogether the law of blasphemy. It was perceived by the Moslems present that, despite its shortcomings, nevertheless it signals a general presumption that blasphemy of any kind in our society is to be deplored. We were sympathetic towards the proposal contained in the noble Lord's amendments about a new offence on the Northern Ireland lines, but we doubted whether it would in fact do the work intended of it. Northern Ireland itself does not provide an encouraging example. According to the reports of the Commission for Racial Equality in 1982, the clause about religious belief has seldom been used in Northern Ireland. I believe that it has never been used successfully. In a country where religious belief is much easier to define—perhaps too easy to define—than in England and where one would expect offences against it to be relatively common, one surely needs to ask why this clause has not been effective in Northern Ireland before we start thinking about extending it to England.
The difficulties referred to in trying to define religious belief have been much discussed. It does not seem to me that one can solve those difficulties by drawing up lists, leaving juries to decide or passing the problem on to the Attorney General, as some have suggested. In that case there would be grave uncertainties in the law, as there are at present.
The answer to my first two questions, therefore, is that the amendment is likely to leave a false impression and arouse false hopes. It will lead to disappointment because it is unlikely to work. Even if it does work in a limited number of cases, I believe that it does not go to the real heart of the problem as seen by religious leaders. That problem lies in the question whether and how in a society those things and beliefs which are held sacred can be protected against outrage. It is not just about hatred; it is about being outraged.
The problem presents itself in different ways in different religions. Let me repeat that the Church of England is entirely sympathetic to the idea that it is not the Church of England belief or Christian belief alone that should be protected. But we must be careful against offering too many temptations to religious groups who would use any law litigiously. The way these matters work now means that the protection afforded to one faith—a faith that is after all the faith of the established Church and a faith adhered to with varying degrees of enthusiasm by between 70 and 80 per cent. of the population—provides a sort of umbrella from which others can benefit; not directly through the law, but through the presumption against blasphemy which the existence of this ancient legislation still retains within our legal system.
If the crime of blasphemy were to be abolished, we should be saying something quite inviting to many of those people who are looking for opportunities. Let me stress that this is not primarily about protecting Christians. In the end it is about protecting the quality of our society from the erosion of values which we observe going on within it. Many of those values are encapsulated in those things we hold sacred. I want
1896
therefore firmly to resist any idea of abolishing laws until we are absolutely certain that we have something much better to put in their place.
The noble Lord referred to the 1985 report of the Law Commission. He described it as a "majority" report, as indeed it was. I wonder how many Members of the Committee know that that commission consisted of five members, two of whom—including the chairman— signed the minority report. It was not therefore striking evidence of firm conclusions. Indeed, the commission divided precisely along those lines as to whether there were sacred things which needed to be protected. Of course we must recognise that in 1985 there was a good deal more optimism about the effects of liberalising legislation. We now have more experience of what vicious publicists can do if they are given the chance.
The minority report of the Law Commission argued centrally that there would be a gap in the law if the present offence were removed. Again, it is not about things which are already covered by obscenity laws or laws about hatred. It is precisely about those peculiarly and specially religious things which are so near the hearts of religious believers and many of those who are perhaps not quite so obviously religious believers. The minority report said,
"Those cases could be so serious that, in our view, to be subjected to outrage of religious feelings in consequence of such activities, solely from the desire to inflict that outrage, would be seen by a substantial number of people as an experience little different in disagreeableness, or in its power to cause unhappiness, from that of being subjected to threatening words which do not result in actual violence. Thus it seems to us that abolition without replacement would leave a significant gap in the protection afforded to society by the criminal law which would not be effectively covered by other provisions.
We do not have a viable alternative at the moment. I believe that it would be unwise to rush into changes. However, I hope that the Government will take up the suggestion of the Commission on Racial Equality made in 1992 that there should be a thorough review of the 1986 Act, particularly as this clause applies in Ireland. I hope that the Government also will consult widely in the process. I am sure that the Churches would be most happy to co-operate in any such review and in any attempt to find a better way forward. But I hope that the Committee will reject this particular way.
9 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 159. By and large I take the line given so well by the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, raises an important subject. Indeed, part of what he proposes has some attractions. I simply wish to say that there is a strong case for retaining the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. First, what are we talking about? The case of Whitehouse v. Lemon in 1978 led to the following definition of blasphemy:
"Any writing about God or Christ or the Christian religion or some sacred subject in words that are so scurrilous or abusive or offensive that, if they are published, they would tend to vilify the Christian religion and would tend to lead to a breach of the peace".
We are not therefore talking about misuse of the Lord's name as a swear word, wretched though that is; neither are we concerned with mere heresy. We are dealing with

1897
something deliberately outrageous, calculated to shock and wound. To Christians in particular, whose religion is essentially a personal relationship between the individual and our Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemy can be especially hurtful.
I have heard three main arguments for abolishing the law on blasphemy. First, it is said to be an anachronism because Britain is no longer a Christian country; secondly, it is stated to be an unnecessary restriction on freedom of speech; and, thirdly, it is said to be one-sided. The Salman Rushdie case showed that only the Christian religion was protected by the law.
My answers to those points are as follows. Britain is a Christian country. The very title of our monarch contains the words, "By the grace of God". Christianity permeates virtually all our institutions and our national heritage. Just as in Islamic countries where the law is based on the Koran, most of our law has its roots in the Bible. What is more, most of our people, if they get themselves into a real jam, would ask God to get them out of it, even if they might blame him for getting them into it in the first place. Retention of the present blasphemy laws is an affirmation of our Christian basis
Although we naturally want to preserve the right of freedom of speech, it is not an absolute right and is already curtailed in respect of, for example, libel, slander and pornography. Indeed there are further restrictions in respect of the latter point in Part VII of the Bill. The fact that in this century there have been less than a handful of prosecutions for blasphemy does not mean that the law is of no value; rather it confirms that the law is accepted as a deterrent of last resort against publication of scurrilous attacks on God and the Christian religion.
To extend the blasphemy law to other religions would be to put God on a par with gods of those religions. It would raise the question: which other religions? It would also be impossible to determine what constitutes blasphemy. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which may be important to Christians, is an outrage to Moslems whose prime article of faith states that God is indivisible. One might well reach a situation where it was impossible to preach the Christian gospel without risking prosecution for blasphemy.
However, it would be unacceptable if religions other than Christianity could be vilified with impunity. The danger of breaches of the peace would increase. I agree with the suggestion made by the most reverend Primate that a study should be made as to whether the laws on public order should be amended to include incitement to religious hatred, rather than the specific form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
This is an urgent matter, but it is also a difficult and delicate one. It needs more study than can be given by your Lordships to a last minute amendment to the Bill. The legislation resulting from such a study would not replace the blasphemy law but would run in tandem with it.
I have heard it stated that God does not need the protection of a blasphemy law. That is not the point. As the North Korean situation reminds us, we live in a dangerous and increasingly unstable world. The human race now has the capacity to destroy most, if not all, life
1898
on this planet. We need the protecting hand of God as never before. Even at Dunkirk and on D-Day the nation turned to God in prayer. The last thing we need to do is to end the vestigial honour paid to Him by destroying the blasphemy law and opening the door to unlimited vilification of His name.
Furthermore, if the honour of the name of God were to be denied even the minimal consideration of the existing law, we would be moving a step nearer to a society where nothing was honoured, nothing respected and nothing held to be of value, except the licence of the individual to conduct himself exactly as he pleased, without regard to the interests and feelings of others. I conclude, firstly, that the common law offences on blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be retained. Secondly, the blasphemy law should not be extended to cover other religions. Thirdly, the laws on public order should be reviewed to determine whether they should be altered to protect all recognisable religious groups from threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour used with intent to outrage members of those groups. It may well be that action will result from the debate but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will not press the amendment to a Division.
Baroness Seear: I have added my name to the amendment. I realise that this is an extremely difficult issue and one on which there will be divided opinion in your Lordships' House. I do not propose to go into the arguments in great detail because they were put extremely fully and extremely well by my noble friend Lord Lester.
However, I should like to make two points. We have today, all around us—and it must be obvious not only in this country but across continental Europe—growing racial feeling, growing bitterness between racial groups and a real danger of a rise of the nastiest kind of nationalism and racial feeling which some of us hoped we had seen the end of 50 years ago. That is a matter of the greatest concern when we are considering the amendments.
Such feeling can be stirred up in the name of religion, and very often is stirred up in the name of religion; and that is used as an excuse rather than a reason for fierce anti-group, anti-racist attacks. Therefore, it is necessary to include action on the grounds of religion along with the other elements which we have legislated against. That is covered in the first amendment.
I want to talk particularly about the second amendment, which deals with blasphemy. We are, whether we like it or not, a multi-faith society Those of us who are practising Christians recognise that we have much to learn from many of the other faiths and that we can only gain from a more tolerant and respectful attitude towards other faiths. Members of those other faiths naturally and understandably resent the fact that the blasphemy laws cover only Christianity.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said that members of other faiths have expressed some support for the blasphemy laws, but it is surely an anachronism that in the country as it now is the laws cover only one faith. Only yesterday I was at a press conference at which strong feelings were put forward by

1899
members of other faiths about the attitude in this country towards their faiths. One way to proceed would have been to attempt to extend the blasphemy laws to other religions. But anyone who has looked at the matter carefully agrees that that would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. One could of course, as a number of noble Lords no doubt would wish to do, retain the blasphemy laws exclusively to Christianity, but we have to take very much on board the sincerity of the strength of feeling and support for other religions. Some of it is fanatically held and some of it would no doubt be much disapproved of by Members of your Lordships' House, but it is a reality. That should be combined with the growing racial feeling in this country. Last year the number of racially motivated attacks was very alarming indeed. We want to do everything we can to diminish rather than to exacerbate those feelings.
I find it extraordinarily difficult to justify maintaining a blasphemy law exclusively for one religion in a country such as this. I very much hope that Members of the Committee will consider the importance of race and the growing exacerbation of racial feeling which is undoubtedly taking place in this country.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: While I recognise the great depth of feeling which this amendment naturally touches upon, I rise to support this raft of amendments. In doing so it pains me to observe that I think there is a very serious error of drafting, which occasions surprise. I should perhaps refer to it first as I think it is an embarrassment for those wishing to support the amendments. The amendment states:
"In section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 for the words 'racial hatred' there shall be substituted the word 'hatred'".
However, if one deletes "racial hatred" in Section 17 and substitutes "hatred", that leaves one with the other sections of the Public Order Act 1986—Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23—where the term "racial hatred" is used with great regularity and with great clarity. Its use there depends on the definition offered in Section 17. This could readily be rectified. For instance, had the amendment read,
"In section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 for the words 'racial hatred" there shall be substituted the words 'racial or sectarian hatred'",
the difficulty could be avoided. It is difficult to read the Public Order Act 1986 and to delete the word "racial" from Section 17 without leaving it floating embarrassingly in the subsequent sections.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to respond. It is purely a drafting point and does not go to the substance of the matter. I have simply copied the formula used in the Northern Ireland order which uses exactly the same approach. I agree with the noble Lord that a consequential amendment would have to be made to the other sections. However, it does make sense if one looks only at Sections 17 and 18 read together. It does not make sense with regard to the other sections. This is purely a technical and drafting point and I am sure that the noble Lord wishes to
1900
address the substance of the matter. If the spirit were accepted I am sure the form could be translated into proper language.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I was coming to the substance but I think it is pertinent when we are talking about amendments that they should be correctly drafted. I support the amendments but it is unfortunate that as drafted they would not work satisfactorily. However, it is my purpose to support the amendments although I should like to see them in correct form, so to speak.
I support the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in relation to the offence of blasphemy. It had always seemed a little anomalous to me that, as the noble Baroness said, in a society of many faiths and many persuasions the law of blasphemy should apply specifically to the Christian religion. Although I was previously aware of the position with regard to blasphemy, my attention was drawn to it in much more pointed form as a consequence of the outrage that I felt at the fatwa pronounced on Salman Rushdie by the clerics located in Iran. It seemed to me to be a most monstrous event. It deeply shocked me. I can well understand that in terms of the faith of those clerics in Iran and, indeed, much more widely, Salman Rushdie's remarks could be regarded as "blasphemous", as those Islamic clerics might define the term. Although I was greatly scandalised by the fatwa I found myself very much embarrassed when discussing the matter calmly with friends and students, some of the Islamic faith, when it was pointed out that had Salman Rushdie made such observations in relation to the Christian faith they might well have been regarded as blasphemous and he might therefore have been committing an offence. Therefore, it was not possible for one to say that the fatwa was outrageous or to say, "What a terrible infringement of the principles of freedom of speech" because those people could say, "Your Christian faith is entirely protected because of the blasphemy provisions".
As I thought about the matter more deeply it became clear to me that it would not be appropriate to extend the provisions of blasphemy to cover other faiths for very much the reasons which have already been put forward. It would lead to all kinds of complications, particularly since the views of one faith are often blasphemous when viewed from the standpoint of another faith. Such an extension of the provisions would lead to an impossible contradiction. It seemed to me, therefore, that the only appropriate measure was to abolish the offence of blasphemy altogether. That case has been argued very effectively.
However, I have been very much impressed by the sincerity with which it has been argued that abolishing the offence of blasphemy would be inappropriate. We live in a nation of many faiths and many cultures. Moreover, we live in a nation in which the minority faiths and minority cultures are at present very much in need of protection and support. That is the first point that I want to make.
My second point is that surely, whatever one's faith, the truth does not need the protection of the law. That is

1901
the most important point. If one is standing up and upholding the truth as one sees it, as the most reverend Primate did, and if it is one's role in life to proclaim a great truth, I really cannot believe that that great truth needs the protection of the law. Surely armed with the breastplate of righteousness, or whatever, one should be able to go forth and argue those principles effectively. If others care to argue against them, even in derogatory language, one should be able to bear it.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Following the noble Lord's interesting observations, is it not the case that the trouble that we are dealing with is that blasphemy, however it is regarded by whatever religion, is often very close to the offence of inciting violence? Something that is blasphemous to one religion or insensitive to another is not necessarily good for society as a whole. Therefore, the case for an overall anti-blasphemy law is very strong, if only in the interests of peace.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: That point might carry some weight were it not, I believe, for the effectiveness of Amendment No. 158, which is part of this raft of amendments. That amendment introduces "religious belief as one of the criteria. It would provide that "racial hatred" or "racial sectarian hatred" would mean hatred against a group of persons defined also on the basis of religious belief. Under Section 18 of the Public Order Act it would remain an offence for somebody to intend to stir up racial or religious hatred in circumstances where racial or religious hatred is likely to be stirred up. I thank my noble friend for his intervention, but it highlights the fact that that point is adequately dealt with in Amendment No. 158.
I have made the points that I wished to make. Not only is the offence of blasphemy, as currently defined, inegalitarian and insensitive to those minorities whose sensitivities so much require our support and attention at the present time but it is unnecessary. When it comes to the stage of stirring up hatred or inciting violence, that is very well covered by the existing law and, in particular, would be well covered by Amendment No. 158. I warmly support these amendments.
Lord Monson: I have an open mind about the blasphemy laws and therefore I shall confine myself to the first two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The trouble with widening a law to include questions of belief in addition to questions of irreversible fact is that, logically, one must include deeply held political beliefs as well as deeply held religious beliefs, in particular as the border line between the two is not always hard and fast.
Moreover, one cannot pick and choose the religions to protect. That is unlike the Moslems who, in theory at any rate, afford special protection to those they term "the people of the Book"—adherents of Islam, Judaism and Christianity—while giving themselves carte blanche to persecute, when they feel inclined, those who fall outside that category; notably, the Baha'is. In other words, the Moonies, the Scientologists and the worshippers of pagan gods at Stonehenge on Midsummer's Day must also be included. I do not
1902
suggest for one moment that these religions, or quasi-religions, should be persecuted—far from it. However, it is worth pointing out that the amendment has wider implications than might seem evident at first sight.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may make a brief intervention in order to try to clear the air a little. This Bill is concerned with the maintenance of public order. The maintenance of the law of blasphemy is not conducive in the climate of our current society to the maintenance of public order. The reasons for that have been given by more than one Member of the Committee, in particular in the careful and sensitive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
The next point that arises is whether we should extend blasphemy to cover all sects of the Christian faith in our country and all other religions. As I understand the law, it covers only the Church of England; the established Church. I also understand that it is common ground between the right reverend Primate, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and all Members of the Committee who have spoken that extension is not on.
We then come to abolition. As regards that issue the right reverend Primate says—as he would say and naturally must say—"No, we can't abolish this. It encapsulates values". But the argument on the other side is: by encapsulating values, does it afford any protection to society? Is that encapsulation relevant to the maintenance of public order? One can only speak personally, but I do not believe that it is. Other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, do not believe that it is in the climate in which we live.
Many noble Lords wish to speak. I wish not only to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the way in which he introduced the matter but I agree with him also that this is not a matter with which we can deal adequately today at this hour. It is so important that it requires further study.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his amendments, especially Amendments Nos. 157 and 158. Hatred of a person on religious grounds is as ugly as hatred on racial grounds. The law should offer protection with regard to both forms of incitement. As the noble Lord pointed out, the present law affords protection to people only in their racial identity and not in their religious identity.
As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said—and I agree with him—there is something to be said in favour of the present law of blasphemy to which Amendment No. 159 refers. I believe that more can be said for it than is commonly supposed and—I say this with all due respect—perhaps more than some noble Lords who have spoken so far have recognised.
It should be abolished only if something better and workable can be put in its place. Nevertheless, the Church of England would certainly wish the protection afforded to its own members to be extended more widely, if that can be done. The Church of England is as fully committed to respecting the deeply held convictions of Jews, Moslems and other religious

1903
believers as it is to its own beliefs. In that light, the present law seems too narrowly focused and does not reflect the kind of multi-faith society which we now enjoy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and other noble Lords have rightly pointed out.
The question is whether the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, can achieve that wider protection. I hope that it can. If it is the judgment of your Lordships' Committee that in the present form it cannot, then I hope that it will be possible to bring forward legislation standing in its own right based on further work in that area. But whether through this amendment or through different legislation based on further work, I believe that we should make legal provision to outlaw incitement to hatred of groups based on their religious identity as much as hatred based on their racial identity.
Lord Renton: I hope that I may be forgiven for saying a few words, although I am sorry to say that I missed the first part of the debate.
I wish to refer briefly to Amendment No. 159. It is regrettable that blasphemy is included in the same amendment as the matters dealt with in paragraphs (b) and (c). Disturbing a religious service or religious devotions of any faith should be a distinct offence. All members of society, whether they are atheists, agnostics or whatever, should at least respect others who wish to worship. Therefore, I should be strongly opposed to any provision which abolished as a distinct offence the disturbance of a religious service.
I feel the same about the offence of striking a person in a church or churchyard. Surely we owe it to the dead lying beneath the earth not to have fights around their tombs. Therefore, although we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters, I hope that this will be regarded as an exploratory debate.
Lord Ashbourne: I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate briefly the important issue of blasphemy as a result of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. However, I should prefer a longer discussion at another time when we can do justice to the subject. I share some of the noble Lord's concerns, especially those about the lack of protection for those of other religions whose feelings—and, indeed, their well-being—may be threatened by deliberately provocative oral or written statements.
Religion is a deeply personal matter. As a society we need to show respect for different religious traditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just so clearly expounded. Therefore, there are attractions in the proposal in Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 to extend the Public Order Act 1986 to include the offence of incitement to religious hatred. However, I disagree with the noble Lord's proposal that the various common law offences relating to blasphemy should be repealed. Members of the Committee may be aware of my profound concern to protect the Christian traditions of this country. Our Parliament, monarchy, education system and other aspects of our national life are rooted in the Christian faith.
1904
As many Members of the Committee have expressed concern about the non-Christian religions, I should like just to make the point that we are talking here about less than 5 per cent. of the population. Of course, Members of the Committee must judge for themselves on the matter, but in my humble judgment we are not talking about a large percentage of the population. I therefore believe that it is entirely right to continue to accord the Christian religion a special place in our society.
However, giving Christianity a special place in our society —which is why I want to retain the common law offence of blasphemy—does not mean that other religions should go unprotected. I do not see why we cannot retain the blasphemy law but possibly add a new offence or offences such as those mentioned in Amendments Nos. 157 and 158. Should the noble Lord, Lord Lester, press the matter to a vote, I have to say that I would vote against Amendment No. 159 because I believe that we should retain the common law offence of blasphemy.
Lord Desai: As a person who is neither a Christian nor someone who was born into one of the religions of the Book I hesitate to speak; indeed, I am not even very religious. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, spoke a very interesting contrast emerged in my mind. We have, quite rightly, decided to protect Salman Rushdie against the possible effects of the fatwa. That is not because he may not have blasphemed against the religion according to people who strongly hold that religion but because we think that the consequences of blasphemy should not be visited as they were threatened to be.
As I recall, in the most recent case of blasphemy which was successful in this country a magazine was shut down. We had an attack on freedom of the press because someone brought a case of blasphemy. All it was was a poem in which someone said something which offended someone else. The common law case was successful and, as I said, the magazine had to be shut down. It is a paradox when, quite rightly, one can spend millions of pounds on protecting the freedom of a writer and yet shut down a magazine just because the blasphemy was against the Christian religion rather than against Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism.
I strongly urge against extending the blasphemy provisions to all religions. If one only looks into the number of religions that exist—and they are of a terribly dubious variety—one would find oneself in a morass. As far as I understand it, though I may be wrong, I believe that the common law offence of blasphemy was really meant to prosecute Christians who blasphemed against Christianity. People can blaspheme against their own religion but they cannot blaspheme against other religions. That is why I believe Amendment No. 158 covers precisely the case of people insulting someone else's beliefs. I believe that Amendment No. 158 would protect all religions. I believe that Amendment No. 159 should be adopted along with it. In that way the law of blasphemy, and especially the invidious effect it is having currently, could be removed.
Many Members of the Committee have said that this is a Christian state and that our laws are rooted in

1905
Christianity. I would say, as Bagehot said many years ago, that there is a decorative aspect of the constitution which is Christian and an effective aspect which is not Christian. I do not think that one would not have the allegiance of people who are either non-Christian or non-religious as regards believing that our laws are derived from the Christian faith. While I admit that the decorative part of the constitution has Christian roots, I do not believe that any of us seriously believes that our laws derive from that faith.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am afraid that I cannot agree—it pains me to say so—entirely with the most reverend Primate, with whom I would be loath to cross swords, particularly bearing in mind where I come from. I find it rather sad that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has grouped these three amendments together because, like other Members of the Committee, and my noble friend who has spoken, I believe that Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 stand on their own, as distinct from Amendment No. 159. Other Members of the Committee have made reference to this and I wish to add my voice to those who would support the first two amendments. Hatred is hatred the world over. It either is or it is not and it matters not whether it is racial hatred or any other sort of hatred. Therefore, in my view it is correct to delete the word "racial".
I also believe that religious belief encompasses all kinds of religion which should be tolerated not only in our society but in every society. In my view that matter has nothing whatsoever to do with colour. I reiterate that I believe those two amendments should stand on their own and should be supported. However, as the most reverend Primate said—I agree with him 100 per cent. —it is probably worth while suggesting that these problems should be looked at with a view to seeing whether it is desirable to carry out the proposals in Amendment No. 159. But I for one cannot see the advantage of taking something away which has stood us in perfectly good stead without having something constructive to put in its place. Therefore I am unable to support Amendment No. 159.
Lord Elton: On the matter of the need to replace whatever is removed, I hope the Committee will remember what the nature of blasphemy is, which is what I have been sitting here asking myself. It differs from other sorts of libel and insult not simply because it is an insult to the Creator but because for Christians who love God it is deeply upsetting to have Him insulted. Anyone who has loved anyone and who has heard that person being insulted knows the awful shake to the system that gives and the volatile reaction one is in danger of making. In that context let us remember what the most reverend Primate has said about sending signals, and particularly signals in the context mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who I believe suggested that there was some sort of parity of weight between afatwa which permits the assassination of someone anywhere in the world and a common law offence which permits a modest punishment in the country in which the offence is committed.
1906
Therefore, I hope that the Committee will regard this as a matter to be dealt with with great delicacy and not in haste, and will take the advice of those who said that we should reflect on the matter before we move.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I rather fancy that we may be here for a long time and I do not want to truncate the opportunity for anyone to have their say. But it may be helpful if I put the Government's view at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has drawn us into an area of great sensitivity and provided the opportunity for an interesting debate. It is an area of sensitivity in which our beliefs and our relationship with the Church and the Almighty, and people's reactions to that, can all interact with the criminal law and the law of the land. We must tread with great care.
I agree with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York when he asked what message would be conveyed if we passed amendments such as this. He said that legislation invites expectations and we should not encourage hopes which may not materialise. I respect his caution in that respect.
Of course we all respect the importance of ensuring that the courts can deal effectively with those individuals who try to incite hatred against others. The Government utterly condemn any attack or criminal act which is motivated by such hatred. We are well aware of the effect which such crimes can have both on the victims and on the confidence of the communities of which they are a part.
However, we are not convinced that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, reflect the principal mischief of inciting hatred because of a person's race. I fear that the amendments would be difficult to operate without giving rise to problems which might be just as great as those which they seek to solve.
The amendments seek to extend the current offence of incitement to racial hatred under Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 by making the offence also cover hatred on the grounds of religious belief. At the same time Amendment No. 159 would abolish the existing common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
In effect that would enact the recommendation of the minority of the Law Commission in its 1985 report Offences Against Religion and Public Worship. In 1985 the majority of the Law Commission recommended that the blasphemy laws should be repealed and should not be replaced by anything. The majority of respondents to the Law Commission's earlier working paper on this subject seem to have favoured retaining the blasphemy laws.
The Government did not accept either of the Law Commission's recommendations on that occasion. The strong views which were and are held on all sides were illustrated by the fact that, very unusually, as the most reverend Primate reminded us, a minority of two out of the five commissioners made their own separate recommendation. In our view it would be a mistake to legislate on a matter such as this in the absence of a wider consensus as to the best way forward.

1907
If anything, our view has been strengthened by the increased sensitivity of this subject which has been caused by the subsequent controversy over the publication of The Satanic Verses and the issuing of the fatwa against Mr. Salman Rushdie, to which my noble friend Lord Renfrew referred and by which he was so offended, as were many others.
It is already an offence under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 to incite hatred against a group of people on the grounds of their colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin. The courts have held that some religious groups—including Sikhs and Jews—are also ethnic groups and are therefore covered by that definition.
Protection against incitement to religious hatred has now been sought by some other groups which are not ethnic groups, particularly by the Moslems. However, we are not aware of any evidence to suggest that there is a significant problem on the mainland of Great Britain either of discrimination or of incitement to hatred on the grounds of a person's religious beliefs as opposed to his racial or ethnic background, where there is a problem. The position in Northern Ireland is, of course, different and that is reflected in the law there.
The evidence which has been presented to us suggests that understandable distress is created when adverse comments are made about particular religious beliefs or religious practices. But that is not the same as incitement to hatred. And, what is more important, it is something which is faced by all religious groups, living in what is regrettably becoming a largely secular society.
Our institutions, leaders, and beliefs may all be held up for criticism or ridicule in ways which cause offence. There is plenty of evidence of that. It is a fact of life which I personally find less than glorious but that is the price we pay for living in a society which respects freedom of expression. It would, I believe, be very dangerous if we were to start to curtail our freedom of expression on the grounds that the views expressed may be offensive to some.
The existence of the current law of blasphemy, and the special protection it gives to the beliefs of the established Church, may certainly be criticised. But it is worth bearing in mind that the law does not punish the simple expression of views which are considered to be offensive, blasphemous or heretical by believing Christians, and the law does not protect the Church of England from criticism or even derision. Indeed, the scope of the law of blasphemy is so restricted that only one successful prosecution, as the noble Lord reminded us, has been brought in the past 70 years, and that was a private prosecution.
Governments have held to the view that we should only begin to curtail freedom of expression when there is the likelihood, and intention, that the result is likely to produce a threat to public order. We do not think that it would be appropriate to change the law in order to punish those who merely offend other people's religious sensibilities.
Even if we were persuaded that there was a significant problem of incitement to religious hatred,
1908
any proposal to bring religious belief within the scope of the Public Order Act would come up against the difficult question of the definition of religion. Race is a relatively simple matter. It is a matter of fact. People are what they are because of what they are. But religion is not nearly so simple. It is a matter of personal belief and personal assent. Clearly, mainstream Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism are major world religions, and they would be protected under the amendment.
But how would we offer protection to some smaller belief groups such as, for example Jains, Baha'is, Farsees and small sects of major religions; for example, some of the independent Christian groups such as the House Church movement without at the same time protecting extreme sects and cults from the severe criticism, and even attacks, which they may rightly deserve? Members of the Committee need only think back to the siege at Waco in Texas which centred around a religious group, or the mass suicide by Bob Jones and his followers in Guyana, to appreciate the potential difficulties.
There are other minority cults which advocate what amounts to the sexual abuse of children as an alleged religious practice. If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, anyone who sought to write a critical leading article on the anti-social beliefs or criminal practices of such groups might be caught. I think that that would really not be desirable.
The Government are in discussion with different faith communities on these difficult problems. Only recently my right honourable friend the Home Secretary discussed them at some length with a group of Moslems. We will continue to listen and we are ready to look at evidence which demonstrates that there is a significant problem of inciting religious hatred as opposed to offending against religious sensibilities. But at the moment I am bound to say that the Government see too many practical difficulties and—I agree with the most reverend Primate—too little evidence of a real problem to justify advising the Committee to accept the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It has been an illuminating and reflective debate on a complex subject. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated. I share fully the values expressed by the Minister in his reply, especially his concluding observations about the right to free speech in a modern, open, liberal society. Nothing that I h'ave put forward could possibly be justified if it represented an unnecessary interference with free speech. That would be the last thing I would intend, just as I would not intend in any way to encourage any scurrilous attack on anyone's faith or beliefs.
If I may say so with respect, I have been impressed by the counsels of caution which we have heard from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and, with different emphasis and I suspect from a slightly different approach, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The last thing I would wish to do is to rush in on such a complex area. However, I believe that the subject is and will continue to be a running sore in this country, which now has over 1 million Moslems,

1909
until some government—I hope this one—finds the means of achieving a consensus among rational people, across political parties and across religions. We must find some way of ridding ourselves of an offence that has only been used once in 72 years in a private prosecution. It is really not necessary to protect the established Church of this country for the reasons given.
I am sure that I shall win popularity from all sides of the Committee if, having heard the debate, I say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 not moved.]
Clause 137 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 159A:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("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: I rise to move Amendment No. 159A, the first of a number of amendments in my name designed to combat the rising tide of racism in the country. To those who may argue that the law should keep out of these areas, I say this. True, the law is no magic panacea. But it is a powerful weapon in promoting a plural society respectful of group diversity and committed to equality and full participation by every group in our political processes and national life. That is the rationale of our existing anti-discrimination legislation. Above all, the law can embody respect for the individual dignity and worth of every human being, regardless of race, colour or creed. I believe that there may be much support for the amendments in the Committee, with its broad experience and long memory.
In 1993, 8,779 incidents of racial attacks and harassment were reported to the police in England and Wales. That represents a 100 per cent. increase over 1988. Since only a small percentage of racial incidents are reported, their actual number is much higher. The carefully researched British Crime Survey estimated that in 1991 the number of incidents of racially motivated crime against adults was between 130,000 and 140,000. The past two years have seen 14 murders of blacks and Asians, some particularly vicious. Even the figure of 130,000 to 140,000 incidents may be too low. If the survey had not excluded the Jewish community and a large number of so-called low level incidents of racial harassment against blacks and Asians, the figure would have been higher.
Racial violence is directed against its victims not because of what they happen to own or have done but because of what they naturally and inescapably are. Racial violence is therefore in a category of its own. First, the violence is directed against the victim not as an individual but as a member of a specific community. It injures and humiliates the victim because of the uncontrollable factor of birth.
Secondly, there is a political dimension to a racially motivated attack. The violence signals a refusal to accept a specific community as members of the whole community, entitled to equal acceptance and respect.
Thirdly, racial attacks arise from racism. Racism is the enemy of the values of a liberal democracy, which the law should uphold. I regard it as entirely rational for the law to recognise a distinct category of race specific violence, thus reflecting the community's collective commitment to equal citizenship. It would give a signal to the ethnic minorities that the state is serious about stamping out racist violence. To introduce these offences is not to favour blacks and Asians but to bring their protection up to the level that is enjoyed by the rest of the community; to equalise them, not to privilege them.
The Minister in the other place suggested that we did not want to bring about circumstances in which a mugged pensioner could say, however unfairly, that if he had been black his assailant would have had to receive a much heavier sentence, and asked why we should introduce a potent source of misunderstanding. That argument should be rejected. To declare through the criminal law that there is a distinct category of racially motivated offences against the person is not an affront to victims of non-racist crime, whatever their colour or creed. It is no more than a legislative signal to a mature society of the threat from racism and a determination to deter it. There is a rise in extremist associations in continental Europe and in Britain. The time is ripe to create these new offences.
Of course, an argument against the introduction of these offences is the imposition of an additional burden of proving not only that the offence occurred, but also that it was racially motivated. No doubt it will be said that racial motivation will be difficult to prove. That does not, however, mean that the offences should not exist. There will be no risk of total acquittal from a failure to prove racial motivation. In a manslaughter case, for example, the first count in the indictment would allege manslaughter, and the second racially motivated manslaughter. Obviously, there could be a conviction on the first and an acquittal on the second, or conviction on both. It would be for the jury to be satisfied of racial motivation, just as it is for the jury to decide dishonesty or other difficult questions of intent.
Just as those who opposed indirect, as distinct from direct, racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 on the grounds that it could not be proved were shown subsequently to be wrong, so also, I believe, will those who oppose these new offences on the grounds of the difficulty of proving racial motivation be shown to be wrong.
I recognise that the Government may say that judges are already expected to take aggravating factors into

1911
account when sentencing and that those include racial hostility. It is, however, for the judge to decide whether or not to take racial motivation into account in passing sentence. Our argument is that this should not be a matter of discretion; that racially motivated violence is a distinct, recognisable evil which should be declared by the criminal law to be a distinct offence.
If we were to create these new offences, we should be in good company. Several American states have enacted statutes providing for a greater penalty for racially motivated unlawful conduct. France's Interior Minister recently announced his country's intention of introducing legislation providing two years' imprisonment for crimes relating to racial hatred and violence. All liberal democracies under threat from racism should recognise the need for these new offences, and not least ourselves. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I must apologise to the Committee. Circumstances dictate that I shall need to leave the debate on this series of amendments before it is concluded. I hope that the Committee will allow me to say that I should particularly have wished to support also the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, Amendments Nos. 159F to 159H, although I realise that they are not grouped with this series.
I am a little overwhelmed by this series of amendments, with many of which I feel in sympathy. I refer not only to Amendment No. 159A, which we are now discussing, but also to Amendments Nos. 159B, 159C, 159D and 159E; and to Amendments Nos. 159F, 159G and 159H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. The Committee has already approved Amendment No. 156B, which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
I am not quite sure which of the amendments one should support. I feel that to pass them all might be more than is required in the circumstances. I should simply like to make the observation, which I am sure that many noble Lords would echo, that we do face the terrible tide of racist violence referred to by the noble Lord. I am sure that all sides of the Committee agree that we must be more successful than we have been so far in turning that tide. It is a tide which, as has been noted, is seen in full force not only in this country but on the Continent of Europe.
I am not quite certain of the right measures to take. We are all well aware that simply passing laws or introducing new offences is far from altogether solving the problem, although it may well be a step in the right direction. I have little doubt that my noble friend the Minister will argue that already existing legislation goes much of the way that is required and that it has been or will be strengthened by the amendment on harassment which has been accepted this evening.
However, several Members of the Committee rightly made the point that, although the amendment had many merits, it did not specifically focus on and target racial offences per se. Indeed, it did not intend to do so. The noble Lord made very clear that it was the Government's intention that the situation in relation to racial hatred would be improved by accepting that
1912
amendment. I have no doubt that such is the case. But I am also persuaded that the present amendment, or something like it, is very desirable. It may well be that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, offer the right answer.
I do not feel able this evening to indicate what may be the appropriate approach. I very much hope that at the conclusion of the debate on these amendments it may be thought possible for just one or two amendments to be introduced at Report stage which might encapsulate the wisdom that has arisen from it. I feel that it is necessary —although much has been done already by the Government's amendment, I hope that my noble friend the Minister might be able to take note of this point—for us to send out some signal by further addressing explicitly racially motivated offences. I hope that either this amendment or something like it will emerge before the Bill reaches the end of its passage.
Lord Lucas: This is not a good amendment. It would make people who have committed racial offences very difficult to convict. It is an offence on which it is intrinsically hard to convict. If people were charged with such offences, it would make it less likely that they would be convicted of the junior offence. Their counsel would doubtless throw doubt on the whole set of charges on the basis of the part of the offence that was hard to prove, which would be racial motivation. It would tend to be divisive because it would offer something to one section of the community which was not available to another, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, pointed out, and it would be extremely disappointing to those groups which it was intended to help because it would result in few convictions and more guilty people going free.
However, there is a problem with racial offences. If we are to address that problem, we should follow the Government's line and look at a general offence. That general offence is surely one of committing a crime which induces fear in a substantial part of the population. If someone shoots my next-door neighbour, I might feel a little afraid, but that it is probably just his affair. If someone gets up an organised campaign to shoot hereditary Peers, I have reason to feel more afraid, even if I am not the immediate object of attack.
There is a general class of crime which is directed at more than just the immediate victim. That should be the subject of additional punishment, but to my mind most suitably along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lady Flather. I believe that that would solve the problem that this amendment seeks to address.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with the object of Amendment No. 159A. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that there is a serious social evil of racial violence in this country which is increasing and must be effectively combated. I agree also that the criminal law must be effectively enforced in a way that has not been done in the past.
I understand fully the reasons behind the amendment, which I support in principle, but I feel that I must express one note of caution from my experience as a recorder trying cases in which there have been clear racial overtones. Much to my disappointment I have

1913
found that whenever the prosecution brought racial motivation into the prosecution case, or when I, as a judge, in summing-up to the jury attempted to bring home to them the fact that there was a clear racist background to the offence, with depressing regularity juries would acquit accused persons who seemed to be clearly guilty of the offence.
My anxiety about introducing this offence is simply that if two offences are placed on the indictment, one with a racial motive and one without, a jury may perversely be led to acquit the guilty, even of the less serious non-racially motivated offence, through sheer prejudice. Having said that—and I feel bound to give the benefit of that experience to the Committee—I wholly agree that it is necessary to take extremely effective action against racially motivated offences of this character. I am quite sure that the Lord Chief Justice and other senior judges will wish to ensure that judges are able to sentence much more severely those who commit offences with racial motives.
I do not wish to say anything this evening that would give the impression that I was not four-square behind the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in what he seeks to do. For that reason I support the amendment but with the note of caution that I expressed.
Lord Renton: From my own experience I feel bound to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. I shall come back to that in a moment. I wish also to endorse what was said so wisely by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We must remember that in every criminal offence under our law we have to prove the fact of the offence having been committed as well as the criminal intent. But that is the more difficult. The facts are generally not too difficult to prove.
When an accused person and whoever is defending him finds that he will risk up to five years being added to his sentence if it is proved that he was racially motivated, he may say that he committed the offence but that it was not racially motivated. If the jury are told by defending counsel, "Be careful about your decision in this case because if you find that it was racially motivated the accused will perhaps be given an extra five years on his sentence", what will be their reaction?
I am sorry to say that, though I respect the purpose behind the amendment and the reasons which prompted its tabling, it may be self-defeating.
Lord Monson: All unprovoked attacks on anybody, for whatever reason, racial or otherwise, are deplorable and should be severely punished if and when the culprits are caught—but there is the rub.
On matters pertaining to almost anything other than race, the Opposition Benches normally criticise the Government for constantly proposing longer and longer sentences for a wide range of offences, pointing out, quite justifiably, that the important thing is not longer and longer sentences but certainty of arrest and conviction. Therefore, in a sense they are behaving illogically in suggesting a totally contrary course here.
Moreover the first amendment goes extraordinarily far, in that it provides for an additional five years for common assault if that common assault be racially motivated—and race includes nationality.
1914
Consider the situation after an ill-tempered football match or rugby match in which there have been many fouls. People are congregated in a pub and somebody says, "It is typical of you French (or you Welsh) to commit fouls like that!" and a fight starts. That situation would fall within the definition of a racially motivated assault. Is it to be supposed that someone should get an extra five years for punching someone on the nose in those circumstances?
I could make other criticisms of the amendment, but that is one of the most important points, and with that I conclude my remarks.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The amendments deal with harassment, assault and hatred on the grounds of race or religion. I share the sense of anguish of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, over the appalling incidents and I share his wish to take action which would put a stop to at least some of them. Before I respond specifically to the amendment, perhaps he will permit me to make one or two general points.
The Government have set out their position repeatedly and unambiguously. Our abhorrence of racial attacks, assault, and hatred has been stressed at every opportunity. But this is not just a matter of words. The Home Secretary has repeatedly given an undertaking that where we can see an effective way of improving our response to these crimes we will take it. That is why we have brought forward our amendment on intentional harassment, which your Lordships approved earlier.
These are issues of tremendous social concern. They are also issues of immense complexity for legislation. We need to find measures which are genuinely effective, which do not create anomalies within the criminal justice system, and which do not promise to minority communities hopes which cannot turn into realities— that would be the cruellest blow of all. From our own attempts to bring forward a clause on harassment that would work, we are only too well aware how difficult it is to meet those requirements.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, will forgive me if the tenor of my comments seems to be somewhat negative; it is not supposed to be, it merely reflects the difficulty of the subject and not any lack of willingness to make progress. I am afraid that we cannot just wish the difficulties away.
I should like to turn specifically to Amendment No. 159A. The penalties set by Parliament for different offences are designed to cover even the most serious examples. It is for the judge to consider any aggravating or mitigating factors in deciding on the sentence appropriate in any given case. Racial motivation can be, and often is, taken into account as a seriously aggravating factor. Your Lordships may recall the case of Fiaz Mirza, the Asian mini-cab driver who was murdered by his passengers. The two men who were responsible boasted of what they had done and why they had done it; it was because of the driver's race. The account was so appalling that the mother of one of the men gave evidence against him. The judge referred specifically to the racial element in his summing up. He sentenced the murderers to life with a recommendation

1915
to serve 22 years. As your Lordships will know, that is way above the normal tariff, and it clearly reflected the appalling circumstances of that case.
Violent offences are deplorable whatever reason for which they are committed. However, I cannot see that it is right that there should be a penalty greater than that which Parliament has provided for violent offences generally. It should not be available specifically and only where racial motivation is proved.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew wanted offences specifically against racial motivation. If the amendment were accepted, I would agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that Parliament would in effect be saying that racial attacks were in themselves more objectionable than any other form of attack and were to be punished more seriously than any other attack which might be made for any other reason. The amendment would in effect say that, however intolerable, beastly or heinous an attack against a disabled person, an old lady or even a child might be, it could never be as wicked, nor should it be punished as severely, as an attack which had been committed with racial motivation in mind.
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 law provides for a range of penalties and it sets the maximum which can be allowed for any one type of crime. The maximum allows for the worst type of offence and the worst type of offence in this instance 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.
Not only do I think 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 10 times greater if his offence were shown to be racially motivated than the current maximum penalty for any other form of motivation. For actual bodily harm, the sentence could be doubled. I deplore racial violence as much as anyone else and I want to see the perpetrators dealt with severely by the courts. But 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. It can then be taken into account as an aggravating factor for sentencing. There is work to be done to make sure that all this happens as we would wish but I think it would be wrong in principle to legislate in such a way as to create a separate class of violent crime which is racially motivated, which is worse than all other types, as this amendment attempts to do.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: There is plainly a difference of principle between myself and the noble Earl. He gave an example of an attack on a disabled person. That is undoubtedly heinous. But the disabled person is attacked, no doubt, because he is vulnerable. He is not attacked because of hostility to the disabled per se. I
1916
submit that criminal attacks on an individual because he or she is a member of a racial group are a distinct evil which we should legislate against.
Lord Renton: Does the noble Lord agree that white people are also a racial group?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: White people are a racial group. If there were a racially motivated attack upon a person on the ground that he was white, that would be covered by these offences if they were to be brought into law. To fear—because that is what it comes down to —writing racial motivation or racial harassment into the statute book is to put one's head in the sand and to deny the facts of life around one. It is also to deny the educative effect of the law and the signals that it is capable of sending.
I welcome the support in principle of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for the amendment. I have perhaps a greater faith in the jury than he has. My experience as a Recorder was to trust the jury to get it right. I believe that, in properly presented cases, convictions of racially motivated offences would be secured. I therefore have a higher view of the ability of the jury to recognise racial motivation when proved than perhaps have other noble Lords. I do not begin to accept what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that, if a conviction was not secured for a racially motivated manslaughter, that would in any way imperil a conviction for the offence of manslaughter simpliciter.
I have heeded the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that in Committee and particularly at this late hour, the amendments test the water. I remain of the view, however, that it is necessary to send some signal on racially motivated offences. This is certainly an area to which we shall return on Report, having reflected on our deliberations in Committee. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 159B:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Malicious communications

.—(1) Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 1(3) after the words "and 'sender' shall be construed accordingly", there shall be inserted the words "references to 'sending' or 'sender' shall further include any person who distributes on behalf of another a letter or article within the meaning of section 1(1) (a) or (b) and if the letter or article comprises printed matter the printer and publisher thereof.

(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection

(3)—
"(3A) A person who distributes, prints or publishes any letter or article within the meaning of section 1(1) (a) or (b) shall not be guilty of an offence if he shows—

(a) that he was not aware of the contents of the letter or article, and

(b) that he was not aware that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the sender fell within section 1(1)".

(4) Subsection (4) shall be amended by inserting after the words "on summary conviction to" the words "imprisonment not exceeding six months or" and by inserting after the words "a fine" the words "or such lesser penalty as the court deems fit".

(5) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—

"(5) In this section the words 'grossly offensive' shall include material that is offensive on the grounds of the

1917
colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin of the recipient or of any other person to whom the sender intends that it or its contents or nature shall be communicated.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is aimed at strengthening the law relating to the sending of letters or articles through the post for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient. I think we would all agree that it is intolerable that there should be foisted on people in the privacy of their own homes unsolicited material which is racially offensive.
The amendment: would make three changes to improve the Malicious Communications Act 1988. At present the offence is committed only by the actual sender of the material. In many cases, it is difficult to identify who is the actual sender. The "sender" includes anyone who delivers or causes the material to be sent or delivered. As I said, in many cases that person is difficult to identify. He may operate through a distribution network.
The amendment proposes that the distributor, printer or publisher should be liable in the same way as the sender, but with a special defence that he is not guilty if he shows that he was not aware of the contents of the letter or article; for example, if he was given sealed letters to post and was not aware that the purpose was to cause distress or anxiety. I regard it as an entirely reasonable proposition that any distributor, printer or publisher who cannot avail themselves of this defence should be treated as equally responsible for the sending of offensive material which is sent for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety. That is the first change provided for by the amendment.
Section 1(1) (a) (i) of the 1988 Act catches material which is indecent or grossly offensive. It is a widely held view that the provision is confined to pornography because the expression is covered by the use of the word "indecent". The second change which the amendment would make is to lay down the express provision that material which is offensive on racial grounds and sent through the post unsolicited to a recipient for the purpose of causing him distress or anxiety constitutes a breach of the Act.
A good example of the mischief at which the amendment is directed is the proliferation through the post to members of the Jewish community of material describing the Holocaust as a myth invented by Jews in order to gain undeserved reparation from the German Government for non-existent crimes. What should be criminal is the sending of that material to Jews for the express purpose of causing distress or anxiety.
That offence in no way inhibits the free expression of opinions about the Holocaust, however objectionable they may be to some. What is sought to be prevented is the foisting of those opinions on innocent recipients for the specific purpose of causing them distress or anxiety. The critical question to which I invite the noble Earl to respond in replying to this amendment is: does he believe that under the rubric "grossly offensive" the 1988 Act should cover racially offensive material? If the answer is yes, should the law not be made plain? If the answer is no, what is the reason for excluding racially offensive material from the 1988 Act?
Finally, the Act imposes only a fine. The amendment allows the court, in its discretion, to impose a term of imprisonment where it considers that appropriate; for example, in the case of a persistent offender. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I wish to express my support for the amendment and to give one example to serve for all the social evil it is designed to combat and the gap in the law it is designed to fill.
An anti-Semitic, scurrilous, evil pamphlet was distributed recently to members of the Jewish community. It was headed, "Parents, your children are in danger". It attacked a campaign for planning permission to set up an eruv in a seven square-mile area of Barnet. The tract was; signed by two people describing themselves as priests. One was aptly named the right reverend Julius Streicher after the Nazi propagandist of the Church of the Creator and Assembly of St. Julius the Martyr. It claimed that the creation of a modern-day Jewish ghetto would create bitter religious divisions between Jews and gentiles, would seriously reduce house prices on north west London, and would lead to,
"a further influx of Jews able to buy gentile properties at knock-down prices".
That was tame compared with what followed. This vile leaflet explained:
"We can produce evidence of two sinister practices; Jewish ritual murder and paedophilia associated with those who follow the Jewish way of life".
It then purported to give chapter and verse of specific and sickening examples of each. And for good measure it gave a telephone number and an address for those who wished to communicate their support.
That seems to me a serious mischief—a form of public nuisance particularly hurtful and in some cases frightening, humiliating and deeply wounding to recipients. I can think of no good reason why the law should not be extended in the way that this modest amendment suggests.
Baroness Flather: I too wish to lend support to the amendment. Some years ago I received a very unpleasant publication in relation to the Jews and the way in which they had created this, that and the other. I did everything possible and tried very hard to get it stopped. I was told that there was no way in which anything could be done to stop circulation of the publication.
On another occasion an enormous number of copies of a letter were sent out to selected householders purporting to come from the Home Office. The letter stated that an Asian family would be billeted with that particular householder. It suggested how many members of that family there would be, the way in which they would behave, what kind of food they would eat, and so forth. Everything was extremely derogatory about the Asian family. Apart from that, it really frightened the recipients, who, on the whole, were not very sophisticated people.
That kind of activity can cause an enormous amount of disturbance, in particular in a small, relatively

1919
unsophisticated community. Furthermore, I object to having to receive material which I consider to be offensive and about which I am unable to do anything.
Lord Renton: For the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Flather, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I believe that this amendment should receive sympathetic consideration by the Government.
We have had five years now of operation of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which importantly broke new ground, but noble Lords have given some examples of what are, in effect, gaps in that Act. I believe that those gaps should be filled.
I wish to refer to only one detail in relation to the amendment. I believe that it is right, as mentioned in subsection (4), that in the worst cases imprisonment should be a sentencing option.
Earl Ferrers: The Malicious Communications Act 1988 covers the sending of indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening material, or material which contains information which the sender knows or believes to be false. An offence is committed if the purpose in sending such material is to cause the recipient distress or anxiety. The Act was passed in order to deal with the nuisance caused by those who send poison pen letters.
As I understand it, with regard to the case cited by my noble friend Lady Flather an offence would be committed if a person sent the offensive material to her and to others. But this amendment seeks to extend the 1988 Act to include those who distribute or who print or who publish the offending material. I do not think that there is any need to extend the Act in this way. If distributors, printers or publishers are involved in sending this sort of material, and if they intend that the recipient should be caused distress or anxiety by it, then they would already be guilty of an offence.
If, however, these categories of people are not responsible for actually sending the material, and if they are, as it were, contractors to another person, I do not see any particular reason why they should be caught by the Malicious Communications Act at all. After all, it is the sending of such material which the Malicious Communications Act is specifically designed to prohibit, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to extend it in an attempt to control the sort of material which people are allowed to print or publish.
The printing and publishing of offensive material is already subject to entirely separate legislative controls. In particular, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 makes it an offence to publish any obscene article; and Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 controls material which is racially inflammatory. Section 19 of the Public Order Act already makes it an offence to publish or distribute material which is threatening, abusive or insulting and is likely to stir up racial hatred.
This amendment suggests that there is a loophole in the law which needs to be closed. I do not think that there is. I do not think it would be right to try to extend the Malicious Communications Act to cover nuisances which are already adequately covered by the criminal
1920
law. As I have mentioned, the 1988 Act is directed against those who send poison pen letters and is not primarily a race relations measure.
The noble Lord's amendment would also increase the maximum penalty for the offence. The Government recognise the distress which can be caused by the sending of a malicious letter or an offensive article. The gravity with which we view such behaviour is reflected in the substantial fines of up to £2,500, which are already available. Although we do, of course, keep all the sentencing powers of the courts under review, we believe that the powers they already have allow the courts to punish offenders appropriately. Poison pen writers tend to be rather inadequate, isolated people, and we do not believe it would be appropriate to send them to prison.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to what was "grossly offensive". That has its ordinary meaning. It is not intended to equal pornography. I hope that that clarifies that matter.
I hope that as a result of that explanation, the noble Lord will see that his amendments are not necessary in order to deal with the mischief which he believes is taking place.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I cannot begin to accept that argument. Of course, I accept that the amendment falls into three parts. For the purposes of the Minister's reply and in order to see whether I can get a clearer response, I desire to focus on the words "grossly offensive". There is a widely held body of opinion that the provision is confined to pornography. Do I understand the noble Earl to be saying that that is not his understanding and that the words "grossly offensive" do include racially offensive material? Is that his understanding and does he not accept that there is a doubt about it? If that is his understanding then at least the part of the amendment which makes it plain that the term "grossly offensive" includes racially offensive should be accepted. Can the Minister respond directly to that proposition?
Earl Ferrers: My understanding of the position is that "grossly offensive" would cover a number of different matters, including racial offensiveness. However, we have no evidence of such difficulties. The proposed subsection (5) in the amendment would ensure that racially offensive material is covered under the term "grossly offensive". That term is otherwise not defined in the 1988 Act. Therefore, it takes on its common meaning. Obviously that can encompass a wide range of material, including that which may cause gross offence on the grounds that it attacks or vilifies the recipient's race, family, colour or origin. That is the position.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I trust that, perhaps on reflection, the noble Earl will consider the amendment in a more favourable light. If the noble Earl genuinely desires to give by way of legislation some signals to the larger community of his sensitivity about racially offensive material being sent through the post unsolicited for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety this would be a very modest amendment for him to accept in order to make that ambiguity plain.

1921
On that part of the amendment which refers to distributors, printers or publishers, if the distributor, printer or publisher is aware of the contents of the letter or the article then he knows perfectly well that it is being printed or published for the purpose of sending. I can see no objection to his being included within the responsibility for it.
Once again, I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I regard it as a modest amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for saying that it should receive sympathetic consideration from the Government. I hope that that is just what it will receive on maturer reflection. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 159C:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Group defamation

.—(1) Any person who publishes, distributes or displays written material which is offensive for the purpose of vilifying, threatening, or exposing to racial hatred or discrimination, any group of persons in the United Kingdom on account of their colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or such other penalty as the court deems fit.

(3) The words "racial hatred" shall bear the same meaning as in section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the words "written material" shall bear the same meaning as in section 29 of the Public Order Act 1986.").

The noble Lord said: In proposing that there should be a new offence of group defamation or vilification, I proceed from what I am sure is the common assumption of this Chamber; namely, that there can be few concerns that are as central to the concept of a free and democratic society as the defeat of racism.
Racist propaganda is devoid of any redeeming social value. The object of free speech is the discovery and pursuit of truth. By no stretch of the imagination does the dissemination of rascist or anti-Semitic literature assist the discovery of truth. No one could rationally argue that the sweeping generalisations about Jews or other racial groups might be true or advance the search for truth. Racist literature has no redeeming social value. It in no way contributes to the well-being or improvement of society. Racist propaganda is foreign to the values underlying free speech. We pass laws against pornography and obscenity although these encroach on issues of literary worth. Racial vilification is at the very least as objectionable and its effect on society even more pernicious.
I make two basic points. Racial propaganda causes serious injury both to the group targeted and to society in general. First, it strikes at the dignity, worth and the good name of the group. It seeks to degrade, humiliate and cause it pain. As one of the greatest American judges of our century, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, said,
"A man's job and his educational opportunities and the dignity accorded to him may depend as much on the reputation of the racial and religious group to which he willy-nilly belongs as on his own merits".
Thus he continued,
1922
"Speech conceivably punishable when immediately directed at individuals could also be outlawed if directed at groups with whose position and esteem in society the affected individual may be inextricably involved".
Secondly, racist propaganda is calculated to, and does cause, damage to the perception of a group by the public. A constant barrage of material published only for the purpose of vilifying a particular ethnic group damages not only the group but society. The material is designed to create a caricature or a stereotype of the group that can affect the public's attitude and behaviour towards the group over time. It is anomalous that a group has no legal protection against statements vilifying the group although the statements if made in relation to an individual would be defamatory. Prejudice stems from hostility to the group. That hostility then spills over into prejudice or discrimination against the individual because of membership or links with the group; hence the powerful case for protecting ethnic minorities against group vilification.
I do not ignore, and in fact I respect, the basic: argument against the creation of this offence although I do not accept it. The argument is not that this racist propaganda has any redeeming social value; it is for certain beyond the pail. The argument against rests on the belief that free discussion and debate is; the most effective means of dealing with this material. I wish that I could believe in a rational world in which the pernicious effects of racist propaganda could be eliminated or reduced to tolerable levels by rational discourse. History, however, shows how easily a climate of hatred and intolerance can be created by racist words or writings and the appalling consequences that can then follow. Experience shows that emotion can easily displace reason and, once the seeds of prejudice and intolerance are sown, they can germinate in times of economic pressure or social stress, with devastating effect.
I confess to huge concern at the evidence of a rising tide of racism in continental Europe and in this country. I believe that racist material ought to be prosecuted. I do not believe that reason without the aid of law can be guaranteed to prevail over prejudice, nor do I believe that view to be consistent with a resurgence of racism in Europe despite the unparalleled tragedy of the Holocaust.
The problem with freedoms is that they conflict existentially. Free speech must be accorded a high value but there are other core values in a democratic, multi-racial society. These core values include respect for group identity, cultural diversity and respect for the dignity and worth of every human being regardless of race. These core values also include the right of every racial group to participate on a basis of equality in the political processes and public life of our country. Racism denies these core values. Its object is to relegate particular ethnic groups to a second class status in which they bear a permanent brand of inferiority. A liberal democracy is entitled to take up arms in the shape of the law in defence of its core values.
Article 10 of the European convention recognises that free speech may be subject to restrictions which are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of

1923
others. Free speech must sometimes yield to the claims of competing public interest. A group has a public interest in protecting its reputation from constant denigration. It is entitled to live in dignity, free from abuse and insult, and free of the insecurity that racist propaganda engenders.
I know that some will say that we should wait before outlawing group vilification until there is a clear and present danger that we shall descend into some kind of abyss if we do not. That free speech objection rests uneasily with the acceptance of the need for legislation to curb incitement to racial hatred and perhaps also with the need for its extension to cover incitement to religious hatred which we discussed earlier in this Committee. I fear that to wait until we stare the abyss in the face is to wait too long.
A new offence of group defamation would bring our law into harmony with many of our European neighbours. It would accord with international conventions that forbid the dissemination of propaganda based on theories of racial superiority. It would comply with the European convention, which permits restrictions when necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights and reputations of others. Above all, it would strike a powerful blow against increasing racism in our society. I beg to move.
The Archbishop of York: Perhaps I may share a problem. I am deeply opposed to racism, but as we have gone through this series of amendments I have found myself increasingly troubled because there is a paradox at the heart of this matter.
What we want is a society in which race does not matter, a racially blind society. The paradox in which we find ourselves is that the more we fix the notion of racism in the law the more we give permanent status to divisions which to an even greater degree we ought to be making irrelevant within our society. I do not know how to cope with that. I am grateful that the noble Lord has so far withdrawn all his amendments. I hope that he will continue to do so, because I would not want to vote against them but find that I cannot vote for them.
I feel that there is something missing in this whole exercise and we need to think of other ways of dealing with the problem of racism in terms of justice for all. That is why one looks for the definition of general offences which will be applied with particular vigour where there is clear motivation of the kind that has been described. However, if we fix these matters in the law, then we shall be stirring up a different kind of trouble for ourselves, because in the end racism does not exist. It exists only in people's minds.
I am afraid that I am not being helpful, but I hope that we shall have a quick process of withdrawal of the remaining amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I should like to explain why, of all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in this group, this is the one amendment with which I strongly disagree. I have given the noble Lord notice of my disagreement. In his eloquent speech he attempted to deal with my objection in advance.
1924
Therefore, I should like to explain briefly why I think that this is wrong in principle and in practice and is likely to be counter-productive.
If one looks at the proposed crime, one notices that it gives no defence of truth and no public interest defence. That is entirely understandable because the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, would say that there can be no defence of truth or of public interest for what he calls racist propaganda.
I ask the Committee to consider how the offence would work in relation to the vile and evil anti-Semitic pamphlet to which I referred earlier. If they were prosecuted, the publishers of that pamphlet would undoubtedly argue that they were engaged in an important public debate on a matter of legitimate public interest—the planning permission issue for that eruv in north London. They would argue that their aims were political, that they had a right to free political speech. They would rely on the European Convention on Human Rights. They would deny that they intended to attack Jews as a race rather than vigorously criticising the way in which Judaism was being practised by some of its adherents. They would seek, however absurdly, to justify the truth of their vile pamphlet and to persuade the magistrates that the publication was in the public interest.
The prosecution would point out to the magistrates that neither truth nor the public interest was any defence to the crime of group vilification: all that matters is that the pamphlet is offensive, that it has been published for the purpose of vilifying Jews as a race. The trial would arouse widespread publicity for the contents of the pamphlet and for the publishers. If the prosecution were to fail, the publishers would be free to re-publish this tract under the headline, "The truth the Jews tried to ban". If the prosecution succeeded and the evil wrongdoers were imprisoned, they could present themselves to potential supporters on the far Right as martyrs whose right to free speech had been denied by Jewish conspirators.
I do not believe that that is an unreal example. It is exactly what has been attempted in the past when similar kinds of common law and statutory prosecutions were brought. There is a Catch-22 about such an offence. If it succeeds it produces martyrs, however unmeritorious. If it fails, it legitimizes the speech. However much the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and I may think that the pamphlet is untruthful and cannot be justified by truth or public interest, there would be this defence of political speech.
The noble Lord quoted Justice Frankfurter, that great American judge, in defence of his position. It is true that Justice Frankfurter was on that side of the argument. But an equally great American judge spoke on the other side of the argument in his magnificent concurring judgment in a case called Witney v. California. He said:
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech … Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of free speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to believe that the apprehended danger is imminent".
He continued:

1925
"No danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence".
My view—it is an optimistic view about the human condition—is that more speech rather than enforced silence is the right approach. I say nothing about incitement to racial hatred and other such offences. But I regard this proposed offence, I am afraid, as misconceived.
Lord Annan: I rise to speak because the remarks of the most reverend Primate fascinated me. Indeed, in a way he has put his finger on our difficulties in the debate as to how far one goes on one side and how far on the other. However, the truth seems to me to be this. Marx and his successors always believed that class divisions in society overrode any cultural or racial divisions. That was at the heart of communism. Indeed, one of the things we have seen with the collapse of the communist regime in Russia is the way in which these racial hatreds have emerged which were damped down under the repressive forces of that vile regime.
However, the truth is that people's culture matters to them much more than class divisions and that cultures are the thing which divides society. What we must do tonight is to try to find ways in which we acknowledge those divisions, acknowledge that those hatreds will continue to exist because they cannot be extirpated. Somehow, we have to find ways in which we can balance freedom of speech on the one hand against the necessity to control these hatreds, particularly when, in our lifetime, our own country has become multiracial. We must not expect that this affair will somehow disappear. It may disappear in three or four centuries, but certainly not today or in the immediate future.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that the somewhat quizzical intervention of the most reverend Primate was very impressive. He said that he did not know the answer, but he drew attention to the difficulty in which we all find ourselves. I agree with him when he says that the more you write into law matters which you want to see virtually expunged, the more you signal and solidify the existence of the problem. I remember that at school one learnt about Boyle's law, Ohm's law and Faraday's law; I coined a law which modesty compels me to admit I call Ferrers' law, which says that everything has the reverse effect from that intended. If you are not careful, you can put into legislation various matters for one purpose and you find that the result is completely the reverse of what you anticipated.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, about the publication of offensive material which is directed against particular groups of people, but it is important that we should recognise the significance of what is being proposed. Over many years governments have maintained the principle that freedom of speech
1926
should be curtailed only where there is a threat to public order. That is the basis of the offence of incitement to racial hatred in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986.
Amendment No. 159C takes a very different position. It criminalises the publication of material where it is both offensive and has the purpose of vilifying a particular group. One of the difficulties would lie in whose estimation the material is considered to be offensive and who is to determine what amounts to vilification. There will be an inevitable and serious tension between the expectations of different groups who have been offended by particular material, only to be countered by perfectly justifiable arguments from those who have produced it saying, "Well, after all, it's only fair comment". It would certainly be possible for academic articles or leader columns to fall within the scope of this clause, depending on how a court were to choose to construe its terms. More important than that, a number of groups would expect such material to be covered by the new law and would be deeply concerned if the new legislation failed to match their assessment of what is offensive or vilifying.
There are many things which offend all of us. Some of them we may believe are said with the deliberate intention of traducing our origins, but that is not necessarily a reason for criminalising such behaviour. Part III of the Public Order Act already deals with material which incites racial hatred. The proposed offence in the amendment would be much wider and I doubt whether it could be justified in the absence of any threat to public order. It is not the function of the criminal law to preserve our individual dignity.
Even apart from the arguments of principle, in practice such a measure could well be counter-productive. If the amendment were to be incorporated into the Bill, a splendid platform will have been provided for racists to demonstrate that the purpose of their publications was not to vilify certain groups but simply to provide what they would describe as "accurate and justifiable" information or to correct the "misconceptions" of others.
These are not easy matters. The balance of freedom of speech and civil liberties is never easy. The Government do not believe that there is at present a case for a change. I suggest that we would be ill-advised to make such a fundamental shift as this clause proposes without further and very careiul consideration as to what would be its long-term effects.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York assured the Committee, when there was no need for such assurance, of his deep opposition to racism. But, with respect, I take issue with him to the extent that he is suggesting that the solution is to pretend that it does not exist. It does exist. I do not sympathise with the proposition that you simply pass laws that do not mention the dirty words "racism", "racial harassment" or "racial motivation" It is the fact that racist motivation is a character of the commission of many offences which many of us would think ought to be criminal. The fact that racist propaganda propagates myths does not mean that it can be ignored. It does not

1927
mean that the criminal law should not outlaw it and its evil consequences and that we should pretend that it does not exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, who was kind enough to give me notice of his position in this argument, suggests that if a prosecution for group vilification were to succeed, then it would produce martyrs; if it were to fail, then that might operate to justify the very material complained of.
Just as I said earlier that I have greater confidence in the jury than the noble Lord, so also I have greater confidence in the law. I believe that the law can perform an educative function. It can improve the quality of the public mind. That was the philosophy that underlay the sex and race relations legislation of the 1970s. I believe that an offence of group vilification would lead to the public abhorring group vilification and that convictions would be secured without creating martyrs. But the Committee would not welcome my extending the argument further at this hour of the night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 159D:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Incitement to racial hatred
.—(l) part II of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 12(1) (a) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be added after the word "community" the words "on racial, religious, ethnic or other grounds,".
(3) In section 12(1) (b) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be added at the end after the word "do" the words "or to stir racial hatred".
(4) Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(5) For section 17 there shall be substituted the following provision—
"Racial hatred.
17. In this Part 'racial hatred' means hatred, hostility,, violence or discrimination against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins".
(6) For section 19(1) the following subsection shall be substituted—
"(1) A person who publishes, distributes or displays written material is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he thereby advocates, promotes or intends to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances it is reasonably foreseeable that racial hatred may be stirred up thereby.

(7) Section 19(2) is repealed.
(8) In section 19(3) after the words "or a section of the public" there shall be inserted the words "or any member of the public"."
(9) For section 23(1) the following subsection shall be substituted—
"(1) A person who has in his possession written material or a recording of visual images or sounds with a view to—

(a) in the case of written material, its being displayed, published, distributed, broadcast or included in a cable programme service, whether by himself or another, or

(b) in the case of a recording, its being distributed, shown, played, broadcast or included in a cable programme service, whether by himself or another,
is guilty of an offence if he advocates, promotes or intends racial hatred to be stirred up thereby or, having regard to all the circumstances, it is reasonably foreseeable that racial hatred may be stirred up thereby".

(10) Section 23(3) is repealed.
(11) In section 25 after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(5) A court by or before which a person is convicted of—

(a) an offence under section 18 relating to the display of written material, or

(b) an offence under section 19, 21 or 23, may order that the person convicted shall not display, publish or distribute written material, or distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds, which is the same as or substantially similar to any written material or recording produced to the court and shown to its satisfaction to be written material or a recording to which the offence relates.

(6) Any disobedience to an order made under section 5(5) above shall constitute a contempt of court and be punishable as such.
(7) An order made under subsection (5) may take effect, if the court so determines, in the case of an order made in proceedings in England and Wales before the expiry of the ordinary time within which an appeal may be instituted or when an appeal is duly instituted, before it is finally decided or abandoned but will cease to have effect if the appeal against conviction is allowed".
(12) In section 27(1) there shall be substituted for the words "of the Attorney General" the words "of the Director of Public Prosecutions".").
The noble Lord said: Dissemination of racist, and perhaps in particular anti-semitic, hate literature is growing. The existing law against incitement to racial hatred has been ineffective to curb the flow. Since the enactment of the current law in 1986 there have been only 14 prosecutions for incitement—a tiny number by contrast with the prevalence of the material.
We welcome—and it is right that I should say so —the Government's late decision to provide by Clause 137 that the publication and distribution of,
"material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred",
will be an arrestable offence. The present law, permitting the police to arrest a person who makes a racist speech, but not a person who publishes or distributes racist pamphlets or leaflets, was obviously anomalous. So this change, which we welcome, will enable culprits to be apprehended and evidence to be obtained which might not be obtainable at a later stage. A power of arrest is insufficient if the law is too weak to enable a successful prosecution be brought.
This amendment is in two parts. The first addresses Section 12 in Part II of the Public Order Act 1986. Its purpose is to enable a senior police officer to give directions in relation to the holding of a public procession in circumstances in which that senior police officer reasonably believes that the holding of that procession is for the purpose of stirring up racial hatred or where he reasonably believes that the procession may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community on racial, religious, ethnic or other grounds.
So this amendment is well within the area for which the noble Earl accepts that it is appropriate for the law to enter in order to prevent disorder. The purpose therefore is to enable the police to regulate public marches or demonstrations which the police reasonably believe either to be intended to stir up racial hatred or may have the effect of causing disorder, damage or disruption on racial or religious grounds.
I believe that senior police officers have indicated that they would welcome such an enhancement of their powers to regulate overtly racist processions. If the

1929
noble Earl is not minded to accept this part of the amendment, no doubt he will explain why the Government decline to empower the police in this way.
The second part of the amendment addresses Section 19 in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 19 is concerned with the distribution of material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. That section has proved conspicuously ineffective in curbing the distribution of racist material which is taking place in the country virtually with impunity. The tiny number of prosecutions compared with the volume of material being freely distributed demonstrates the impotence of the section. Those who peddle that material are inevitably emboldened by the failure of the law to catch their activities.
This amendment is designed to give teeth to Section 19. Firstly, it revises the definition of "racial hatred" to include matters which are less extreme than hatred itself, such as hostility, violence, or discrimination against a racial or ethnic group—words which derive from an international convention to which this country subscribes.
Secondly, the law should cover not only the active stirring up of racial hatred but activities which involve the advocacy or promotion of racial hatred. That would cover pseudo-academic or scientific discussion to establish the inherent inferiority of particular groups and the need for those groups to be marginalised or wholly excluded from political processes.
Thirdly, Section 19 is presently confined to material which is "threatening, abusive or insulting". This amendment proposes that those words, which are words of limitation, should be deleted. The amendment proposes that all racist material should be caught, not merely that which is obviously threatening, crudely abusive or vulgarly insulting. Racist material which is, for example, intended to stir up racial hatred should not fall outside the legislation because it is expressed in carefully drafted language to fall outside the labels "threatening", "abusive" or "insulting". It is all the more insidious when clothed in false moderation, although the intent is plain.
Fourthly, Section 19 requires racial hatred to be intended or to be likely to be stirred up. The amendment recognises that the word "likely" in Section 19(1) (b) imposes too stringent a test for the securing of convictions. The amendment proposes that it should be sufficient to show that it is reasonably foreseeable that racial hatred may be stirred up by the distribution of the racist material.
Fifthly, the amendment extends the definition of "the public or section of the public" in Section 19(3) to include any member of the public, in order to close a loophole in the law, which held that distribution to a single individual was not distribution to the public.
Sixthly, the amendment incorporates amendments to Section 23 which are consequential on the earlier amendments. Section 23 deals with the possession of written material or recordings. The amendment provides for an offence where it is intended or reasonably foreseeable that racial hatred may be stirred up by the material or recordings in the defendant's possession.
Seventhly, Section 25 allows a court before whom a person is convicted of an offence, for example, under Section 19 of the Public Order Act, to order forfeiture of the material to which the offence related It is a salutary power but it would not, for example, prevent reprinting —say from a word processor—and redistribution at a future date. The amendment therefore proposes that the court should have power to order that no further copies of that material in the same or substantially similar form should be published or distributed. Disobedience would be punishable as a contempt of court.
Finally, the amendment proposes that the consent of the DPP, rather than that of the Attorney-General, should be required for the institution of proceedings. To require the Attorney's consent is to give the decision an apparently political character, whereas the decision whether to prosecute or no should be taken by the DPP as an ordinary matter of business.
The amendment includes a battery of suggestions to which I hope the noble Earl will feel able to give serious consideration. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: Once again I must say that a well-meaning amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, goes much too far. In view of the late hour, let me give just one example. Section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 requires that written material must be threatening, abusive or insulting before any offence can be committed. However, Clause 6 of the proposed new amendment totally removes that requirement. What would the consequences be? A newspaper which, for example, published a report alleging that 10,000 West African immigrants had been smuggled into Britain during the past six months could find itself prosecuted under the terms of the amendment, even if every word in the article were totally true, because, under Clause 6(b), having regard to all the circumstances it would be reasonably foreseeable that a certain amount of racial hostility—not hatred—would be stirred up thereby.
When speaking to his previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, extolled what he termed the "pursuit of truth". If this amendment, is accepted, the pursuit of truth, where it touches upon racial matters, would be rendered dangerous if not impossible.
Lord Annan: Perhaps I may again make an intervention in regard to incitement. It is a serious problem, particularly the recent incitement against Jews in this country. Until very recently this country probably had the best record in Europe, indeed in the world, in its toleration of the Jewish community. It is wrong, of course, to try to make any kind of distinction between that and the tragedy that struck the Jewish community at the time of the Holocaust. But in some way one could say that the Russian and Polish Jews were used to persecution and accepted that they would be persecuted. But the country on the Continent, as opposed to our own country, which had in a way the greatest tolerance of Jews, was Germany.
Frederick the Great ran in Prussia a liberal regime as regards religious toleration, and that spilled over so that Bismarck had his own great Jewish financier,

1931
Bleichroeder, who again was accepted as part of the regime. In the 1920s no Jewish community ever made a more penetrating attempt to become accepted as part of the country; as the right reverend Primate said, in a sense they were almost trying to pretend not to be Jews. They tried to assimilate more man any other Jewish community. Why did the tragedy strike? It was due to deliberate racial incitement by the Nazis, who used every weapon of propaganda to stir up hatred against the Jewish community. Here was a country in which there was great toleration of the Jewish community and yet it was the country which in the end created the Holocaust. That is why we must take the matter more seriously than the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was suggesting. We must take the business of incitement extremely seriously because, once it starts, it is a poison which strikes at our own society.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, stated, the new clause falls into two distinct parts and it poses a battery of questions. The first matter relates to Part II of the Public Order Act 1986, which deals with the police powers to control demonstrations, and the second relates to amendments concerning incitement to racial hatred under Part III of the Public Order Act.
Section 12 of the Public Order Act gives the police the power to impose conditions on a procession where they reasonably believe it may result in serious public order, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or that the purpose of the procession is to intimidate others.
The police officer is asked to make a judgment about the practical effect of a particular procession. The grounds on which that effect may be caused are not relevant to the exercise of his judgment. Specifying racial, religious or ethnic grounds, as is proposed under subsection (2) of the amendment, would give the officer no new power. The police are well aware of the potential for racial tension to be caused by processions and they already have the power to take the necessary action.
Subsection (3) would add "stirring up racial hatred" as an additional reason for imposing conditions on a procession. Under the amendment, the police officer would no longer be asked to make a judgment about the likely practical outcome of a procession—clearly a public order matter—but he would have to consider whether or not the procession would be likely to have the effect of stirring up racial hatred. This is a much more difficult matter. It would expose the police to arguments about what effect a procession would have on the emotions of third parties—irrespective of whether those people, as a result of the procession, were moved to take any unlawful action. I do not think that these proposals would offer anything which would help the police control processions.
I turn now to subsections (4) to (12) of the amendment, which would amend Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 by extending the scope of offences in this part of the Act and lowering a number of the tests which must presently be satisfied.
This is not an easy area. However, while nobody wants to see material which spreads racial hatred being
1932
freely circulated, it is the job of Parliament to decide where the boundary falls between protecting sections of our community and preserving freedom of speech. I think that this amendment goes too far in bringing within the scope of the criminal law some matters which should stay firmly outside it.
Starting first with the definition under subsection (5), the noble Lord would extend racial hatred to include "hostility, violence or discrimination". I cannot really see what hostility or violence would really add in law to the test of hatred, but the reference to discrimination seems out of place here. Racial discrimination is quite properly unlawful under the Race Relations Act 1976, but it is not a criminal offence. The effect of this amendment would be that incitement to racial discrimination would be a criminal offence, but discrimination itself would not be. Not only would this be bizarre, but it would enormously widen the scope of Part III of the Public Order Act.
Subsections (6) to (10) deal with the publication or possession of material which might have the effect of inciting racial hatred. There are, however, a number of fundamental flaws. First, the amendments would remove the requirement for relevant material to be "threatening, abusive or insulting". This would bring serious or academic works within the scope of the Act. A factual description of the horrors of the slave trade, for example, might well have the effect of stirring up racial hatred. News broadcasts of outrages committed between different communities elsewhere in the world could equally stir up racial hatred between members of the same communities in this country.
I shall not go through each subsection, but under subsections (7) and (10) the noble Lord also proposes removing the defence for an accused who has not been shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred and who is able to prove that he was not aware of the contents of the material. There would be no defence—as there is at the moment—for an innocent distributor such as a bookseller or publisher. And I would remind the Committee that the material would no longer even have to be threatening, abusive or insulting. That would, I think, threaten even the most responsible of booksellers distributing factual material.
Subsection (12) would replace the consent of the Attorney-General for prosecutions under Part III with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Since the Public Order Act came into force in 1987, consent to prosecute has been granted by the Law Officers on 14 of the 19 applications made by the Crown Prosecution Service. Where consent has been refused, it has been on standard grounds applicable to any prosecution decision such as the age of the defendant or the likelihood of securing a conviction. There is nothing to suggest that the consent provision operated to impede prosecutions which would otherwise have taken place.
The Attorney-General's consent was originally thought necessary in order to ensure that decisions effectively curtailing the freedom of speech should be made by someone who is accountable to Parliament. The proposals put forward in this new clause as a whole would vastly increase the ability of the law to curtail free and fair comment. In this context there is, if

1933
anything, even greater justification for the Attorney-General's consent. However, the Government will be looking further at this issue in the light of any recommendations made by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
While I understand the concerns which prompted the noble Lord to bring the new clause before your Lordships, I think it would create unacceptable problems. The Government share the noble Lord's concern to deal effectively with repugnant racial material. But we do not think that the new clause is the best way to do it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I shall read carefully in Hansard the noble Earl's detailed response, delivered, understandably at this late hour, at somewhat breakneck speed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 159E:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Racial harassment

(1) Part 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows—

(2) After secti6n 5 there shall be inserted the following new section—

"Racial harassment.
5A.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if 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.

(2) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.
(3) In this section "racial grounds" means any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both;

(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum or both.

(5) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if a reasonable person would have expected any such trespass or nuisance to cause harassment, alarm or distress, or any such words or behaviour, or any such writing, sign or other visual representation to be threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.").
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this amendment shortly largely because of the debate we had a little time ago on the noble Earl's Amendment No. 156B. I made particular criticisms of that amendment, albeit that it has now been passed. I pointed out, for example, that it would not cover the intentional playing of loud music outside the home of the victim; nor the deliberate creation of a din in neighbouring premises. I pointed out that it would not cover entry upon the victim's premises which was not threatening but designed to cause annoyance or irritation. I pointed out that it would not cover daubings on the walls of the victim's house unless those daubings were either threatening, abusive or
1934
insulting; nor would it cover the distribution of pamphlets or other written material to the victim's house which was offensive without being insulting.
This amendment is expressly concerned with harassment on racial grounds. As was pointed out in our earlier discussions on Amendment No. 156B, the noble Earl's amendment covered broadly the same grounds as Section 5 of the Public Order Act. It did not address other forms of harassment which the Government described in the other place as low level harassment. This amendment deals expressly with harassment on racial grounds. It deals not only with threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour or displays, but it also covers acts of trespass or nuisance likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Trespass would cover unauthorised entry on the victim's property. Nuisance would cover acts which make life unpleasant, irksome or intolerable for the victim. It would clearly cover all the examples that I have given of annoying, offensive conduct or conduct contemptuous of the victim's rights which the Minister's amendment does not reach. It was for those reasons that I suggested that the Minister's amendment did not afford adequate protection to those who suffer racial harassment in all its forms on a daily basis. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: If this amendment were enacted, it would be an excellent example of Ferrers' law. It would, for instance, have a devastating effect on the gypsy community and almost no effect on New Age travellers.
Earl Ferrers: While I can sympathise with the intention of this clause, I am afraid it also raises a considerable number of difficulties. The offence requires proof of racial motivation, and motivation is, as we know, one of the hardest things to prove in a court of law. But even leaving that aside, the substantive matters of the offence raise too many difficulties.
Section (l)(b) repeats the language of the existing Section 5 offence. There is no problem there. But new Section 5A(l)(a) refers to any trespass or nuisance which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The trespass or nuisance does not in itself even have to be threatening, abusive or insulting. There may indeed be nuisances or minor acts of trespass between neighbours, such as garden bonfires or music played too loudly, which can cause distress. But I doubt whether the noble Lord really means that that sort of conduct should now come within the scope of the criminal law and that there should be for that relatively harmless behaviour an unqualified power of arrest and a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment.
Subsection (5) makes it clear that the only requirement is for a reasonable person to have expected such behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress. At present a person is guilty of an offence under the existing Section 5 of the Public Order Act only if he either intends his conduct to be threatening or is awaire that it may be so. The new clause hugely extends the range of conduct which may be regarded as criminal. It

1935
lowers the tests which have to be satisfied, but it strengthens the arrest power and increases the sentence. I do not think that this is the best way to proceed.
With regard to the penalty, the Public Order Act provides a range of criminal offences with a graduated series of penalties to reflect their severity. The present Section 5 is the lowest of these and it merits a maximum fine of £1,000. The next up the scale is Section 4, which covers behaviour which is intended to provoke the immediate use of violence or which may lead a person to fear such violence. This attracts a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. I do not think that it can be right that conduct which is covered by the new clause, which involves behaviour no more serious than the present Section 5, should attract a sentence which is double that which is available for more serious behaviour involving a threat of actual violence.
The new clause would also make it an offence to trespass or to create a nuisance which causes distress, but only where it is racially motivated; and threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour would attract a substantial prison sentence but only if it were racially motivated. If the victim of the same conduct was a frail old lady, a disabled person or any other vulnerable person, but who happens to be of the same race as the offender, the conduct would merit no more than a £1,000 fine. I do not think that it would be either right or sensible for the same conduct to be liable to such very different sentences depending only on the motivation. That is why the Government's new clause of intentional harassment makes a higher penalty available for all cases of more serious conduct, whatever the motivation.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: At this late hour, I shall not prolong the debate. This is a subject to which we are likely to revert on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 159F:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1991
.—(1) 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 other national origin.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very modest amendment and despite the length of time that the Committee has already spent discussing this subject, I hope that your Lordships will consider it seriously.
The first new clause requires a court, when sentencing an offender, to regard racial motivation as an aggravating factor. It would apply both to racially motivated violence and also to non-violent offences committed with a racial motivation; for example, criminal damage to a householder's property involving the daubing of racist graffiti. That would make explicit in statute a duty which is already placed on courts implicitly by statute and also by guidance contained in
1936
Court of Appeal judgments. Section 3(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires courts considering the seriousness of an offence to,
"take into account all such information about the circumstances of the offence (including any aggravating or mitigating factors) as is available to it".
The Court of Appeal has also made it clear in appeal cases that racial motivation constitutes an aggravating factor. It could, therefore, be argued that it is unnecessary to make this duty explicit in statute in the way that the new clause does. However, it is submitted that the need to ensure that the courts always take it into account is so important that it is right to reinforce the courts' duty in this way. In the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which is a good precedent, the Government amended Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to stipulate that courts should regard as an aggravating factor the fact that an offence was committed on bail. 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".
It could have been argued that this provision was unnecessary because on a number of occasions the Court of Appeal had held that the courts should regard the offending on bail as an aggravating factor. However, the Government regarded it as so important to ensure that the courts took this into account that they considered it right to single it out for special attention in statute in this way.
It is submitted that the need to see racial motivation as an aggravating factor is just as important. A specific statutory duty of this kind would increase the likelihood that courts would reflect this in their sentencing as well as sending out a clearer signal from Parliament that racial violence and harassment is not to be tolerated. It would seem that this factor is unlikely to appear on the face of the Bill in any other place. That makes it even more important that mis clause should be included.
I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 159G. This second new clause places a duty on the prosecution to place before the court any information or material tending to show that the offence was committed with a racial motivation. If courts are to fulfil their duty (either their existing duty or the strengthened statutory duty contained in the new clause) to regard racial motivation as an aggravating factor they will be better able to do so if the prosecution is under a duty to provide them with any such information. There is good reason for tabling the amendment. On many occasions, it has come to light that the court was not fully informed about the racial aspects of the case. I took part in a recent "Panorama" programme which had investigated a number of cases in which the courts had not been informed of racial aspects. It was felt by those who were interviewed afterwards that had the court been fully informed, it might have taken a different view when sentencing.
I believe that that is an extremely important point. It is obviously understood that that matter should be taken into consideration but it would give a tremendous boost to the sense of security of the victims if those two clauses were placed on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I have a lot of sympathy with the intention of the first two of my noble friend's proposed new clauses. Racially motivated crimes are abhorrent. The prosecution should put forward what evidence it has where there may be a racist motive. The sentence, which is passed by the court, should reflect that. No one could disagree with those principles.
Courts are, of course, already required to take into account all the factors which aggravate or which mitigate the seriousness of offending behaviour. This long-standing and well established principle was given statutory force in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. A number of aggravating factors are widely recognised in case law—racial motivation is one of those. Other factors, which the courts will regard as aggravating the seriousness of an offence, include where an offence is carried out by a group or a gang; where an offence is committed against a young, elderly or otherwise vulnerable victim; and where an offence involves abuse of trust or when an offence is planned.
I hope that your Lordships would agree that where one or more of these factors was present it would be highly unusual for any court not to regard the seriousness of the offence as having been aggravated. It would seem curious, though, to single out just one of these factors as being so different that it, and it alone, should require to be separately specified in statute.
With regard to Amendment No. 159G, there is already a duty on all those who prosecute in the name of the Crown, after conviction or a finding of guilt, to inform the court of the circumstances of the offence and the character and antecedents of the offender. 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—from the first report of the incident, through its handling by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, to sentence passed by the court. Achieving that will mean that the prosecution and the courts will have before them the information on which they can act effectively. That requires the co-ordination of the work of different agencies and it may be more a matter for administrative action rather than legislation. 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.
I turn now to the new offence of racial harassment —Amendment No. 159H. Here the position is rather more difficult. Racial harassment is an appalling feature of the lives of too many of our citizens. It can do enormous damage to individuals and to relations between different communities. The new offence would take the behaviour already covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986—
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to intervene but the Minister is speaking to an amendment that has not been moved or spoken to. I wonder whether it is in order for the Committee to hear the Government's response before an amendment has been moved or spoken to in the debate.
Earl Ferrers: I understood that all the amendments were grouped together but if my noble friend wishes to move that amendment separately, I am quite happy for her to do so.
Baroness Flather: I had intended to move the racial harassment amendment separately but I was not going to say anything new. I shall say my piece after the Minister's speech.
Earl Ferrers: The proposed new offence would take the behaviour which is already covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and provide an immediate arrest power and sentence of up to two years' imprisonment, but only where the behaviour is on racial grounds. It is always difficult for prosecutors to prove motivation beyond reasonable doubt. But the proposal raises a more fundamental question. The same behaviour and the same distress may occur to two different people. In the first case, it may be a young child, a woman, an elderly person or someone disabled. That would be an offence under the existing Section 5 which would be punishable with a maximum fine of £1,000. In the second case, which would be distinguished only by race, there would be a maximum penalty of two years in prison. I do not think that that can be right. It would be difficult to distinguish between similar behaviour in such an arbitrary way. To have a vastly different penalty for race cases only would send a wrong signal and would do more damage to race relations than it would improve them.
It is because of those difficulties that the Government introduced their new clause, to which Members of the Committee agreed earlier this evening, concerning causing intentional harassment. That effectively takes the most serious conduct under Section 5—namely, deliberate harassment actually causing distress—and makes it liable to six months' imprisonment. It deals with racial harassment, but it also deals with harassment on any other grounds. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that that is the most sensible way to proceed.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene in the debate. I support the noble Baroness in Amendments Nos. 159F and 159G to which she has spoken. It seems to me that the noble Baroness made a very good good case; indeed, there is an overwhelming case that racial motivation should be seen as an aggravating factor and that facts relating to racial motivation should be placed before a court.
In his response, the noble Earl identified a number of factors which the courts already take into account in terms of identifying whether there are aggravating factors involved. I believe that the noble Earl mentioned that they are a well-established and accepted part of

1939
court procedure. I believe that the Minister also said that racial motivation should also be taken into account as an aggravating factor by the courts. However, if the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments, what steps are they taking to ensure that, on the one hand, courts have placed in front of them evidence of such aggravating factors and, on the other hand, they take them into account in determining sentence? It is not clear from what the Minister said that the Government are actually taking action to ensure that both of those characteristics are taken into account.
Earl Ferrers: I shall reply to the noble Lord fairly briefly. The whole way through out debates on such amendments I have explained that our great desire is that racial motivation or racial harassment should be flagged up at every stage whether by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or the courts. That is what we wish to see happen. Of course, governments cannot impose that: what we have to do is encourage it and give the courts the power to impose higher sentences where there is an aggravating factor. Indeed, I gave examples earlier of how courts have done so.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to rise again, but if the Government do not have the power to advise the courts on what they should take into account and what type of information they should have in front of them, perhaps it is up to Parliament to give the courts and the prosecution authorities those powers. That is exactly what the amendments seek to do.
Earl Ferrers: Had the noble Lord been present in the Chamber earlier this evening when we discussed other similar amendments, he would have realised that the courts already have such powers; indeed, they have the powers to give higher sentences for aggravated offences, and they do so. It is for the police to gather the information and then it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute on the cases. In all those instances and at all those stages aggravated offences are taken into account. Moreover, where it is plain that there is an aggravated factor involved—that is, a matter of racial harassment, racial hatred or any of those things—such offences are aggravated offences which courts do take into account; which they have the power to take into account; for which they have the power to give greater sentences; and, indeed, for which they do give greater sentences.
Baroness Flather: If I had been able to speak to my Amendment No. 159H, I might have saved my noble friend the Minister some time, because it is not my intention to press that amendment in view of the Government's proposal which was accepted earlier. But I believe that that in itself makes it even more essential that my other amendments, Nos. 159F and 159G, should appear on the face of the Bill.
I take note of what my noble friend the Minister has said about administrative changes and administrative pressures and the fact that what we are discussing is probably happening already. But I have to say that that is not going to be enough. It is essential to flag this up using the very same words as my noble friend the
1940
Minister used when he said, "We have flagged this up". But it is not flagged up in this Bill and it is important that it should be flagged up.
Many people have asked why racial harassment and racial violence are any worse than any other kind of violence. Indeed every kind of violence is dreadful. We were given an emotive example of a woman in a wheelchair who had stones thrown at her. But we have not talked about all the women who have stones thrown at them every morning when they take their children to school in Tower Hamlets. Can we say how many women, or indeed men, in wheelchairs have had stones thrown at them? But we can say how many thousands of people have been victims of racially motivated behaviour.
This is also a question of degree and of quantity. If society is suffering from a spate of a certain type of behaviour which we do not wish to see happening, then we have to do something about it. If there was a spate of women in wheelchairs being stoned, I would be standing here asking the Chamber whether it was not time that we introduced a special penalty for people who threw stones at women in wheelchairs. But that offence does not occur every day and I am not asking for that special penalty. However, I am asking for a remedy for something which has proved to be a blight on society. I am sorry to see that the most reverend Primate is not here. Earlier, he talked about protecting our society from an erosion of values. I think those words are appropriate to racially motivated behaviour. We need to protect our society from an erosion of the values of fairness, and the value of allowing people the liberty to go about their lives in the normal course of events.
I am not much moved by the argument that it is difficult to prove a racial motive or that the courts will be reluctant to find a racial motive, or that juries will be reluctant to find it. We have also been told there is a lower burden of proof in discrimination cases and therefore they are successful. But I remember very clearly when cases of racial discrimination were first taken to industrial tribunals. The noble Lord opposite knows perfectly well how difficult it was to persuade the industrial tribunals to find racial discrimination. They are getting better at finding it. Therefore it is a question of education, of training and of getting society to accept as a norm that racially motivated violence and racially motivated behaviour are not acceptable in our society.
I say a final word to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It is not a matter of culture. It is a question of how people perceive other races. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that, as the victim of a serious racial attack, I do not take such an abstract view as he does. It is very easy to sit here in this Chamber and take an abstract view of the lives of people outside. I do not believe that we should do that. We should think about how people's lives are blighted day by day.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 159G and 159H not moved.]
Midnight
Clause 138 [Prohibition on use of cells from embryos or foetuses]:
[Amendment No. 160 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 160ZA:
Page 113, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) After the section 3A inserted by subsection (2) above there shall be inserted the following section—
"Modification of effect of Act
3B.—(1) Section 3A above does not apply in such circumstances (if any) as may be specified in or determined in pursuance of regulations.
(2) Regulations made by virtue of this section may provide that other sections of this Act shall have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the regulations."
( ) In section 45(4) (regulations under the Act) after the words "section 3(3) (c)" there shall be inserted "3B".").
The noble Lord said: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act established a statutory Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, of which the chairman, deputy chairman and the majority of the members must be neither doctors nor scientists involved in any aspect of research covered by the Act. That authority has dealt with many difficult issues since it was established. Last year it consulted the public on sex selection of children and said no to such selection for social reasons, just as it had said no to mechanisms of artificially producing identical twins.
The authority considers the use of donated ovarian tissue to be an important matter upon which the public should be consulted. The consultation document which it has published and circulated has aroused enormous public interest, and some 20,000 copies have been distributed on request. Replies have been received from an enormous range of organisations and individuals. Public meetings have been held to encourage debate, and the media have taken great interest in the issue.
The consultation document identifies many matters relating to the use of ovarian eggs and ovarian tissue derived from adult women, from females who have died, and from aborted foetuses. The Secretary of State for Health asked the authority for its advice following the consultation process, which began on 7th January and is to continue to 15th July, after which a report will be made to the Secretary of State which will include consideration as to whether legislative changes may be needed.
I am satisfied, as is the authority, that it has the necessary powers to regulate and strictly control embryo research and fertility treatment under its present terms of reference. Any research or treatment using foetal ovarian tissue would need a licence from the authority, which has no present intention of giving one. In fact, fertility treatment in adult women using foetal ovarian tissue is not going on, no one is contemplating it, and, even if they were, such a possibility would not be likely to arise for a minimum of 10 to 20 years from the present date.
It is, of course, the case that under the terms of reference and recommendations of the committee chaired by that distinguished cleric and academic, the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, foetal tissue may under
1942
certain specific circumstances be used in research. As the Committee will be aware, brain tissue derived from aborted foetuses has been used with modest success in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. But all such research and the use of foetal tissue in other research projects is very carefully controlled.
In the Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Oxford there is a research team headed by Professor David Barlow. It has an international reputation and is in many respects leading the world. The team is undertaking a research project in which it is examining the development of human foetal ovarian tissue. That research is crucial, as it will provide useful information on the growth of immature human eggs which could well improve success rates in the treatment of adult patients. The use of such tissue in that project has been approved by the Central Oxford Research Ethics Committee and is being conducted according to the full Polkinghorne guidelines. Those include the provisions that the researcher may have no contact with the patient from whom the aborted foetus is obtained, that the decisions for the termination of pregnancy and the use of tissue in research are separated by an intermediary, and that full consent has been given by the patient. While parallel work using adult ovarian tissue supplied by volunteers undergoing sterilisation is also in progress, this is likely to prove much less successful because of the significantly lower numbers of eggs present in such tissue, which makes their isolation and study very much more difficult.
Many doctors and scientists are deeply concerned that Clause 138 as it stands could well discourage, perhaps even outlaw, certain research methodologies using foetal tissue which could now or in the future be invaluable in leading to the prevention of miscarriage, of ovarian cancer and of premature menopause., among many other possibilities.
When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was debated some years ago in your Lordships' House, I indicated how crucially important to the future of humanity was the research on early human embryos. Many of the prospects which I then discussed relating to the prevention and indirectly to the treatment of devastating human diseases such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and others, have subsequently become a reality or are very close to being so. Future developments in this vital field of human embryo research will be determined by the availability of eggs with which embryos may be produced for such research. The richest source is the human foetus, and the unanimous view of the medical and scientific bodies which I have consulted is that, if licences for such work are eventually granted by the HFEA after full consultation, the potential benefits to human; health will be incalculable.
Having made those points, perhaps I may say that I understand the motives which led Dame Jill Knight to introduce into the Bill now being considered in Committee Clause 138 to render the use of foetal eggs in infertility treatment in adult females illegal. Nevertheless, I must say that it seems extraordinary that such a clause should, without any prior consultation with the medical and scientific community about its

1943
potential implications, have been inserted into a Bill dealing with a very different topic. What is even more remarkable is the fact that it would appear that the insertion of this clause may have received some support from Government at a time when a statutory authority was undertaking an extensive consultation process in order to advise the Secretary of State upon all relevant issues. It is almost certain that that consultation would have ended with advice being given to Government by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that the use of foetal ovarian tissue for infertility treatment of adults should be banned by law.
I must express the personal view that I, along with others, would for a number of reasons have found such a use both distasteful and objectionable. In that respect, I therefore support the objectives underlying the clause now standing as part of the Bill, while deeply regretting the indecent haste with which it came to be included. For the latter reason, I therefore have considerable sympathy with the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord who have indicated their intention to oppose the continuing inclusion of this clause in the Bill.
However, after consultation with distinguished scientists, including Professor Marcus Pembrey, the Government's own consultant adviser on clinical genetics, and taking account of the views of Dame Anne McLaren, Foreign Secretary and Vice-President of the Royal Society, one of the world's most distinguished embryologists, I have tabled this amendment in order to bring to your Lordships' attention a major problem of which I am sure Dame Jill Knight and her supporters in another place were unaware when Clause 138 was added to the Bill. I was indeed tempted to set down yet another amendment accepting the prohibition at present specified in the clause, subject only to such recommendations and proposals as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority might now or in the future make after wide public consultation. I did not do so as I wholly recognise that this is a matter of such great importance to society that it is proper that major new developments, however vital they may be to the prevention and treatment of disease, should be fully considered in the future in both Houses of Parliament.
Accordingly, the amendment which I have set down maintains the general ban on the use of foetal germ cells and tissues in fertility treatment as provided for in Clause 138. However, it makes possible the introduction of regulations by the Secretary of State, having taken advice from the HFEA, regulations which must then be subject to approval by Parliament by affirmative resolution requiring debate in both Houses. Such regulations, if accepted, would permit the use of foetal eggs in research in exceptional circumstances specific-ally concerned with the prevention or treatment of serious human disease or dysfunction.
May I endeavour to explain one compelling reason why such an amendment is essential? All human cells contain a nucleus in which the majority of the body's DNA, embracing the genome or genetic constitution of the individual, is located. The cell itself is bounded by a membrane, but the nucleus rests within a substance called cytoplasm which in most cells occupies the
1944
greater part of its volume, being substantially larger than the nucleus. Within that nucleus are tiny structures called mitochondria which are the energy storehouses of the cell and which also contain a small number of genes, though these represent but a tiny fraction of human genes in comparison with those residing in the nucleus.
When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act became law in 1990, a clause in the Act indicated that a licence awarded by the HFEA could not authorise replacing a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from a cell of any other embryo or with the subsequent development of such an embryo. This clause on nuclear exchange was properly included to prevent cloning of human embryos so as to produce several genetically identical individuals. What was not fully appreciated then was that this clause would also outlaw a method of exchange of cytoplasm in an embryo produced by straightforward in vitro fertilisation; that is, the product of an egg fertilised by sperm from the woman's partner.
At that time medical science had not yet discovered the extent to which many serious diseases are caused by defects in the genes carried in the mitochondria in the cytoplasm, and treatment methods to control these conditions were not then under consideration. In the past few years it has become increasingly apparent that many different diseases causing, for example, severe epilepsy, mental handicap or dementia, muscular weakness or paralysis, various forms of deafness and adult-onset diabetes, can all be caused by mutations in mitochondrial genes. Such genes, too, have a most unusual pattern of inheritance, being exclusively passed on through the female line. Thus a healthy or mildly affected woman carrying such a mutation in just a small proportion of her mitochondria carries the considerable risk that any child of hers, of either sex, could develop severe mitochondrial disease. Hence, all children born to such a mother are at risk and methods of prenatal diagnosis, which are allowed under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and which are proving successful in many other conditions, are by the very nature of mitochondrial inheritance, unreliable. Only within the past two years has it become clear that a form of cytoplasmic exchange in conjunction with standard in vitro fertilisation in adult human subjects would be able to free the baby and its descendants from mitochondrial disease. This would be a permanent cure.
Such a possibility could only follow a proposal from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority under Schedule 2(3) of the 1990 Act, clearly stating that a licence under this paragraph cannot authorise altering the genetic structure of any cell while it forms part of an embryo, except in such circumstances (if any) as may be specified in or determined in pursuance of regulations.
The use of cytoplasm from foetal eggs could fulfil this objective, but would still need to be approved on the recommendation of the HFEA by resolution of each House of Parliament. The use of eggs from aborted foetuses may prove in the future, through research, to be useful in many other as yet unpredictable but widely acceptable ways.
For this reason, I and the scientific community believe that the amendment which I have tabled and

1945
which, as I said at the outset, maintains the ban on the use of foetal eggs for adult fertility treatment, will nevertheless allow such crucial developments in research and in the prevention of human mitochondrial diseases to be carried out, but only after the fullest consultation under regulations approved by both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: The House will have listened with the greatest care and attention, as it always does, to what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, had to say. It is very late and I shall be extremely brief, but I would like to make four points.
Mrs. Knight's clause in the Bill does not mention research. It can have no effect in banning research, and I am puzzled as to why anybody should think that it could. Since the noble Lord is content with the proposed ban on the use of foetal eggs for the generation of new persons, it seems to me that another approach is needed.
The idea of introducing the new clause which the noble Lord proposes permitting regulations to be made is extremely broad and non-specific. He stated that these regulations would be used only to secure research. He even outlined the kind of research to which the use of the regulations would be confined. But of course that is not what the noble Lord's new clause says. It leaves infinite power to introduce regulations on this subject and on any other subject.
The Committee will have noticed that subsection (2) of the new clause would empower the Government to change by regulation any part of the 1984 Act. That is clearly unacceptable, and the Committee would be wrong to accept it.
Lastly, if there is a piece of research which has been inadvertently prohibited—as the noble Lord said, if I understood him correctly, not by this Bill but by an earlier Act—I submit that this Bill is a very good opportunity for the introduction of the perfectly straightforward amending clause concerning the earlier Act in this one particular.
The Duke of Norfolk: I should like to speak just to Amendment No. 160ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Surely this is the most obvious example of a Henry VIII provision. The noble Lord is suggesting that if this clause is passed, the Department of Health will be empowered to change, not only the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, and add to it and amend it, but also the abortion Acts. It would be most undesirable for the Committee to pass the noble Lord's amendment, which would give a complete blanket authority. It is well described as being a Henry VIII provision. I should like to speak later about Clause 138.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I should like to speak in support of this amendment. In doing so, I have put my name to the amendment but I should like to make it clear that that is done in a personal capacity, and if the noble Lord, Lord Walton, decides to test the opinion of the Committee there will, of course, be a free vote on these Benches, as I understand there will be on the government side.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for
1946
the way in which, as always, he gave a most lucid explanation of what is scientifically a very complex area. In supporting the amendment, perhaps I may make a few points which I would describe as "lay" ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, demonstrated in discussing the new work on the mitochondria how fast medical science is advancing in this field. I have to confess that the word "mitochondria" was totally unfamiliar to me until about six weeks ago when I started to listen to some of the arguments about Dame Jill Knight's new clause in this Bill. The Committee heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that when the 1990 Bill was passed the importance of the mitochondria was not understood. Now scientists in this country have discovered that defects in the mitochondria can cause the very serious conditions to which the noble Lord referred.
I say to my noble friend Lord Kennet that my discussions with the scientific community—obviously much more superficial and less wide and deep than those of the noble Lord, Lord Walton—suggest precisely what he was saying did not occur with this Bill; namely, the sense that a research blight will be cast over their entire field if this clause stands part of the Bill. Once again, in the whole area which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, described so clearly, British scientists have been international leaders, as they have been ever since 1978 when the first test-tube baby following in vitro fertilisation was born in Oldham in Lancashire.
Our scientists have pioneered discoveries in this wide-ranging area. They have done it responsibly, sensitively and with great concern for the ethical dilemmas that their work can create. Many couples in this country have been helped towards great happiness as parents by the therapeutic application of some of the new scientific techniques. One is bound to remember that one in 10 couples in this country is officially categorised as medically infertile. But the technique of using donated ovarian tissue or foetal eggs to solve infertility is, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, not possible today and is unlikely to be possible for another 20 years. As I said, the clause will cast a research blight over an area of research which may produce therapies that may help infertile couples but which may also produce important findings, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, described, about inherited diseases and other serious problems such as ovarian cancer, miscarriage and premature menopause.
At this stage we just do not know where the scientific inquiry will lead. But we should not be frightened by that. Equally, we do not know what public attitudes may be in the future towards knowledge and techniques which we cannot yet foresee. But the clause places a blanket ban on an area of science in which, as I said, we have been world leaders. We should be proud of that. We should be encouraging and supporting these exciting developments and not attempting to suppress them.
We have also been leaders in regulating the experimental work in this very sensitive area. A charitable view of the present situation could be that the Department of Health officials and Ministers in another place did not realise the extent of the potential damage

1947
to science when they encouraged and helped Dame Jill Knight's amendment through the other place. The charitable view, frankly, is one that I should like to accept, given that the Government have previously had a good record on appropriate legislation in this field; and I should like to accept it in the hope that this amendment will prove to be acceptable.
After all, until now the Government's approach has been to introduce rigorous regulation after extensive consultation. The Committee may remember that the 1990 Bill—I was not here at that time—was introduced six years after the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, had reported on the subject. Those six years allowed time for wide discussion of all the social issues involved as well as practical debate about the most effective and trusted form of regulation. That was precisely the process that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was following in its consultation on ovarian tissue donation when the whole operation was hijacked by Dame Jill Knight's Clause 138. It was slipped through the other place at an even more inhuman hour than we are now at tonight.
The amendment we are discussing would allow the HFEA consultation to go on. It is worth reminding the Committee, as did the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that 20,000 consultation papers were sent out, that 8,000 replies have already been received and that the consultation period has been extended until July to allow a special BMA conference on this subject to be held.
In the three years of its existence the HFEA has gained wide respect and should be allowed to fulfil the statutory functions intended by this Government, which, after all, set it up. I disagree entirely with the Early Day Motion which has been circulating in another place, criticising individual members of the authority. I hope that the Government will back its appointees both publicly and privately. I have great confidence in the integrity of the HFEA and would be happy to allow it to make decisions about further work on donated ovarian tissue. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I realise that many Members of the Committee and Members in another place feel that in this area they want further parliamentary safeguards. Those safeguards are provided for by the amendment. Work will proceed only when and if both Houses of Parliament introduce affirmative regulations to allow it to. That seems to offer a sensible compromise. The amendment protects parliamentary authority without undermining the HFEA, which is the statutory licensing body. It leaves open the possibility of vital research which may lead at some time in the future to new fertility treatments. I hope the amendment will be accepted because, in my view, to reject it really is to vote for a flat earth.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I speak in support of the amendment which stands also in my name on the Marshalled List, and I can do so extremely briefly because I made a full speech on the subject in the debate on 1lth May initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
First, I pay tribute to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, appointed as a wide and
1948
balanced authority with balanced views and expertise. I pay tribute also to the careful process of consultation on the use of donated ovarian tissue which it undertook. But I express regret, as have other Members of the Committee, that the other place was persuaded to accept an amendment which would make the process futile.
I understand the objections raised by some Members of the Committee to the form of the amendment as it stands; that is, as an overbroad delegation of law-making authority beyond Parliament—a Henry VIII clause. I see that objection but I hope that the Minister, whom I previously described as a voice of great moderation and reason in this Chamber, will be able to indicate that the Government can give effect to the aim of the amendment in a more appropriate parliamentary form, the object being to enable the process of consultation to proceed and to back the authority—I very much echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said in regard to the need to back the authority —in the difficult work that Parliament has given it to perform.
The Earl of Halsbury: I speak tonight as a member of the all-party family and child protection group of both Houses of Parliament. The chairman, Dame Jill Knight, put this clause into the Bill under the 10-minute rule. I have never had the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons, but I understand that it is a device for enabling individual Members to intervene in a debate effectively, albeit at possibly a late hour of the night.
The clause has widespread support throughout the country. It is important to realise exactly what the amendment imports. Dame Jill Knight's Amendment No. 138 cross-references to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. In relation to regulations it says that the Secretary of State—not either House of Parliament—
"may make regulations for any purpose for which regulations may be made under this Act. The power to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument. Regulations may make different provisions for different cases",
and so forth. We have listened time and time again to positive and negative instruments and the rather dreary debates to which they lead and we have seen our incapacity to do anything about them. We do not appreciate them other than to knock them out of court. There is nothing in Clause 138 that inhibits research. All it inhibits is the final stage of research when one can plant a synthetic egg into a human being. Under the amendment that will not require a regulation but a new Act of Parliament.
As the matter stands, it is a perfect example, as stated by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, of a Henry VIII clause; and we should have no truck with clauses of that kind. I add my appeal to my noble friend to withdraw the amendment and reconsider its terms at a further stage of the Bill.
The Marquess of Lothian: I should like to support my noble friend behind me and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in what he has stated about the broad effects of regulations. I think that the matter goes too wide on a subject upon which many noble Lords have very sincerely held views and different opinions. We should

1949
be very careful about extending the regulations procedures in relation to something which is of such importance and sensitivity and - I hesitate to say this -in some respects possibly some danger to people. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment or the Minister will consider resisting it.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: The idea that the eggs of aborted foetuses should be used to conceive children must give cause for concern for many reasons. Firstly, it involves creating a child whose mother was never born. The effect upon a child of discovering that she exists only because her grandmother chose to have her mother aborted are beyond calculation.
Secondly, what does that situation say about a society which disposes of unwanted children and plunders their bodies for spare parts to create other children? Thirdly, we must ask what right anyone has to use the eggs of a child in that way.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which we debated very fully in 1989 and 1990, requires that eggs should not be used without the consent of the donor. Can it ever be right to make a person a parent without their consent, and how can it be possible for an unborn child to give consent? That injustice is compounded, not mitigated, by the fact that the person concerned has been deprived of her own life.
It has been suggested that the use of eggs from naturally miscarried babies would be acceptable. I do not accept that point of view. A child would be created whose mother had died before she was born, and a child would be made a mother without her consent.
It has been suggested that a woman should be allowed to use the eggs of her own miscarried baby to conceive again, which I find a little bizarre. Why would a woman who has successfully conceived need to do that? Would any woman want to carry her own grandchild? If the same man fathered the second child, he would be both father and grandfather and the union would be incest.
It causes me great concern to see medicine going in this direction. For the scientists who are making the proposals, eggs and sperm are simply raw material for some in a manufacturing process designed to deliver a baby. Where they come from is of no consequence so long as they are fertile. However, it does matter. The whole point of donating eggs is that they can be fertilised by the sperm of the man in order that the child will be his. Otherwise, couples would be happy to adopt or have donated embryos, of which there are several thousand in cold storage.
If the origin of the sperm matters to the father and to the child, how can the origin of the egg be of less consequence? How does one cell provide a vital link between the generations while the other is merely an anonymous piece of genetic material salvaged from a disposable donor?
Eggs and sperm are the means by which we pass our identity to future generations. This matters very much to both parents and children, as is evidenced by the number of adopted children who seek out their biological
1950
parents. A child created in this way will be deprived of a biological identity. Medicine today often needs to know the ancestry of a child even to treat the patient
Medicine still continues to try to restore fertility when it has been lost. I do not believe it should try to turn human reproduction into a consumer-driven manufacturing process. That we can even contemplate creating children from the bodies of unborn babies shows that we are heading in this direction. I have seen for myself, albeit 50 years ago, medical experiments made by scientists in the Nazi movement. They, too, believed that for the Aryan race their experiments would prove good. I mention that not in any way to decry what scientists and the medical profession do in this country but to draw the attention of the Committee to what could happen in the worst event. As Dr. James Le Fanu, a GP and newspaper columnist, recently wrote:
"When … research involves … the transplanting of aborted fetal ovaries then the value of human life is degraded and stripped of its mystery".
We live in an age of great moral confusion, in which we are reluctant to express a firm view on a moral issue. That is one of the failings of our age. In this matter, I do not think we should have any fear of sending a clear message that these procedures are not acceptable. In doing so, we will have the support of a very large part of the British public, a great number of whom are absolutely unaware of what Is being said here and the serious consequences.
In the Book of Hebrews is written:
'To be alive is no man's gift: It is God's gift".
We are mere mortals. We take over God's work: at our peril.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Warnock: I rise to support the amendment for two reasons. First, it would give the opportunity for the HFEA to complete the survey, come to its conclusions and make its recommendations which it could then present to Parliament. That is a very proper outcome, given that it is fulfilling the functions for which it was set up in making this elaborate questionnaire. Secondly, the amendment would leave open the possibility of the kind of research of which we have heard. That is of enormous importance. I do not believe that any moral judgment, however strongly felt, can be based on ignorance if it is to have any validity.
Our ignorance of these scientific matters is fairly profound. When I say "our", I mean lay persons. However, we have had this evening a very clear explanation of the kinds of research beneficial to medicine but nothing particularly to do with the remedies for infertility which may possibly come from the continuation of this kind of research and which would be under threat from this clause. If the: door were shut to some outcomes of the research, the research might also seem to be under threat.
It is true that though the clause itself says nothing about research, Dame Jill Knight very definitely said that her intention in introducing the clause was to say that scientists might just as well give up this kind of research and give it up for good. That was the intention of the clause as it was first introduced. I therefore think

1951
that an amendment such as we are considering is very well worth supporting simply to leave open the possibilities of highly beneficial research. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government may feel that they can accept an amendment that would have the same effect as this, if not this amendment itself.
Lord Kennet: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question before she sits down. Is the kind of research which tends towards the generation of new babies by this means the same kind of research as that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, as being of particular value for the future of genetic therapy?
Baroness Warnock: As far as I understand it, the research using foetal tissue would in every case, for whatever it was going to be used, have to come before the HFEA. I suppose that the research would be judged by the HFEA according to whether it was good scientific research and was likely to have a successful outcome, whatever that outcome. So in one sense, as I understand it, it would be the same kind of research because the same kinds of foetal tissue would be used and the construction of the egg would be under examination in either case. My noble friend will put me right if I am wrong on that.
Baroness Strange: I should like to support my honourable friend Dame Jill Knight. There is an old rhyme which begins:
"Where do you come from baby dear? Out of the everywhere into here".
I cannot remember more, but it seems to me to encapsulate what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said, 'The procreation of children is literally a participation in the creativity of God. Its basis is love".
Although unfair to birds, I have to admit that I do not believe that babies are brought in by flocks of flying storks, but I do not believe either that, like rag dolls, they should be made up of discarded bits and pieces of humanity, some of them dead. A baby is a gift from God.
Lord Ashbourne: I cannot commend the amend-ment to the Committee because it would allow the department to change legislation at will. Not only would that render Clause 138 quite meaningless, but it would also mean that any other parts of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act could be altered by the department. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk argued so cogently, that ought to be unacceptable to your Lordships. It certainly fills me with a very deep unease. I therefore urge the Committee not to support Amendment No. 160ZA.
Lord Swinfen: I have one quick question. I understand that, under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the ultimate donor has to give informed consent for the use of material. Who would be able to give informed consent? I should have thought that the consent would have to come from the foetus.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I should like to make one point. Before the Committee decides whether to accept the amendment involving a considerable and wide-ranging delegation of power, may I remind the Committee of what the House of Lords' Select Committee which considered the scrutiny of delegated powers stated in its 1993 report? It stated:
"We were very impressed by the weight of evidence suggesting that parliamentary control over delegated legislation was in many ways so limited as to be ineffective".
Viscount Brentford: I have one question in connection with which I should like to quote from Hansard in another place. On 22nd February this year, Dame Jill Knight said clearly:
"it is not intended to stop research or to stop the use of human eggs donated by women".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/2/94; col. 151.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, appeared hesitant about the question of whether the provision could stop research. It seems to me that it is not Dame Jill Knight's intention to stop research. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us whether the provision will stop such research. It seems to me that it is restricted to fertility services. That should be all that we are talking about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): I wish to add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for introducing the amendment with his characteristic authority and clarity. The Government's position is one of neutrality both on this amendment and on Clause 138. We have some strong reservations about the effect that the amendment has and that has been addressed by Members of the Committee tonight. I shall come to that later. We believe that this is a very sensitive issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, we believe that this is a matter for individual judgment and conscience of Members of the Committee.
For some of us, important matters of conscience are in conflict with the natural desire to see progress in the understanding and treatment of serious disease. I am a supporter of medical research and I have great respect for the clinicians and scientists who work in this important field. I also fully understand the great concern of those who find unacceptable the prospect of using eggs from aborted foetuses in the treatment of infertility.
Clause 138 prohibits the use of female germ cells taken or derived from an embryo or a foetus to achieve a pregnancy. It also precludes the use of an embryo created by using such cells to achieve a pregnancy. It does not ban research using female germ cells. I understand the confusion referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and my noble friend Lord Brentford. I wish to emphasise that only the use of these cells to achieve a pregnancy is banned, not research in this field.
The Government acknowledge the sorrow and sadness that infertility can cause. Medical science has made great progress bringing hope through in vitro fertilisation to many couples. But Parliament has quite rightly decided that developments in this area should be subject to certain controls.

1953
We are aware that some people, including Members of your Lordships' House, consider Clause 138 to be premature and unnecessary because it pre-empts the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's consultation exercise. But of course the clause addresses only one aspect on which the authority is consulting.
The consultation document addresses wider issues which are not dealt with by the new clause. These include whether ovarian tissue, other than foetal, should be used in infertility research or treatment, as well as the problem of obtaining consent where the eggs are not the woman's but those of her foetus. That matter was referred to by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
These issues will still need to be considered by the Government, following the advice of the authority after the consultation ends in July 1994. The Government have every confidence in the authority and appreciate the commitment of its members and the work that they undertake. But the Government also respect the will of Parliament and its prerogative to reach decisions on these difficult ethical issues.
I turn to the amendment. We share the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and my noble friends the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Lothian, that the regulation-making power is very broad indeed. The Committee will clearly wish to consider whether such a broad power would be appropriate and whether it is indeed necessary to achieve the purpose of the amendment. Members of the Committee are, of course, cautious about scrutinising proposals for delegated powers contained in Bills. The amendment before the Committee includes a power to modify all other sections of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. In this respect, it goes much further than other relevant powers under the Act. The Committee will also wish to consider the wisdom of taking such a major step without wider consultation than is available during the passage of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked whether the Government will be prepared to give the same assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, as it gave to Dame Jill Knight in providing drafting assistance in order to ensure that her amendment was workable. If it would be for the convenience of this Committee to give effect to its wishes, I will certainly impress on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health that similar facilities should be offered to the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in explaining why they consider this amendment to be justified, referred to mitochondrial disorders. As has been explained, it might become possible to help couples at substantial risk of having a child with a mitochondrial disorder to achieve a healthy child. An egg has a nucleus surrounded by cytoplasm which contains mitochondria. The mitochondria consists of DNA which controls aspects of the metabolism of the egg.
It has been suggested that by replacing the cytoplasm of an egg which contains disordered mitochondria with the cytoplasm of an egg derived from a foetus, a healthy egg could be produced. That could be fertilised in vitro
1954
and the embryo transferred back to the woman, with the aim of achieving a pregnancy. A child conceived in that way could reasonably be regarded as having a genetic constitution derived from its parents, although its mitochondrial DNA would have come from a separate source. Although this intervention is at the moment purely theoretical, the prospect of achieving it raises wider issues.
The correction of a genetic disorder using such a technique would affect future generations who would inherit the altered genetic material. This is really a form of germ line gene therapy which is not at present permitted in the United Kingdom.
In 1989 the ethical issues raised by the prospect of gene therapy were fully considered by the Clothier Committee. The committee's report was presented to Parliament in 1992. It recommended that germ line gene therapy should not yet be attempted, and the Government accepted that recommendation.
The Clothier Committee's successor, the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Dame June Lloyd, is responsible for reviewing all proposals for human gene therapy research and for advising on its ethical acceptability. The Government look to that committee for advice on developments in this field, including the acceptability of germ line gene therapy. I suggest to your Lordships' House that it would be more appropriate to wait until the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee and Parliament have considered the wider implications of this form of therapy before reaching any firm conclusions tonight.
Consideration of the ethical aspects of research and treatment using human embryos is one of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's responsibilities. But the issues involved in germ line gene therapy go wider than the authority's remit and expertise. Parliament has a responsibility to protect future generations. We must safeguard their welfare by ensuring that treatment which involves germ line gene therapy is not permitted in any form until full and thorough consideration has been given to its safety.
This is a free vote issue tonight and, therefore, I leave it to the individual judgment of your Lordships as to which way to vote in a Division if the noble Lord, Lord Walton, chooses to divide the Committee.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am grateful to those who have supported the amendment either in its entirety or in principle.
One of the problems that we face in considering an issue of this degree of sensitivity, particularly at this hour of the morning, without going into very great detail, is that there are situations in which it is ultimately exceptionally difficult to separate issues relating to treatment from those relating to research, because the two have margins which are at times blurred. Nevertheless, I have made it clear, and I hope that your Lordships will accept, that the principle underlying the amendment introduced into the Bill by Dame Jill Knight relating to the objection to the use of foetal eggs to create new children by fertilisation of adult infertile

1955
females was something which I found repugnant. And that principle is one which I wholly accept. Nevertheless, in my view it would have been better if the Government and Dame Jill Knight had waited until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority consultation process had been completed. A number of noble Lords have talked about widespread support in the country, but we do not know the extent to which that support exists until the consultation process has been completed.
I make one important point relating to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, in looking at the issue of mitochondrial disease, which I highlighted as being one of the reasons why I wished to see the amendment introduced into the Bill.
The important issue is that, if an adult human female who has a mitochondrial disorder and who therefore is likely to pass on that disorder in severe form to all of her children of either sex wished to undergo in vitro fertilisation, it would be possible to take her cells, with the nucleus of her cells, and to introduce simply the cytoplasm derived from foetal cells carrying normal mitochondria to prevent that disease from developing.
In talking about gene therapy, I must say that the Minister is absolutely right: this is a form of gene therapy, even though some 70,000 genes reside in the nucleus of the cell and fewer than 50 genes reside in the mitochondrial. For that reason, the product of that particular pattern of fertilisation would clearly be the child of the mother from whom the nucleus was derived.
It is a complicated matter into which I do not have time to go in detail at this hour of the morning. On the
1956
other hand, I wholly accept the strictures of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and of the noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Robertson and others who said that the proposals in the amendment go far too wide and that they confer delegated powers—indeed, Henry VIII type powers—upon the Secretary of State, much wider than I had contemplated.
When I tabled the amendment, I had, perhaps rather naively, concluded that, as any regulations dealing with the issue would have to be confirmed by both Houses of Parliament, that was a sufficient safeguard. However, I now recognise the validity of the criticisms which have been levelled at that proposal. Hence, while accepting with gratitude, as always, the very courteous reception that my amendment received from the Minister on behalf of the Government, and accepting her offer of help to see whether we can establish an acceptable form of words which would not give a message to the scientific and medical community that the whole purpose underlying the clause is not just to ban treatment but to carry a negative implication in relation to the future of research, if we can devise such a suitable form of words for reconsideration on Report, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes before one o'clock.

  EUROPEAN UNION: FORTHCOMING COUNCIL MEETINGS
  EUROPEAN UNION: FORTHCOMING COUNCIL MEETINGS
  MILK MARKETING
  MILK MARKETING
  CLINICAL ACADEMIC STAFF: PAY AWARDS
  CLINICAL ACADEMIC STAFF: PAY AWARDS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS: INFORMATION ON NHS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS: INFORMATION ON NHS
  POLICE AUTHORITIES: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS
  POLICE AUTHORITIES: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT AGREEMENT
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT AGREEMENT
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 13th AND 14th JUNE
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 13th AND 14th JUNE