Sitting of 21 June 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HILL SAMUEL BANK AND UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Exports
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of defence exports in 1993.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Defence equipment orders in 1993 were in excess of £6.6 billion.
    Mr. Deva: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are some 65 companies which are sub-contractors to the defence industry in my constituency? What is he doing to help them export more?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am conscious that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have large numbers of companies, both contractors and sub-contractors, in their constituencies which are very much influenced by defence exports and defence industrial requirements. For that reason, we can all be satisfied that the United Kingdom is second only to the United States in the success that it has had in defence exports. That has not only provided substantial employment for this country, but has been of considerable benefit to our armed forces as a whole.
    Mr. Clelland: Does the Secretary of State agree that an important influence in encouraging foreign governments to buy British is for our own Government to do just that? Will he confirm that it is his intention to end speculation and to order a further 200-plus Challenger 2 tanks from Vickers Defence Systems?
    Mr. Rifkind: We recognise the importance of the defence needs of the armed forces to the United Kingdom's industrial requirements. Some 90 per cent. of the defence procurement budget is spent in the United Kingdom with United Kingdom companies. We are not yet in a position to announce further orders for Challenger tanks; we will do so as soon as we are able.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as long as we continue defence exports on such a major scale, it is in our interests also to subscribe to those
    108
    initiatives sponsored by the UN and others for humanitarian rules in such exports? That will mean that companies such as Computing Devices Ltd. in my constituency will be able to continue to offer employment to my constituents in that field.
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, we attach importance to the considerations that my hon. Friend rightly mentions.

    Deregulation Initiative
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact on his Department of the Government's deregulation initiative.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My Department is playing a full part in the Government's deregulation initiative, putting particular emphasis on streamlining contracts procedures and improving communications with industry.
    Mr. Prentice: Is not the deregulation initiative not so much about cutting red tape as about cutting costs and imperilling safety and security? Will the Minister assure the House today that there will be no change to the current arrangements for providing fire cover at defence establishments such as Porton Down and Aldermaston?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the nature of the Government's deregulation initiative. It is not to do with cutting costs, although we have often hoped that the Government-wide initiative will result in less red tape and will therefore remove burdens on industry. In relation to defence, I can assure him that safety remains paramount and that we do not envisage cuts that will imperil the safety of any members of the armed forces.
    Mr. Luff: Can my hon. Friend give any details of what he is doing to streamline the contracts and procedures to which he referred in his first answer?
    Mr. Aitken: We have a number of initiatives planned. In particular, we will be carrying out a major review which will result in new guidelines for industry being published. The whole point of the changes is to simplify and streamline and make it easier for industry to put forward bids and win contracts from us. We are also offering, in many cases, longer-term contracts which will give greater stability to industry itself.

    Training Centres
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reductions are planned in military outward bound type training centres; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Separately from the defence costs study, my Department is planning to study the scope for maximum efficiency and rationalisation of adventurous training as part of a wider review of how and where Army-sponsored training is conducted.
    Mr. Llwyd: Does the Minister agree that the joint service mountain training camp at Tywyn in my constituency is an excellent establishment? Does he also agree that, as a result of last year's consultation on staffing, things have been a little shambolic between the Ministry and the employees? Given that a tri-service review is being

    109
    conducted, the results of which will, I understand, be announced in July, does that mean that the future of the camp will then be known?
    Finally, if and when redundancies have to be made, do I have the Minister's assurance that proper consultation will take place according to the recent landmark decision at the European Court of Justice?
    Mr. Hanley: I was a graduate of Morfa camp, Tywyn, and I enjoyed my time there very much. I cannot, however, give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks because the adventurous training study has been removed from the defence costs study and will be considered over a slightly longer time scale than that provided for the latter. The decision on the exact provision of camps that we will need in the future will be made during the summer or in the early autumn, not with the defence costs study.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the 3rd Battalion of the Staffordshire Regiment on running outward bound courses for young people in Staffordshire and the west midlands? Is my hon. Friend aware that only last Saturday I abseiled down the Roaches, with the battalion, in the Staffordshire moorlands?
    Mr. Hanley: I had heard of my hon. Friend's great courage in abseiling down. As was explained to me, he showed that not only do we have the technology, but he does, too, to survive such an experience.

    Merchant Vessels
    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant vessels are currently available to the United Kingdom for defence purposes.
    Mr. Hanley: Vessels are chartered on the worldwide market, so naturally availability varies from day to day.
    Mr. Davies: Is it true that during the Gulf war only five of the vessels that were chartered were British? What kind of deal did the British Government get out of the charter costs involved in that exercise?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right—out of 156 vessels that were chartered during Operation Granby, 151 were foreign flagged. Not only that, but during Operation Grapple, which is taking place now on the Adriatic, all the 18 ships that have been chartered are foreign flagged. One reason for that is the success of the British merchant fleet in having contracts from which it would not wish to resile. Surely our armed forces should make sure that they get the best value for money for the ships that we need to hire.

    Civilian Employees
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian employees there are in the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Aitken: The total number of civilian personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1994 was 143,700.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware of the concern among some MOD civilian employees at the proposal to establish a military home service engagement battalion, consisting of redundant ex-service men, paid off as part of the Government's defence cuts, which may lead to job losses among MOD guards? Will the Minister therefore
    110
    give an absolute guarantee to the House that whatever the Blelloch report recommends, there will be no reduction in the staffing of the newly formed MOD guard service?
    Mr. Aitken: All that I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the matter is currently under study. It is not possible to give him an answer at this stage.
    Mr. Wilkinson: How can the proposal to build new headquarters for the Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood, near Bristol, which will house hundreds of civilian personnel, be in tune with the "Front Line First" proposals that my hon. Friend is currently examining? Should not Her Majesty's forces now be able to procure direct from industry rather than having to deal through this expensive bureaucracy?
    Mr. Aitken: We are certainly casting our eagle eye over any aspect of the MOD which could be described as excessively bureaucratic. The headquarters are also being considered as part of our defence costs study and I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's statement at this stage.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister apologise for the deliberate leaking from his Department of the findings of the defence costs study, which is likely to mean the loss of 22,000 jobs, including many civilian jobs? Does he agree that those who work on military bases can have no faith in the Ministry of Defence's consultative procedures? For example, at RAF Carlisle recently, the trade unions put up a viable alternative to closing the base, but the Minister treated it with contempt and used it as an excuse to hold back a decision until after the European elections. Is not consultation a sham under this Government?
    Mr. Aitken: That little diatribe was full of rubbish, as I have come to expect from the hon. Gentleman. First, if he thinks that Ministers deliberately leak the unwelcome information and speculation that appears in the press, he needs his head examined. It is the last thing that we would do. Secondly, he is ill-advised to cast doubt on the sincere and honourable consultation procedures, which we always implement in full and will continue to implement once the results of the defence costs study are announced. We will honour those consultation procedures. Finally, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about defects in the consultation procedure on the item that he mentioned.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a number of civilian employees at the Royal Marine school of music based in Deal? Is he also aware of the considerable unemployment in the Dover and Deal area and that one way to solve that problem would be to announce the setting up of a combined defence school of music based in Deal?
    Mr. Aitken: I am certainly aware of the facts which my hon. Friend mentions, not least because I live in the Dover and Deal area and my constituency boundary is adjacent to that of my hon. Friend. We also share the same local newspaper, in which he is well recorded on those matters. I shall consider his ingenious suggestion, which is part of the defence costs study.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister consider the position of some civilian employees in Northern Ireland who were formerly with the Property Services Agency, but, because of the circumstances there, were recently transferred to the

    111
    MOD? I refer particularly to some ladies who have given many years of loyal service in difficult circumstances. They are currently being declared redundant—not because the job has disappeared—and the readvertising of the post has been done in such a way as to deprive them of a real opportunity of applying. Will the Minister look into that injustice to remedy it?
    Mr. Aitken: Yes, I will look into the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. I was unaware of it until now, but if he will be good enough to send me details, I will look sympathetically at the matter.

    Departmental Land
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total area of land in the United Kingdom owned by his Department.
    Mr. Hanley: Just under 600,000 acres of freehold and leasehold—including foreshore—as at 1 April 1994.
    Mr. Foulkes: While I would normally welcome the disposal of defence land, will the Minister assure us that one disposal that he will strongly resist is that of Rosyth naval base, as that would not only devastate the economy of Fife, but would undermine our defence capability and represent a betrayal of all the promises given by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box when we discussed Rosyth dockyard?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to answer that question because a specific question later on the Order Paper deals with exactly that point.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in constituencies such as the one that I represent at Gosport, the Ministry of Defence owns as much as a third of the land? It is therefore crucial that, when land is released, there should be the closest possible discussion between the Ministry of Defence and the local authority. Will he confirm that the pattern set by Lord Cranbourne over the release of a small portion of land at Leigh-on-Solent will be followed when the Ministry releases land?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His local authority of Gosport has an excellent record of co-operation with the land service of the Ministry of Defence. We shall co-operate with every local authority before land is disposed of. That is in the interests not only of local authorities and people who live in the area, but the Ministry of Defence. We are trying to reduce our land with each passing year. It is good financially for the Ministry of Defence, which made a net reduction last year of 1,389 acres, and the sale of more than 12,000 acres is currently in the pipeline.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister consider the land on which Devonport dockyard stands? Does he recall that last year the Secretary of State for Defence, who is sitting beside him, said that only 350 jobs would be lost at Devonport, whereas the reality is nearly 2,000? Is his Department incompetent, or was he deliberately misleading the House?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The job losses that the management announced last week were the result of efficiency measures that they had introduced.
    112
    Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend has kept his word entirely. I should have thought that an accusation such as that on his birthday was below the belt.

    European Union
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held within Western European Union of defence relationships with countries applying to join the European Union.
    Mr. Rifkind: At their meeting in Luxembourg on 9 May, WEU Ministers expressed their willingness to strengthen contacts with the four acceding countries to the European Union. One of the four, Norway, is already an associate member of WEU and participates in its discussions.
    Mr. Taylor: Given that the countries that join the European Union, including those in central Europe, have the right to join WEU and the mutual security guarantees, has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the security implications of which countries should be invited to join the EU?
    Mr. Rifkind: The countries of central and eastern Europe that have shown an interest in the European Union have already been admitted as associate partners to WEU, but I emphasise that that does not involve their participating in the security guarantees. That would be a much more fundamental reform, whether it would apply to WEU or to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and could only be part of a much more long-term consideration of their proper relationship with the countries of WEU.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of the eastern European countries that have become associated with WEU now believe that they have received a form of security guarantee which, he will accept, western Europe in its present condition could not deliver? Does he accept that there has been some carelessness on the part of Ministers—not necessarily British alone—in accepting that arrangement without being able to provide any form of guarantee whatsoever?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there is no formal treaty guarantee. Having said that, of course we have an interest in the security and stability of all the new democracies of central and eastern Europe, including those that have become associate members of WEU. However, it is necessary to distinguish between a legitimate interest in their security and stability and formal treaty guarantees, which have not been provided.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the European Parliament would be of any use to WEU?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is clear that WEU is to provide the basis of closer European co-operation, because it is crucial that any such co-operation is complementary to our obligations to the Atlantic alliance and does not in any way undermine them. Therefore, we do not envisage a role for the European Parliament in that area.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his EC colleagues about the situation in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence regularly meets ministerial colleagues from EU nations to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the situation in Bosnia.
    Mr. Mullin: Can the Minister give an assurance that British and EEC troops will remain in Bosnia until there is a comprehensive settlement? Is he satisfied that British troops in Bosnia have been receiving adequate back-up from the United Nations? I am thinking of a couple of incidents last month—one in which Serb tanks were permitted to run through the Sarajevo exclusion zone and another in which the arms of British soldiers were confiscated and their commander was obliged by the Serbs to read out a humiliating statement.
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman points to two instances which we greatly regret. However, during my visit there last week, when I spent three days in Bosnia and on the Adriatic, I discovered that the position has changed dramatically for the better. There is now an almost comprehensive peace throughout the middle of Bosnia, the ceasefire between the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims is sticking and the cessation of hostilities along the confrontation line is managing to be sustained. There are occasional instances of firing, either of mortar or small arms, but the work that our troops are doing there is still extremely important and valuable. Due to their work, we have probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the time that we have been there. While decisions have still to be taken, we shall continue to do that good work for as long as necessary.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that if there has been an improvement—which we warmly welcome—it is because the Serbs at last believe that we mean to hold firm to our resolve to keep the safe areas safe? Will he ensure that the Serbs are never again given the false signals that allowed them to bombard Gorazde?
    Mr. Hanley: I believe that an element of realism has broken out on all sides of the conflict. I hope that the relative peace that exists now will lead to a comprehensive peace. The only form of peace that we can have in the Balkans is one at a political level between politicians. We cannot enforce a military solution there, but we can do much to help in the meantime. I believe that my hon. Friend is right in his analysis.

    Army
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the size of the British Army.
    Mr. Rifkind: I intend to maintain and, where possible, enhance the planned fighting strength of the British Army.
    Mr. Enright: Does the Secretary of State recall that the Select Committee on Defence described as scandalous the amount of support that existed for the Challenger 1 tank fleet? Will the defence costs study make that even worse?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary—one purpose of the defence costs study is to ensure that we have the resources available so that the armoured strength of the Army, as well as the other services, can be accommodated in a proper and effective way, thereby enhancing the Army's fighting strength.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that the political situation in eastern and central Europe is more or less stable than it was five years ago? If he shares my suspicion that there are trends in eastern and central Europe which may ultimately be dangerous to western Europe, what implications does he believe that will have for the size of the British Army in the future?
    Mr. Rifkind: Five years ago, there were several million Warsaw pact soldiers in the centre of Germany, just 48 hours away from the low countries and the English channel. Today, Russian troops are a thousand miles further east and the Warsaw pact no longer exists. Therefore, although my hon. Friend is right to remind us of the great instability, uncertainty and fragmentation in Europe, I believe that, overall, the threat to the peace of Europe is considerably less than it was five years ago.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State confirm the value to the royal artillery and the economy of the Western Isles of the testing and training range at Balivanish in the Hebrides? Will he confirm that if he is seeking savings in the operation of that range, they can be found by contracting out work to civilian labour, while retaining the base and its contribution to the island economy?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, those matters are currently under review. I am acutely conscious of the contribution that the range makes to the local economy in Uist and Benbecula and I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. We hope to bring to an end as soon as possible the uncertainty affecting the range and other comparable facilities.
    Mr. Garnier: How do our plans for the British Army compare with those of the French Government for their army?
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe that in terms of their fighting strength the armies are comparable. The French army has a large conscript element, so its manpower is considerably greater than that of the British Army, which is entirely professional. I believe that the British Army's fighting capability remains, man for man, the best in the world.

    Rosyth
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration he has given to the position of the Rosyth naval base; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: Rosyth is designated as a base for minor war vessels and as the location for a number of other defence activities. These provide civilian local employment of around 1,300, as well as for Royal Navy uniformed personnel. The future of the royal naval base is being examined—along with other naval bases and naval infrastructure—as part of the "Front Line First" study. I expect to announce final proposals next month.
    Mr. Salmond: Everyone in Scotland is aware of why the Tory Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) wants to close Rosyth dockyard, but why should the Tory candidate for Monklands, East this morning say of the naval base that it was yesterday's installation unable to meet the demands of tomorrow? Can we have some candour from the Secretary of State? Has an effective decision been taken to close Rosyth naval base? If it has not, why is the Secretary of State for Scotland clearly preparing politically for its closure instead of fighting for its survival?
    Mr. Rifkind: No decision has been taken on the closure of any defence facilities in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member has been campaigning for years for the effective closure of the Faslane base on the Clyde, along with the thousands of jobs associated with Polaris and Trident, he is in danger of giving humbug a bad name.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If, sadly, the Government decide to close Rosyth as a naval base, will my right hon. and learned Friend revise the decision that was made after the last time the Government decided to save Rosyth—they decided then to move operational sea training away from Portland—particularly as I understand that the latest studies into the cost effectiveness of moving flag officers' sea training show that there are fewer savings available and more costs than were originally thought?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend's question is, of course, speculative, but I should say to him and the House with regard not only to Rosyth naval base, but to all naval establishments and infrastructure, that the criterion that I shall apply—and it is the proper criterion—is the need of the Royal Navy to ensure its fighting capability in the years to come. The Royal Navy clearly needs to ensure that its resources are used to maximise its fighting strength; whether in regard to bases or other facilities, that must be the criterion to apply.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Secretary of State agree that in 1991 commitments were made by the Government to a continuing and important role for Rosyth naval base for the defence of this country? Does he also agree that only last year he announced that the rescue co-ordination centre for the whole of the United Kingdom would be RAF Pitreavie? Will he today announce his commitment to a future for both Pitreavie and Rosyth?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is aware that the "Front Line First" study is considering these matters. As she knows, I cannot give her the conclusions today. Not only are we conscious of the important contribution that Scotland has made to the defence needs of the United Kingdom, but I have not the slightest doubt that Scotland will continue to make a crucial contribution to meeting the defence needs of the United Kingdom and providing the defence infrastructure for that purpose.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be less churlish and more warmly welcome Opposition Members' apparent conversion to the cause of strong defence, ignoring, of course, the irony that only a few years ago they were calling for 25 per cent. reductions in our defence and for chucking away the nuclear deterrent? Is it not ironic that, now that the cold war is over, not least because capitalism has beaten socialism, they now think that we should be armed to the teeth?
    Mr. Rifkind: Not only is my hon. Friend correct, but the defence review called for by the Opposition would lead not only to savage cuts in defence support, but make unsustainable the front line on which the effectiveness of our armed forces depends.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the closure of the Rosyth naval base raise a number of strategic issues of profound and irreversible importance? Is not the likelihood that if the Rosyth base is closed it will never be reopened? What evidence is there that the Government have conducted the strategic review with our NATO allies that is necessary in order to determine the consequences for our and their maritime defence if the base is closed?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman can assume that, in giving the Government advice, the Royal Navy has first addressed the question of its strategic requirements with regard to the use of naval power. That, of course, must be the first question to be asked and it is indeed the way in which the Royal Navy has approached these matters.
    Dr. Reid: When the Secretary of State tells us that no decision has been made about Rosyth, no one in Rosyth, in Scotland or in the House believes him. If he wishes to prove that he is correct, will he today give us the categorical assurance that he refused to give at our last Defence Question Time and promise the House that all the figures for the costing of naval support will be placed before, and debated in, the House before a decision to close any base—including Rosyth—is made? If the Secretary of State cannot give us that categorical assurance today, it will not only be another betrayal of the people of Scotland but an open admission that he is not in charge of the review process and that the commander-in-chief of cuts is the First Lord of the Treasury.
    Mr. Rifkind: As the First Lord of the Treasury is the Prime Minister, it is not unreasonable for him to have some influence on these matters.
    The hon. Gentleman's empty rhetoric is not relevant to the issues that we are discussing. He can assume that any decisions that are reached in regard to any defence establishment in the United Kingdom will be accompanied by proper consultation, and a proper explanation of the basis on which those decisions have been reached.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest assessment of aerial photographs taken by Tornado aircraft since 23 March over the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates; and what action he has taken since the visit of the hon. Member for Linlithgow to meet officials at his request in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 23 March.
    Mr. Hanley: We continue to take aerial photography of southern Iraq. This shows widespread drying out of the marshes, the diversion and drying out of the River Euphrates and the burning of villages and reed beds.
    Mr. Dalyell: How do the interpreters know that the burning that is taking place is any different from the burning that has been carried out by the madan for at least 5,000 years, for hygiene reasons? I found the Ministry's interpreters profoundly unconvincing.
    Mr. Hanley: I know that the hon. Gentleman believes that the burning of roofs and buildings that we have seen is the result of attempts to cure local health problems. The extent of those health problems must be massive. I know that he also believes that the draining of the River Euphrates is nothing more than an agricultural project; if that is so, it is a massive agricultural project. I can only say that honest, independent people have concluded from the evidence that these are the actions of the Iraqi Government, who are deliberately trying to harm the Shia marsh Arabs.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Can the Minister explain why the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) does not realise that swallowing the poisoned propaganda of Saddam Hussein leads to a total destruction of the intellect just as swiftly as the thalium poison pumped into the prisoners whom he releases from prison leads to the destruction of the body? Does not the hon. Member for Linlithgow understand how appalling the cruelty is? Perhaps we in Parliament now have a Lord Haw-Haw in our midst?
    Mr. Hanley: I recognise that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have both seen the same evidence, and have reached diametrically opposed conclusions. I can only say that the evidence of the military is more in line with my hon. Friend's views than with those of the hon. Gentleman.

    Air Cadets
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the number of boys and girls in membership of the air cadets in the years (a) 1979, (b) 1989 and (c) 1992.
    Mr. Hanley: Since 1979, the number of air cadets has remained constant at around 49,000. Whereas there were no girls in the air cadets in 1979, there were more than 9,000 in 1989 and just over 11,000 in 1992.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Can he confirm—bearing in mind "Front Line First" and the interests of the air cadets—that an important aspect of recruitment and retention is flying and gliding experience? Will that be taken into account in "Front Line First", so that there is no reduction in the number of air cadets?
    Mr. Hanley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who devotes a great deal of time and effort to helping the air cadet organisation. A key objective of the organisation is to provide young people with flying experience, and there is no intention to lose sight of that. Every air cadet currently has an opportunity to fly, and will continue to be given that opportunity. I hope that my answer has helped to reassure my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I was a flight sergeant in the air training corps, and look how I ended up! Would not it be better to encourage our young people to join the Scouts, Guides, Cubs, Brownies or Woodcraft folk and to teach them about getting on with people and about peace and love rather than preparing them for war?
    Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom's cadet forces provide a useful service. In inner cities, they give excellent training to many young people who find it difficult to have any other structure. I have a sneaking suspicion that the hon. Gentleman's high-flying days were long ago.

    Arms Sales
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to how many countries Britain sold arms during 1993.
    Mr. Aitken: In 1993, British defence equipment manufacturers received orders from 90 foreign countries.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Minister reject and repudiate once and for all the curious notion that the morality of how a weapon is used has nothing to do with the salesman? Does he agree that it is high time that Britain published a blacklist of countries to which we will not sell arms because of their record of human rights abuses?
    Mr. Aitken: The United Nations embargoes on countries that, for one reason or another, are considered unsuitable recipients of arms are published. As further evidence of transparency, we subscribe to the new UN register on conventional arms transfers, which makes apparent any breaches of the UN list. The export licensing system ensures that each and every arms transfer is considered on its merits, and human rights and the possible purposes for which arms may be used are taken into account. The hon. Gentleman's point has been understood.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give every consideration to the export potential of the European FLA Hercules replacement? Does he agree that its potential export sales could be as high as £7 billion?
    Mr. Aitken: A great deal of loud and persuasive lobbying has taken place in relation to the potential exports of that aircraft. At this stage, however, it is only a paper aircraft, so it would be impossible and unwise to predict the potential for exports. I hope that they will be high once the aircraft is built.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: One country to which we have steadfastly refused to sell arms is Bosnia. By contrast, as the Minister wells knows, the United States House of Representatives has passed a binding resolution in favour of a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo and the setting aside of £200 million for the United States to purchase armaments for Bosnia. What will the Ministry of Defence, in co-operation with our European colleagues, do to speak loud to senior senators to try to ensure that the UNPROFOR mandate is not undermined?
    Mr. Aitken: We have made our views known to the United States Administration and to Capitol Hill, but the United States Congress, like the House of Commons, is a sovereign legislature, and both must be respected.
    Mr. John Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for lifting the arms embargo on Israel, which will make it easier for the British arms export industry. Does not he think it strange that those who call for greater help for manufacturing industry are always willing to make snide and sniping comments about the record of our arms exporters?
    Mr. Aitken: The Government welcome the considerable change in the political situation in the middle east as a result of the recent accords, which have made changes, such as the lifting of the arms embargo, possible. We welcome it and I am glad that my hon. Friend does so, too.

    Defence Procurement, Europe
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress towards common European defence procurement.
    Mr. Aitken: Progress towards a common system of European defence procurement has been slow, but we work closely with individual European partners on specific collaborative projects.
    Mr. Hutton: I acknowledge the benefits of European defence collaboration in projects such as the common new generation frigate programme and the Eurofighter programme, but will the Minister make it his policy to ensure that any moves towards greater European defence procurement will not be at the expense of further erosion of our defence industrial base, especially the shipbuilding sector?
    Mr. Aitken: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the first requirement for defence procurement decisions must be our national security and our national interests—and we will stick to that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that some of us used to love playing with paper aircraft, and that when he referred to a paper plane earlier, he meant a plane on paper? Will he assure the House that no decision will be taken on replacing the transport until FLA has been properly evaluated?
    Mr. Aitken: We are certainly receiving a great deal of information on possible plans for the future large aircraft, but we must bear in mind the fact that the replacement of our transport fleet—certainly the first tranche—will be necessary before the future large aircraft is likely to have come into existence. That may depend on whether we can choose the refurbishment option or a new-buy. Whatever happens, FLA will not be ready for the first tranche of our fleet replacement.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real concern throughout the country caused by the continuing reduction in our defence capabilities, as illustrated yesterday by the leak about the defence costs study? Can he reassure his hon. Friends that he will never allow the growth of expenditure on social security to undermine our national security?
    The Prime Minister: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the "Front Line First" programme will do nothing to reduce the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces or our ability to undertake defence commitments. I assure him that our commitment to effective front-line forces remains undiminished. The purpose of the "Front Line First" study is to ensure that money spent on defence administration
    120
    and support is kept to a minimum. That is a sensible aim, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will join me in achieving it.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a member of his staff attended a crucial meeting of the Railtrack board last weekend?
    The Prime Minister: A member of my policy unit attended a meeting in Whitehall, at the invitation of the Department of Transport, in order to inform me. The negotiations are between Railtrack and the unions. As the right hon. Lady. raises the question, perhaps she will now take the opportunity, at the third time of asking, to condemn the strike.
    Mrs. Beckett rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mrs. Beckett rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.
    Mrs. Beckett: I think that we can take that answer as a yes, so we now know that the Department of Transport interfered in the negotiations, although it said that it had not, and that the Prime Minister's office meddled in the negotiations, although it said that it would not. Does not it stand out a mile that the dispute would not be happening if the negotiations had not been sabotaged by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is being ludicrous. The policy unit attends meetings throughout Whitehall, with a watching brief. It takes no part in negotiations that, as the chairman of Railtrack has made clear, are between him and the unions. However much the right hon. Lady tries, she cannot hide the fact that she will not condemn a strike that puts hundreds of thousands of commuters at risk, when hundreds of thousands of other public service workers have settled for pay increases, far below 3 per cent., which can be afforded. As ever, she is the strikers' friend.
    Mrs. Beckett: What is completely clear is that no one wants this strike—[Interruption.]—except, perhaps, Conservative Members—least of all rail staff and commuters. Is not it crystal clear that it is happening only because the Government interfered? Yet again, the Prime Minister has caused what he now condemns. Yet again, the Government are saying one thing and doing another. Is not that why nobody can believe a word they say?
    The Prime Minister: This has happened because there is an 11 per cent. wage demand which, by implication, the right hon. Lady would accept. Even now, her condemnation is limply to say that nobody wants this strike; she will not condemn it. She would, presumably, end it by meeting the demand. She backs that extra spending. I remind her that last week, she criticised tax increases. A week later, she calls for more public spending. How would she pay for the settlement—by raising taxes, by increasing public expenditure? The hypocrisy in this case rests with the Opposition. The right hon. Lady still will not condemn the strike. To quote her, that is twice she has refused to answer on condemning the strike. Will she now condemn it, yes or no?
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 40 per cent. of those recently arrested as part of Operation Bumblebee were on bail? Does not that underline how wise our Government are in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—[interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
    Mrs. Gillan: It will not have escaped the House that the Opposition find law and order so funny. How wise the Government were to crack down on bail bandits in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. As three out of five burglaries are committed by people who are under 21, perhaps the Opposition would care to explain why they oppose policies against juvenile offenders so consistently. Is not that proof that the Labour party is Fagin's friend?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend has shown with the figures she has used, there is no doubt that far too many people have been abusing the right to bail. Once the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill becomes law, a person who is charged with a serious offence committed on bail will lose the right to bail. That is entirely right. If that person is then convicted, the court can reflect the fact that the offence was committed while the person was on bail. Operation Bumblebee has been a huge success. It has shown that by targeting crime, one can bring it down. What is equally encouraging is that the last quarter's crime figures show crime down by 9 per cent.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does not the atrocity in Loughinisland over the weekend prove that when it comes to evil, there is nothing to chose between the murderers on one side of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland and the murderers on the other? I remind the Prime Minister, once again, that the gunmen thrive when a political vacuum exists. Will he confirm that he understands the importance, when he meets the Irish Prime Minister in Corfu on Friday, of regaining, again, the initiative for peace through political progress in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the murder of six people in Loughinisland on Saturday evening was a vicious and depraved act of brutality. Whether it is so-called Loyalists murdering Catholics or the IRA murdering Loyalists, it is equally indefensible by any possible measure. The right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the need for political movement and political settlement. I am in constant contact both with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I will certainly discuss the matter further with the Taoiseach when we meet over the weekend.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inherent reticence and tolerance of the people of Devon and Cornwall is becoming increasingly exasperated by the inability or refusal of the Government to do anything to alleviate the growing water charges in the area? Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was 12 months ago that he personally said that he would look at this situation? When can we expect some positive news on that front?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for the Director General of the Office of Water Services to determine—[Interruption.] Opposition Members would do well to wait. It is for the Director General of Ofwat to determine the new price limits and he is in the process of doing so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has published advice on quality matters. That will assist the director general in setting new price limits. We are looking, as I have said, to see what can be done with requirements made under European Community directives to reduce the impact in the west country. We have already found and announced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) should have known, ways in which to hold down the cost of some of the directives. Other ways are still being examined.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why does the Prime Minister permit water disconnections in England and Wales, but not in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman asking for water disconnections in Scotland?
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since "Options for Change" was prepared, the world has become more turbulent and less certain? Bearing in mind the fact that the French, who have roughly similar international defence commitments, have recently agreed to up their defence budget, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to look at the planned defence cut of £1 billion in 1996?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, in cash, the French spend broadly the same as we do, although, of course, they have a conscript army in France as compared with the professional Army that we have in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, through the "Front Line First" defence costs study, we aim to maximise the proportion of defence resources allocated to the front line. I believe that that is the right way in which to determine our defence expenditure, unlike the Opposition, who scream "cuts", but would halve defence expenditure and would, no doubt, if they had the opportunity, also scrap our nuclear capacity.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that, next week, on 30 June, a delegation of health workers and friends, supported by Sheffield Members of Parliament, will be protesting about the closure of the Royal Hallamshire hospital accident and emergency unit in Sheffield? As this is a matter of life and death, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not wash his

    123
    hands of that issue, but tell the quangos, which his Government have set up, to stop paying high salaries to bureaucrats and to pay for services for the people?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the increased resources that have gone into services for the people. I do not have to hand the details of the particular case that he has in mind, but I have no doubt that, now he has raised it, my right hon. Friend will examine it.
    Mr. David Howell: Reverting to the horrific killings in Northern Ireland and bearing in mind that there has been some talk lately of a return to internment, does my right hon. Friend recognise, before considering that drastic solution, that there is an opportunity for a concerted and greatly enhanced security drive and for a strengthening of legal and intelligence resources applied against terrorism? If that is done on both sides of the border—in Dublin, and in Belfast and London—we have a chance of beating the terrorism, without which there will be no political solution.
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, the power of internment remains on the statute book, but would be used only in very special circumstances. Co-operation on security and intelligence matters has improved dramatically over the past few years It is a matter of constant discussion between the British Government and the Irish Government so that we can ensure that whatever further improvements can be made will be made and precisely for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware that Scottish Tories are revolting? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Led by the Scottish Office Minister responsible for industry, they are scared that percentage levels of VAT on domestic fuel will soon be higher than Tory poll ratings in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister now listen to the voices speaking in his direction? Will the message to the Prime Minister from the revolting Tories meet with any success?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I see it as the hon. Gentleman does. As he is clearly concerned about the position in Scotland, I remind him that the figures that emerged yesterday in Scotland from Locate in Scotland, the inward investment bureau, show that Scotland attracted more inward investment in the last financial year than at any time since 1981. Ninety-five projects are planned, worth almost £600 million creating 7,700 jobs and safeguarding 3,000 others. That has happened under a Conservative Government in this country improving the quality of opportunity for people in Scotland, whatever gloss the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) may care to put on it.

Clerk of the House (Retirement)
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the House:
"I am writing to confirm to you my decision to retire as Clerk of the House on 31st October of this year.
While not immune from the general reluctance to leave the House of Commons voluntarily, I feel that after 41 years' service, 17 as a Clerk at the Table and seven as Clerk of the House, it is now time to move on.
During my service there has been a constant need to adjust the House's procedures and patterns of work in response to increased demands, and to constitutional change. In addition, the House has taken control of its own finances and administration, through the House of Commons Commission.
I believe that the House staff at all levels have responded well to these demands, and I should like to express my personal gratitude to them for all they have done. In particular, I wish to say how much I have appreciated the support and friendship of successive Speakers, and of Members in all parts of the House. The House of Commons is one of the most resilient and effective Parliamentary Chambers in the world. It is a great honour to have been its principal servant."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, your announcement has been heard with very real regret, as was clear from the murmurs in the House, in every part of the House as it signals the departure of someone who has given outstanding service to the House as a whole.
Many will wish to pay tribute to that service when the time of Sir Clifford's retirement comes. However, in accordance with past custom, I suggest that that would be the appropriate time for our thanks to be more fully expressed.

BILL PRESENTED

  SPORTS (DISCRIMINATION)
  Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Gary Waller, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Allan
  126
  Rogers, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Dr. Norman Godman, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Alan Williams, Ms Kate Hoey and Mr. Tom Pendry, presented a Bill to make it unlawful for any rule-making body for a sport to discriminate against persons who have participated, are participating or are expected to participate in any other lawful sport, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 July, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the six motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  AGRICULTURE
  That the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Betting and Lotteries (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  That the draft Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Weights and Measures (Cosmetic Products) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.

Street Disorder and Begging Law Reform
3.33 pm
Mr. Peter Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Vagrancy Act 1824 and to create a new offence of intimidatory begging.
The Bill is aimed at a mischief which is growing—that of violence and disorder on our streets. The solution which the Bill would propose is both straightforward and urgently needed. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister identified the problem so accurately recently and defined it as aggressive begging.
There is a cancer eating away at our society—the fear of crime and the fear of becoming a victim of crime. We always assume that that relates only to burglaries, robberies and major crimes. That assumption is false; few people will actually witness a bank robbery. There is an even more destructive fear—the simple fear of disorder which arises in daily experience when people walk along a street to the shops, to school, to work or to visit friends. Increasingly, that experience is of a disorderly street, which is the source of distasteful and frightening experiences.
Our streets have changed in nature in far too many of our towns and cities, and they have become nasty places. They are no longer somewhere to dawdle and chat, enjoy the occasional sunshine, window shop and talk to neighbours. They now represent a gauntlet of fear to be run daily, especially by the more vulnerable members of our society. The right to walk safely in our streets is being taken away from our law-abiding citizens. I want to return that right to them.
Let me be clear: the problem that I am seeking to tackle is not begging but violence. Aggressive, frightening, violent and intimidatory begging would be made illegal and the police would have the power to arrest an offender immediately. I am not talking about people who are down on their luck asking for charity. My Bill would restore to them the basic human right of seeking help from others by repealing that section of the Vagrancy Act 1824.
I am talking about people who are destroying the community in the centres of our great universal and cathedral cities, our seaside and tourist resorts and our towns and cities up and down the land by terrorising decent people. Often organised in gangs, these people are not unfortunates deserving of sympathy but criminals calling out for condemnation.
The 1824 Act says:
"Every person wandering abroad, or placing himself or herself in any public place…to beg or gather alms…shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person…and it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit such offender…to the house of correction."
There have been times when I have considered that "house of correction" is another expression for where I am standing now. The Act does not create an arrestable offence of itself, and it is applicable only in a random and arbitrary way. It is an unfair and ineffectual piece of legislation. Apparently, it was necessary to control the wandering bands of veterans who had returned from the Napoleonic wars. I am reasonably confident that all of them are now dead.
When the legislation was debated in 1823–24, the main concern seemed to be that it went too far in liberalising the law. I refer to a debate on 10 February 1824—which,
128
Madam Speaker, neither you nor I will recall—in which it was said in column 112 of the Hansard Parliamentary Debate:
"The object"—
of the Bill—
"had been to mitigate the severity of the former vagrant act…Formerly, the magistrates had the power of sentencing to transportation for seven years; at present, they could not sentence to more than two years' imprisonment. Formerly, whipping could be inflicted by the order of one magistrate; now, it could not be inflicted, except by an order of a bench of magistrates at the quarter sessions."
That was a liberal approach indeed, even in those days. Surely we have matured as a society since those pre-Victorian days.
Begging has taken place in every society and in every age. The Opposition parties, devoid of anything else to say on the subject, attempted recently to suggest that begging was invented in 1979 and has existed only under this Conservative Government. It is only necessary to state that view clearly for it to be seen to be palpably absurd. I refer the Opposition parties to the Bible, which has many examples of the existence of beggars—long before the Conservatives took power. It is as pathetic to talk about that and take that view as it is to talk about being tough on crime and the causes of crime while voting to be soft on criminals.
More recently, the Public Order Act 1986 was brought in as a change to the Public Order Act 1936, but that does not cover the problem adequately either. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1986 Act make the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour an offence in certain circumstances, but it applies only if it can be shown that the person either intends his behaviour to be threatening, or he is aware that it may be threatening. Even then, under section 5, a policeman cannot make an arrest unless the offender repeats his conduct after a warning from the officer. In other words, if he frightens someone, he cannot be arrested unless he does it again. That is simply no longer satisfactory.
I am not concerned with the intention or the awareness of the violent offender; I am concerned about the effect that it has on the innocent passer-by who has become the victim. That is the person whose rights I stand here today to seek to protect.
The Public Order Act 1986 was not intended to deal with aggressive and violent beggars and it does not do so satisfactorily. Intimidatory begging is directed at an individual and should be considered as both a public order issue and an offence against the person. It targets a citizen and applies fear to that person. All citizens, but especially the vulnerable—the elderly, youngsters and mothers with young children—are entitled to be protected.
If I were to be given leave to introduce the Bill, it would approach the problem in two ways. First, it would create a new offence of intimidatory begging, which would be committed when someone begging in a public place behaved in such a way as to intimidate a person of reasonable firmness so that he or she felt compelled to give. Examples would include physical touching or obstructing the person solicited, following that person, using directly obscene or abusive language or violent and threatening gestures, or harassment, consisting of persisting in begging after the person solicited had declined to give, or had given a sum that the beggar did not consider adequate, as was the case in many of the examples reported to me.

129
My descriptions may have sounded like simple words, but the actions are not merely frightening; they can be terrifying. Cases have been reported to me from all sorts of towns and cities throughout the land, involving all sorts of members of society. I was especially affected by the examples of such begging that were directed against the elderly. It also seems to be persistently directed at young mothers, often with toddlers or children in prams. It is not acceptable in Britain in 1994 for a mother with young children, or an elderly person, who declines to give to a beggar or gives an insufficient sum to be verbally assaulted with language that they are not accustomed to hear, or followed, only to receive a continuing harangue of foul and abusive language. We should act quickly to make it illegal and should not delay introducing a Bill to control such behaviour.
Examples have been reported to me from all parts of the country, but I need look no further than my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who was accosted by an aggressive and intimidatory beggar and pursued before she became a Member of this honourable House, when she was without the benefit of a parliamentary salary and unable to donate.
Mr. Derek Enright: She was a successful business woman.
Mr. Butler: She is a witness of probity, if the matter requires proof.
The Bill would criminalise violent begging, but, as I said, violence is my target, not begging. It follows that I want to repeal that part of the Vagrancy Act that criminalises what one might term traditional or polite begging, which is a basic human right. I want to criminalise violence, but decriminalise the unfortunates who find themselves in such a desperate position that they genuinely have to ask for charity. The Bill would restore some dignity to those people who are down on their luck by removing the stigma of criminality from their instinctive action in simply asking for help.
I hope that the two measures, taken together, will command the support of the House. Any hon. Member who opposes the Bill will have to explain why he or she wants to continue to make criminal the simple and time-honoured act of asking for charity, and to continue to allow violent disorder on our streets. The Bill would give our police what they do not have at present—a clear, concise and straightforward offence, with a power of arrest attached, which would enable them to remove some of the violence from our streets. Law-abiding citizens demand the protection of their right to use the streets of Britain without fear. We should meet that demand and do so now. I ask the House to give me leave to bring in this Bill.
3.42 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with that part of the motion of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) that would change the law regarding begging by amending the Vagrancy Act 1824, but I do not think that he needs to introduce a new offence of intimidatory begging. All the actions that he described are covered by existing law—for example, threatening
130
behaviour and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Touching people can be dealt with by using the offence of common assault.
We know what the hon. Gentleman is really talking about. Suddenly it has become the thing for Tories to pick a group of people or a very small problem, inflate it out of all proportion and use it as a smoke screen to cover their failure to deal with the many social problems afflicting this country.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned the "cancer" that was eating away at our society. I will tell him some of those cancers: mass unemployment, growing homelessness, the enormous gap between rich and poor, which is greater than it has been for 100 years, and the trade gap, which has become a gulf judging by the figures announced today. The hon. Gentleman could have mentioned all those issues, but he has come up with the problem of intimidatory begging, taking his lead from his fairly useless Prime Minister, when he launched his Euro-campaign.
Mr. Jim Dowd: What does my hon. Friend mean, "fairly"?
Mr. Banks: I withdraw that remark, which was incorrect. I should have said that he was totally useless.
We know a bit about intimidatory begging and about money being demanded from us with menaces. That occurs usually when some overweight guy looking rather like an unmade double bed comes up and demands money with menaces. He says, "If you do not pay, you will end up either shivering in your home or you will go to gaol." We know all about that, because that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer does every year.
That is intimidatory begging. The ordinary people of this country are told to put their hands in their pockets or purses and hand over large amounts of dosh; if not, the Government will go for them. That is intimidatory begging which is covering up the total economic incompetence of the Government and the failure of their policies. I can tell the House one thing: one might be able to walk away from a beggar, but one cannot walk away from a pot-bellied old soak called the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going over the top, and he realises that. The quality of his arguments is being reduced by his comments, and I hope that he will now contain himself.
Mr. Banks: I have looked at early-day motion 1247 on intimidatory begging put down by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East in which he congratulates the Daily Express on exposing what he said was a case of somebody making a large amount of money from begging on the streets.
What has the hon. Gentleman ever done to expose the causes of begging on the streets of London or any other city? When has he ever talked about the real reason why people beg on the streets? There are thousands of people who are sleeping homeless on the streets of London at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman said that begging did not start in 1979. Madam Speaker, you see what goes on in the streets of London, and we all know. We have never seen so many beggars on the streets of London as there have been since 1979. It is one of our great growth industries, and the

131
causes are fairly obvious to anyone who wants to see them—mass unemployment caused by the Government's economic policies, particularly among young people.
The Prime Minister is responsible by altering social security regulations with regard to 16 and 17-year-olds. People are on the streets who have been turned out of long-stay mental institutions and who are suffering from alcoholism. It is estimated that 25 per cent. of people on the streets have been discharged from the armed services. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said that the Vagrancy Act 1824 related to the Napoleonic wars, and that there is no one left alive from those wars—that was observant—but the fact is that 25 per cent. of people sleeping rough on the streets have been discharged from the armed services.
Homelessness is another great cause of begging and of people sleeping out on the street. Shelter estimates that 1.7 million people could be considered homeless in this country. What has happened since 1979? Homelessness has trebled in this country, and the number of people in poverty has doubled since 1979.
The Duke of Edinburgh said that there is no such thing as absolute poverty; but he is not the best person to talk about poverty and about people in need. Indeed, he might follow the example of Princess Diana who, I noticed, went the other day with her son to the Passage night shelter in Westminster on the first day of Royal Ascot. While the Tories and all of their friends were at Royal Ascot, someone at least was going out to see what was happening on the streets of London.
The Prime Minister should come out of No. 10 Downing street and walk down to the Embankment, into the Strand and into Red Lion square and see the casualties of the economic and social incompetence and the injustices of the Government. That is the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East should have been talking about, and not trying to raise yet another spurious argument about an object for his hatred and distaste.
It is typical of this bankrupt Government that they blame the electorate for failing the Government. They have created social and economic chaos, poverty and disruption in this country, and now they seek to blame the victims. There is no need for this proposal today. Existing laws already cover everything that the hon. Gentleman said. In those circumstances, I beg leave to oppose the motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 148.

Division No. 268]

[3.50 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Ashby, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Aspinwall, Jack

Duncan, Alan

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Dunn, Bob

Bendall, Vivian

Elletson, Harold

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fabricant, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Butcher, John

Gale, Roger

Butler, Peter

Gallie, Phil

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gillan, Cheryl

Coe, Sebastian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Congdon, David

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Couchman, James

Hannam, Sir John

Day, Stephen

Hargreaves, Andrew

132

Harris, David

Shersby, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Sims, Roger

Hawksley, Warren

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hill, James(Southampton Test)

Speed, Sir Keith

Horam, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Spink, Dr Robert

Jenkin, Bernard

Stephen, Michael

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sweeney, Walter

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Thomason, Roy

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Lidington, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Viggers, Peter

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Moate, Sir Roger

Waterson, Nigel

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Watts, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Whitney, Ray

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Whittingdale, John

Pawsey, James

Wilkinson, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Mr. John Sykes and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Jonathan Evans.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Harman, Ms Harriet

Ainger, Nick

Henderson, Doug

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Heppell, John

Allen, Graham

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Hinchliffe, David

Ashton, Joe

Hodge, Margaret

Austin-Walker, John

Home Robertson, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Barnes, Harry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Barron, Kevin

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Bayley, Hugh

Hoyle, Doug

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hutton, John

Benton, Joe

Illsley, Eric

Betts, Clive

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Blunkett, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Boateng, Paul

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Bradley, Keith

Jowell, Tessa

Burden, Richard

Keen, Alan

Byers, Stephen

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Callaghan, Jim

Khabra, Piara S.

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Lewis, Terry

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Livingstone, Ken

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Loyden, Eddie

Chisholm, Malcolm

McAllion, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Cousins, Jim

Mackinlay, Andrew

Cummings, John

McNamara, Kevin

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

MacShane, Denis

Dalyell, Tam

McWilliam, John

Darling, Alistair

Madden, Max

Davidson, Ian

Mahon, Alice

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dixon, Don

Meacher, Michael

Enright, Derek

Meale, Alan

Etherington, Bill

Michael, Alun

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flynn, Paul

Milburn, Alan

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Miller, Andrew

Fyfe, Maria

Morley, Elliot

Gapes, Mike

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Gerrard, Neil

Mowlam, Marjorie

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mullin, Chris

Gordon, Mildred

Murphy, Paul

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Grocott, Bruce

O'Hara, Edward

Gunnell, John

Olner, William

Hall, Mike

O'Neill, Martin

Hanson, David

Patchett, Terry

Hardy, Peter

Pike, Peter L.

133

Pope, Greg

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Primarolo, Dawn

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Quin, Ms Joyce

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Randall, Stuart

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Redmond, Martin

Timms, Stephen

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Tipping, Paddy

Rooker, Jeff

Turner, Dennis

Rooney, Terry

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Walley, Joan

Ruddock, Joan

Wareing, Robert N

Salmond, Alex

Wicks, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Sheerman, Barry

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Winnick, David

Simpson, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. Jim Dowd and

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

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day
  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
    Clause 2

      INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RATE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 32 and insert—
      ("(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the weekly rate of short-term incapacity benefit")
      4.1 pm
      The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, Lords amendment No. 4, Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6, 11 and 12.
      Mr. Scott: During the passage of the Bill there has been a genuine and widespread anxiety about the level of short-term incapacity benefit for three vulnerable groups—the terminally ill, people with severe disabilities and people with children. The Government have given careful consideration to the position of all three of those groups and as a result these amendments make several important changes to the rates of incapacity benefit.
      We remain convinced that 52 weeks is an appropriate qualifying period for the highest rate of benefit. We recognise that those people who proposed the disability living allowance element of Lords amendment No. 4 have been motivated by the desire to give extra help to the most severely disabled people. Incapacity benefit is an income-related benefit and not designed to meet the extra costs of disability. However, the Government have reflected on the views that have been expressed about that group and I am pleased to accept that the long-term, highest rate of incapacity benefit should be brought forward to the 29th week of incapacity for claimants receiving the highest rate care component of disability living allowance.
      I am proposing two minor, technical amendments to amendment No. 4 to clarify that policy intention. The first removes redundant words and the second replaces "higher" with "highest", which is the correct legal definition of the maximum rate of DLA care component.
      Following helpful discussions in the Commons Standing Committee, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced our intention to bring forward the long-term rate of incapacity benefit for claimants who are terminally ill to the 29th week of incapacity for work, and amendments Nos. 1 to 4 make that provision.
      Anxieties have also been expressed about the position of children under the new benefit. Amendments were passed in another place which bring forward payment of child dependency increases to the 29th week of incapacity. I have reconsidered provision for children and agree that, in those limited circumstances, child dependency increases

      135
      should also be paid from the 29th week. For a family with two children, amendments Nos. 5 and 6 will mean nearly £500 extra during the first year of incapacity.
      I hope that the amendments will be widely welcomed.
      Mr. Keith Bradley: We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments. It is a great tribute to the all-party work that was undertaken in the other place that the amendments were successfully concluded. I pay tribute to the work undertaken in the other place. We must also reflect on the fact that the Labour party, in Committee and during the Bill's other stages, strongly pressed the issues raised in the amendments. I welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted the need to introduce and support the measures, particularly the higher rate of disability living allowance and the addition for children.
      It would be remiss of me not to make some general points about the context in which the Lords amendments were accepted by the Government. I shall remind the House of the Bill's purpose. As we know, it comes into effect in April 1995 and will have two general effects on people who are sick or disabled in future. First, it will reduce the number eligible for benefit through the introduction of a more stringent test of incapacity and the abolition of access to benefit for people with industrial injuries. When people have got through the hoop of the new, stringent medical test, those entitled to the benefit will have it paid at a lower rate than the current invalidity benefit and will have to wait a full year before reaching maximum entitlement to the new benefit.
      It is important to view the amendments from the other place in the context of the overall changes and level of benefit that will be paid to sick and disabled people. The Lords amendments have been introduced against a background of deteriorating living standards for disabled people, including the imposition of value added tax on fuel without adequate compensation for disabled people for the cost of that additional fuel bill, and the abolition of vehicle excise duty for disabled passengers.
      To date, only one fifth of the independent living fund—the mechanism to help disabled people—has been spent. We have to view the attack on the living standards of disabled people in that context. It would be wrong of me not to flag up yet again the general attack on the rights of disabled people that took place when the Government did not accept the private Member's Bill on anti-discrimination.
      The amendments are clearly to be welcomed, but they must be seen in the context of the overall lower level of benefit. There are three main provisions to reduce the level of benefit payable to claimants after April 1995. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding at a later stage, particularly on the part of Conservative Members, on exactly what effect the Bill will have on those claimants who successfully negotiate the new medical text.
      The provisions will reduce the level of benefit because of the changes to the additional pension—the extra amount on top of the basic benefit payable on national insurance contributions paid between 1978 and 1990. It is payable to 85 per cent. of invalidity benefit payments and is worth, on average, £13.40 per claimant. That was stated in Hansard on 7 February 1994 at column 210. It is being abolished for new claimants and frozen for people already on invalidity benefit, who are covered by transitional protection. That
      136
      abolition is part of the package of cuts that the Government are making for disabled people who need the benefit to protect their living standards.
      Despite the Government's arguments that the additional pension duplicates occupational pensions and other sources, official statistics show that fewer than four in 10 invalidity benefit claimants have occupational pensions, whereas more than eight in 10 receive an additional pension. Research by groups such as Disability Alliance and the Disablement Income Group shows that the people most likely to need invalidity benefit are those least likely to have access to payments from an employer or a private insurance company.
      It is important to pay tribute to all the disability groups and organisations which have worked so assiduously to consider carefully all the implications of the benefit and the tremendous amount of work they have put in to ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House and all parties are well informed about the implications of the legislation, so yet again there can be no claim of misunderstanding when the legislation becomes law in April 1995.

      The second significant change to the rate of benefits covered by the group of amendments is the adult dependants' allowances. These will be restricted to non-working partners who are looking after children or are aged over 60. Few claimants now receive an allowance under these circumstances—only 170,000, or fewer than 12 per cent. of claimants. The figures are at column 804 of Hansard for 20 January 1994.
      Those particularly affected by the loss of the addition are likely to be older claimants in their fifties whose children have left home. It has been estimated as £15 million in 1995–96 and £40 million in 1996–97—a very small sum of money.
      An amendment to reintroduce the adult addition to the benefit was introduced in the other place with all-party support and lost by only three votes. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to reconsider that element of the benefit to see whether there is any way in which the adult addition can be brought back, in the same way as the children's allowance has, to ensure that the particular group of people who require the benefit are properly protected. The Government won the vote by a very small margin in the other place and because of the closeness and the all-party nature of the support for the amendment it is essential that the Government should look at it again.
      The third element that I wish to highlight is the age allowances. The age banding will be altered so that people over 45 will no longer receive any additional help. At present, an increase in benefit is payable up to age 60 for men and 55 for women. Despite amendments to pay additions for people up to age 60, provisions for age allowances in the Bill remain intact. Again, this represents a loss of £3.80 a week for the over-45s and is part of the overall package of cuts that the Government are making through these measures to the rate of entitlement for people who have successfully negotiated the medical test.
      The Bill contains a fundamental redefinition of long-term incapacity from 28 weeks to 52 weeks. No explanation is given for the change, apart from the well-worn phrase that 52 weeks is a more reasonable definition. The real reason may be more that it will save the Government significant sums of money than any rational understanding or real evidence of what long-term incapacity actually means.

      137
      As was pointed out in the other place, with the test of incapacity taking place after 28 weeks, someone will be considered incapable of all work and yet will have to wait another 24 weeks before full payment is payable. As entitlement to the highest basic rate of benefit and other increases is triggered by the start of a long-term incapacity, delaying full benefit until after a year of incapacity represents the hardest cut of all.
      The targeting of people who have passed the test and are therefore considered genuine—according to the Government's definition—followed by a delay in full entitlement has been the subject of numerous amendments in both Houses, and of numerous protracted, detailed debates. An all-party amendment to reinstate long-term incapacity benefit at 28 weeks was also narrowly lost in the other place, by a mere two votes. I urge the Government to reflect again on the closeness of that result, and to consider reinstating the full rate at 28 weeks rather than delaying payment until 52 weeks have elapsed.
      4.15 pm
      The elements that will be delayed until after a year are the basic rate of benefit, which means a loss of £5.10 per week per claimant between weeks 29 and 52; the full rate of adult dependency increases, which means a loss of £7.60 per week per claimant with a qualifying partner for weeks 29 to 52; and age allowances, which means a loss of £12.50 per week for those under 65 and of £6.10 per week for those aged 35 to 45. Those are significant amounts. Conservative Members—who will receive a flood of letters and visitors to their surgeries, asking why cuts have been made in benefit for those who have passed the medical test—should bear in mind the fact that the Opposition have made the consequences of the legislation absolutely clear: they cannot give the excuse that they did not know or understand its implications.
      We welcome the three amendments dealing with disability living allowance, the terminally ill and children's additions. Two amendments have not been selected and I therefore do not intend to speak about them; but we could have had an interesting debate on entitling not only the terminally ill and those on the higher rate of DLA, but those who have been diagnosed to be suffering from a prescribed disease or disability, to benefit at 28 weeks—a system of "fast-tracking".
      I am sorry that we have not been able to debate the Lords amendment that would complete the task of awarding benefit at 28 weeks rather than 52 to groups which will be exempt from the functional element of the new incapacity test. We wanted to bring them into line; although that clearly will not be possible, I urge the Minister to consider that last element again.
      The terminally ill are, as it were, on the outside lane of a three-lane motorway, moving towards the 28 weeks on the fast track. The Government have now accepted the higher care component for DLA in the centre lane, but the inside lane should also keep pace with the traffic flow: that is, those with prescribed diseases should be included on the fast track. They are not only on the same motorway, but are travelling only for what could be described as the extra 24 "miles".
      I believe that the cost of fast-tracking those people to 28 weeks so that they need not wait for 52 would be extremely small and that it would be far neater for the legislation to
      138
      bring all three components together on the fast track rather than retaining the anomaly of a group being left outside it, which is likely to lead to much confusion, concern and anger among those who have been exempted from the functional test but are not being allowed the full rate of benefit until 52 weeks have passed. I urge the Minister, therefore, to consider the amendments on those matters, although I accept that we shall not debate or vote on them today.
      The Government accept the Lords amendments, which result from the excellent work that was undertaken in the other place, but I urge the Minister to consider not only the overall impact that the Bill will have on disabled people but the smaller issues that I identified to see whether, when the regulations are introduced, we can make a little more progress. I know that he is constrained by the pressures that the Treasury has placed on the Department of Social Security, but that is not a good enough reason for not protecting disabled people and ensuring that their income does not suffer as a result of the Bill.
      We welcome the changes and we commend the work that the other place undertook in support of the changes.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: I am glad that the Government intend to accept the purposes of the amendments passed in another place with all-party support. They will help the most severely disabled people and households of the sick and disabled where there are children. The Government's response has been decent and in keeping with the moral concern and seriousness with which Ministers consistently approach their responsibility in social policy.
      Some people criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for confronting us with the realities of what is happening in our society and with the choices that we have to make, but that is his duty. He performs it courageously, and he is right to insist that we think carefully about the implications of where our instincts and impulses lead us. He has tempered rigour here, however, with flexible common sense, which is characteristic and welcome.
      An amendment was debated in the House of Lords that would have provided that benefit should be payable after 28 weeks instead of a year to adult dependants, notably spouses as well as children. In circumstances of invalidity, spouses and partners are carers, and we should do more to support them, but the Government were unable to accept that amendment.
      Another more ambitious, more costly but justified amendment would have provided that incapacity benefit would be paid at the long-term rate to all claimants who passed the new medical test after 28 weeks instead of after a year. That too was found unacceptable. I cannot understand the case for requiring claimants to undergo a stringent medical test at six months and then to wait 12 months for incapacity benefit. If need is demonstrated, it should be met. The only argument for making them wait—often, I fear, in indigence—is one of economy, but this is the wrong area in which to make economies.
      It is good that the Government accept these amendments and provide fast tracking for the terminally ill, and for those on the higher rate component of disability living allowance—the most severely disabled people—to go on to the long-term rate of incapacity benefit after 28 weeks. Happily, they will not be required to undergo the new medical test.

      139
      The new medical test of incapacity is central to the Bill and to a number of the amendments. Debate in both Houses has not resulted in much meeting of minds or in any apparent accommodation by the Government of the powerful criticisms that have been made.
      The very concept of an objective medical test of incapacity is unsustainable. I said that on Second Reading, and I have not changed my view. The capacity of a person for work is not susceptible to the kind of objective assessment that the Government hope will be made. We are talking about the interaction of the infinite variety of people with the infinite variety of their circumstances. An individual's medical, intellectual, educational, familial, social and economic circumstances will all have an important bearing on his or her capacity to do a particular job. Generally, one cannot say that someone is either absolutely capable, or absolutely incapable, of work.
      I understand why the Government want objectivity, and why they want to get away from subjectivity and discretion. They wanted to do so with child support, as well as with invalidity benefit. Not only Treasury Ministers but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who always seeks to be far-sighted and responsible in that field—he controls the largest budget in Whitehall, so that is just as well—fear, with some justification, that discretion will lead to loss of control over expenditure. However, economic discipline should serve our social objectives, not the other way around.
      The objectivity that the Government seek in this context is a chimera, whose pursuit distances us from the responsibility that we should not evade, and in the end cannot evade, to make judgments about personal arid social needs in the variety of their manifestations, and to decide collectively how to respond to them.
      Among the needs to which we should address ourselves are those of men in middle age who can no longer find opportunities in the labour market. As I explained on Second Reading, invalidity benefit has played a crucial part in dealing with those needs. The amendment to allow benefit to be paid earlier for such men's children will be helpful to a number of them.
      Dr. Jonathan Wadsworth of the London School of Economics has studied what is happening to those people. The number of men between 35 and 65 years old newly categorised as economically inactive—that is defined as not looking, and not available, for work—grew by 110,000 between the winter of 1992 and the winter of 1993, while unemployment overall was falling. Many of those unemployed men have children, and Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are of great relevance to that category.
      We should be even more especially concerned for the sub-set within that category, consisting of men in the age group 55 to 64—although, in concentrating on men, I do not mean to decry the needs of women.
      In that cohort of men, unemployment rose by 23 per cent. between 1986 and 1993, while inactivity rose by 20 per cent. Meanwhile, a greater number of new claimants of invalidity benefit were unemployed, and claimants were staying on invalidity benefit for longer, often much longer. There are strong correlations between areas of high unemployment and areas of long-term sickness, and also between relatively low levels of skills and long-term sickness. Invalidity benefit has been providing succour for many long-term unemployed people, and for many who have come to despair of the possibility of being employed.
      140
      Some of my hon. Friends say that there must be abuse, and that we cannot possibly afford that racket, so the Government are right drastically to reduce eligibility for the new incapacity benefit. To them, and to my right hon. Friends, I say two things. First, as I said on Second Reading, the DSS's own research, as well as other analyses available, have failed to demonstrate significant abuse.
      Secondly, there remains a problem that demands a constructive response from us. There is a significant and rising number of unemployed people who have no good prospects in the labour market, who had low earnings when they were in work, and who have few savings and exiguous pension prospects. I submit that those people have a legitimate claim on us. They are the casualties of an economic restructuring which could not have been avoided, and which the Government have strongly endorsed and promoted.
      With amendments Nos. 5 and 6, the Government have helped those people in relation to their children, but beyond that the Government's response to their needs so far, as I understand it, is to say that, in future, it will be much harder for them to qualify for incapacity benefit, and that, furthermore, they will have to seek work with extra intensity in a labour market that is bitterly inhospitable to them, or they will not be eligible for the job seeker's allowance. Whatever the merits of incapacity benefit and the job seeker's allowance, they will not be a sufficient response on the part of society to this clearly identifiable social need. I suggest that there is food for thought for all the parties here.
      I have detained the House longer than may be customary or convenient on Lords amendments, particularly when the Government are showing some generosity in their response to them. I offer the excuse that, in this House and among the wider public, debate on this massively important measure, through which the Government expect to save £1.5 billion a year, has been perfunctory. We should be grateful to the other place, where there were admirable debates. Not for the first time, the peers showed themselves to be closer to the people than the Commons was.
      4.30 pm
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to the Government's generosity. I hope that I receive a generous response to a number of my concerns about the Bill. I remind the Minister that, in the excellent notes provided by his Department, page 2 of the explanatory memorandum on the Lords amendments mentions claimants who are over pension age. I seek assurances from the Minister. He may not be able to give them to me now, but I hope that, by way of a signal, non-verbal or otherwise, he will promise to write to me. My questions relate directly to the Lords amendments.
      I am concerned about women aged 60 to 65 who have had their invalidity benefit suspended until the European Court of Justice offers an opinion on the referral made by the Department and by counsel representing Mrs. Rose Graham at the English Court of Appeal. That referral was made four or five months ago. Given the backlog of work that the 13 judges in Luxembourg face, a decision may not be reached for another 18 months, yet the measure will come into effect next year.

      141
      Can the Minister assure me that the thousands of women who are directly affected by the Graham case—I refer here to the decision made by Commissioner Skinner three years ago, involving Mrs. Graham of Birkenhead—will not have to face further hurdles even though a decision will not be made by the European Court of Justice for at least 18 months?
      There are several hundred such women in my constituency alone, and in Northern Ireland more than 3,000 such women have made applications for the benefit to be paid to them. I reckon that about 80,000 women must be trapped by the lengthy process gone through by the European Court of Justice in reaching an opinion on such referrals. I do not criticise the court too harshly; it has an enormous work load. I visited the court last year and spoke to some of the judges. I am fairly confident that I am correct when I say that an opinion will not be offered on Mrs. Graham's case in particular and on the 80,000 women generally for at least another 18 months.
      I seek an assurance from the Minister. I sincerely hope that the women will not have to undergo a new medical test. It is not their fault that they are suffering in this way. Commissioner Skinner decreed that the Government were contravening a European directive passed as long ago as 1979—or was it 1977? I do not have notes to hand. Those women should be paid that benefit until the Supreme Court makes its decision. I say that it is its opinion, but, in every sense of the word, it will make a judgment on Commissioner Skinner's decision, and the referral by the Department of Social Security and Mrs. Graham's counsel. I seek an assurance that there will be no new medical test.
      In the interim period—it is not an interim period for the women concerned, many of whom are suffering hardship—I would also like to know about the guidelines issued to local Benefits Agency offices in respect of appeals made on the basis of hardship. If the Minister cannot answer me now, would he write to me?
      Lord Henley told me in a letter some 18 months ago that a woman caught up in those circumstances may appeal to have her invalidity benefit restored on the basis of the hardship that she is suffering. I know from a written answer that some 770 women have been paid on the basis of hardship, but some offices—perhaps one of them is the office in Greenock—have an over-harsh list of criteria defining hardship.
      Will the Minister and his officials look again at what those criteria mean? What is their definition of hardship? We are talking about 80,000 women who, through no fault of their own, are being made to suffer because the Government are challenging that Commissioner's decision all the way to Luxembourg. The Government are at fault in not paying invalidity benefit to women aged 60 to 65. Let us not forget that it is a contributory benefit, not a non-contributory benefit.
      In returning to the idea of generosity, the Government should be paying those women invalidity benefit until the day that the European Court of Justice offers the English Court of Appeal its opinion. I am fairly confident that those 13 judges—by then, there may be 14, 15 or 16 judges in that Supreme European Court—will say that Commissioner Skinner was right and that the Government were wrong.
      142
      I am therefore seeking assurances about those women, but, above all, the Minister should show some generosity of spirit by ensuring that they are paid. If not, I ask him to reconsider the criteria that his officials in the Benefits Agency local offices use to define hardship. Those criteria are over-harsh, and they penalise women on very low incomes.
      Mr. Scott: It would be best if I wrote to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) to cover the various points that he has set out. He will understand that I am especially sensitive to any danger of misleading the House in response to an intervention. However, I can tell him at the moment—I may want to embellish the explanation in the letter to him—that the case of a person whose benefit has been suspended pending the Graham case and who makes representation to the Secretary of State in cases of hardship will be considered sympathetically.
      A number of the women concerned have had the reinstatement of their benefit in those circumstances. Bearing in mind that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are strictly outside the scope of our discussions, it would be better if I sent him a considered response on those matters.
      The fact that a number of the hon. Gentleman's points are outside the scope of the Lords amendments may be characteristic of other speeches—if I may say so without in any way criticising your control of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a result of my response to discussions in another place and to representations which were made during the Commons consideration earlier, I hope that it has been possible for those who have spoken to welcome the changes which flow from the amendments. I recognise that there will always be pressure for the Government to go further and faster than they feel possible.
      The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) referred to additional pensions. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that, if we had not tackled the issue of additional pensions in the Bill, by the end of the century we would be talking about a cost to the taxpayer of additional pensions of £2 billion a year. Even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he thought that the existence of additional pensions in today's social security system was, to use his phrase, a bit of an anomaly. I certainly share that view.
      Points were also made about the adult dependency increase. It is worth making it clear that the adult dependency increase is not being abolished. It is being focused on those groups which are unlikely to be economically active and are therefore in the greatest need. It is not right that ADIs, which were introduced in 1948, should remain for ever untouched by the social changes that have occurred in the intervening period. I believe that our judgment about that matter is correct.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to exemption from medical tests. That subject stretches the boundaries of our discussion on Lords amendment No. 1. However, the medical test is designed for one purpose, and that is to decide whether people can be passported on to the benefit. While people who have experienced certain conditions can be exempted from the medical test, it is a completely different proposition to say that if someone has a particular medical condition, the severity of that condition should be regarded as a passport to incapacity benefit.

      143
      Passporting makes sense where a condition is specific and easily recognised. However, it is not a measure, in any sense of the word, of the severity of a condition. In using the higher rate of DLA as the passport to the benefit, we are seeking to limit and to focus that particular arrangement on the most severely handicapped.
      I hope that, with that brief response to the points that have been raised, I can welcome the guarded and somewhat limited welcome which has been given to this group of amendments. I certainly believe that they will be welcomed outside the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
      ("(3A) In the case of a person who has been entitled to short-term incapacity benefit for 196 days or more in any period of incapacity for work and is terminally ill, or, if he is in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance, the weekly rate of short-term incapacity benefit payable, if greater than the rate otherwise payable to him under subsection (2) or (3) above, shall be equal to the rate at which long-term incapacity benefit under section 30A above would be payable to him if he were entitled to it.
      For the purposes of this subsection a person is terminally ill if he suffers from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months.
      (3B) References to short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate shall be construed as including short-term incapacity benefit payable to any person who has been entitled to that benefit for 196 days or more in a period of incapacity for work, notwithstanding that the rate of benefit is determined in accordance with subsection (3) or (3A) above.")
      Amendments made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, after "and" insert "—(a)"
      (b), in line 4, leave out from "or" to "rate" and insert "(b) he is entitled to the highest"—[Mr. Scott.]
      Lords amendment No. 4, as amended, agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 3

      INCAPACITY BENEFIT: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 9, leave out ("in such cases as may be prescribed,")
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 44 to 46, 66 to 71 and 77 to 80.
      Mr. Scott: These are all technical amendments and it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved them formally.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 7. [Interruption.] Sorry, it should be Lords amendment No. 9. I call the Minister.
      Mr. Scott: I understand your problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure do other hon. Members.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I agree that there are too many papers. Before the Minister speaks to the amendment, I must say that I have been rather tolerant this afternoon. The debate on the first group of amendments
      144
      went rather wide. My period of tolerance has now ended and hon. Members should address the amendments before the House.
      4.45 pm
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 6, line 14, at end insert
      ("or training of such other description as may be prescribed")
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 65.
      Mr. Scott: I am sure that hon. Members, and certainly those who took part in the Committee stage, will recall our discussions in our earlier proceedings. Concern was expressed about the scope of the long training linking rule introduced as part of the incapacity benefit structure. I said then that that was an issue at which I was prepared to look again with sympathy. I undertook to respond, before the end of the Bill's passage, on the outcome of our deliberations. These four amendments were tabled in another place to give effect to our proposals.
      As hon. Members may already be aware, the training linking rule is intended to provide an incentive for people receiving incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance to try to make a return to work. It provides a safeguard in that if their attempt fails because of their incapacity, they can return to the same benefit that they were previously receiving within two years. Additionally, it protects the position of those people who are assessed as capable of work and who begin, or are already undertaking, a training course. If their condition deteriorates again within the two-year period—as it may in some cases—those people could also return to their previous benefit.
      I hope that hon. Members will understand that, for people undertaking a training course where a training allowance is not payable, incapacity benefit will remain in payment so long as they continue to satisfy the test of incapacity for work. If at any stage during a person's course of training that person is assessed as no longer satisfying the test of incapacity, as one would reasonably expect, that benefit would cease. Those rules will, as now, apply equally to SDA.
      Hon. Members will understand that anyone undertaking a non-Department of Employment course who continues to be incapable of work will have no need of the linking rule. That person's benefit will continue in payment. However, the amendments that I am commending to the House today will benefit people who are undertaking a course of training and fail a test of incapacity and those who begin a training course on leaving benefit.
      The amendments expand the use of the term "training for work" as used in the Bill to include
      "training of such other description as may be prescribed".
      That will apply to the long linking rule on both incapacity benefit and SDA.
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 65 relate to incapacity benefit and amendment No. 40 relates to severe disablement allowance. That broader definition of "training for work" will also apply to the new qualifying benefit rule on DWA. That allows a person to undertake a period of training between leaving a qualifying benefit, whether that be incapacity benefit or SDA, and making a claim for DWA. Amendment No. 41 gives effect to that change.

      145
      We feel that it is essential to use regulations for that provision. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that training provision has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and will no doubt continue to change in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is important that legislation in this important area is sufficiently flexible to allow us to keep it up to date when any new relevant initiatives arise.
      We have not as yet finalised the drafting of regulations to be made under those powers, but I can tell the House what we intend them to cover. Regulations will specify both additional Department of Employment programmes and the types of non-Government training courses that should be covered. We expect, for example, employment rehabilitation and community action programmes—both run by the Department—to be included. With non-Government training, we intend to include full-time courses, the sole or main purpose of which is the acquisition of occupational or vocational skills. Full-time is defined as "16 hours or more".
      As I am sure the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will recall, the issue of funding such schemes through the European social fund was raised in Committee. I can assure the House that as long as the sole or main purpose of the course funded by the European social fund is the acquisition of occupational or vocational skills, such courses will be covered by the broader definition. I hope that these changes will be welcomed in the House and outside it.
      Mr. Bradley: Clearly, we welcome the Minister's announcement and the amendments that have been tabled. He has looked carefully at the arguments that were put forward in Committee. Our deliberations have borne some fruit today, and we welcome that.
      I simply seek clarification not specifically on training but on a related topic, namely, therapeutic earnings. Following our discussions in Committee, a concession was made, and I welcome the correspondence from the Under-Secretary of State.
      The way in which the Government have considered the matter is to bring forward the definition of "therapeutic work" as work that is undertaken under medical supervision in a hospital or similar institution. I seek clarification from the Minister as to whether that is as narrowly defined as it would appear to be because, if it is, it clearly seems to fly in the face of the Government's policy on community care.
      I should like the Minister to tell the House whether the therapeutic rules will cover people who are living in the community but who are, for example, out-patients of a hospital or other institution, and whether similar rules will cover people who live in the community and attend adult training centres or other similar centres run by local authorities, the voluntary sector or health service authorities. Clearly, that is linked to the views on training. It seemed to us that, although there had been a concession on therapeutic work, it has been extremely narrowly defined.
      Will the Minister examine the definition in the broader context of community care with a view to extending the scope for an individual to receive therapeutic earnings?
      146
      Clearly, we welcome the amendment, and I would welcome any further comments that the Minister may have on that point.
      Mr. Scott: I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises my anxiety in this whole area, to enable a smooth transition from, as it were, incapacity through into work. Therefore, the whole issue of therapeutic work is something in which I take a continued and constructive interest.
      In practice, there are two types of therapeutic work. There is therapeutic work within some sort of institution and under medical supervision. It is also possible for a person living in the community to have the same advantage as someone in an institution, as long as the work is recommended by their doctor as being therapeutic in its effect. I hope that that covers the main point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
      ("(4) There shall be excluded any days in respect of which a person was disqualified for receiving incapacity benefit.")
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 16, 17, 26, 28, 29, 31, 73 and 81.
      Mr. Scott: The amendments in this group are of a technical nature and deal with the action to be taken where a person falls into one of three categories, namely, he has become incapable of work through misconduct, he fails without good cause to attend or submit himself to such medical or other treatment as required or, thirdly, he fails without good cause to observe any prescribed rules of behaviour.
      In any of those circumstances, a financial penalty will be imposed by stopping the payment of benefit for a period of up to six weeks. At the end of that period, benefit should be reinstated without requiring a further claim to benefit. I hope that these amendments will be acceptable to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4

      POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSITION TO INCAPACITY BENEFIT.
      Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 9, line 7, at end insert—
      ("( ) Regulations under this section may provide, in relation to transitional cases where the rate of incapacity benefit falls to be calculated by reference to the rate of dependency allowance paid or payable before commencement, that any old saving provisions shall have effect subject to the regulations or shall cease to have effect in accordance with the regulations.
      For the purposes of this subsection—
      "dependency allowance" means an allowance of the kind provided for in Part IV of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and
      "old saving provisions" means provisions of any description, including administrative provisions, in connection with a previous change affecting entitlement to or the amount of dependency allowances, preserving a person's position in any respect.")
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

      147
      The amendment will enable regulations to be made which will make it possible to rationalise the existing forms of transitional protection for dependency increases of invalidity benefit from April 1995. The intention is to align the old provisions with new forms of protection, which we intend to create when incapacity benefit is introduced. The House will be reassured to learn that acceptance of the amendment will not lead to cash losses for those whose circumstances remain unchanged.
      During the 1970s and 1980s, the structure of dependency increases changed in a number of ways. I do not think that the House would want me to give a detailed account of those changes. A notable by-product of the process has been the creation of six separate forms of transitional protection. The number of affected beneficiaries is very small, and these forms of protection do not operate on a uniform basis. We believe that it is right to use the opportunity presented by the introduction of the new benefit to place them all on the same footing.
      I explained that the relevant provisions do not operate in the same way. Some are linked to ongoing entitlement, and others are linked to the continuation of payment. Without going into any further details, I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and the House will accept that these are reasonable proposals which will make a worthwhile reduction in complexity at the inception of incapacity benefit. I hope that the amendments will be acceptable to the House.
      Mr. Bradley: I certainly do not want the Minister to go into the details of all the possible transitional arrangements which may be forthcoming. I wonder whether he could simply clarify a comment that was made in another place. I quote:
      "The new rules will mean more favourable treatment for some beneficiaries and less advantageous treatment of others when compared with the current arrangements."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 1994, Vol. 554, c. 1466.]
      Is the Minister able to give specific examples of where it will be "less advantageous" than the current arrangements under the new rules for transitional payments?
      Mr. Scott: I shall give an illustration. There is a form of existing transitional protection dating from 1985 relating to the introduction of the current earnings rule for adult dependency increases of invalidity benefit. Under that rule, payment ceases when earnings exceed a prescribed limit. However, the old rule provides for tapered withdrawal of the increase, so when the dependency increase is uprated each year the amount of earnings necessary to extinguish it also rises. That produces a rather bizarre effect.
      Rather than merely preserving the position of beneficiaries affected by the change in 1985, this form of protection has increased in generosity over time, and would continue to do so at future upratings. Our intention is to place an overriding limit on that form of protection equal to the point at which protection currently ceases. If earnings exceed the limit for more than eight weeks, protection will come to an end. That would allow the existing advantage conferred by that form of protection to be retained, but would not allow subsequent increases in future years. That is one example that I can give the hon. Gentleman of the sort of complexities that have developed. We think that reining back may be necessary in some areas.
      Mr. Bradley: Unfortunately, I have not worked up a similar example to compare with the Minister's, but his example is now crystal clear.
      Clearly, the arrangements are complicated and we will have to consider them in detail, case by case, as they come up. While in no way opposing the amendments, we notify the House of our intention to return to the matter, probably through regulation, when the real effects of the legislation are apparent after April 1995. We will consider the matter at a later date.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 9, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("four")
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 39 and 76.
      5 pm
      Mr. Scott: The amendments arise as a consequence of the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. While that Committee was broadly content with the approach taken in the Bill, it drew attention to two matters. The first was the period during which regulations made under clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Members of the House, as well as members of that Committee, rightly pay close attention to whether powers are subject to the affirmative or negative procedures when they consider Bills that contain powers to make secondary legislation.
      As the House will understand, twin pressures must be balanced. On the one hand, we must ensure that the business of the House is not cluttered up with regulations that are of minor import, and, on the other, that major measures are properly scrutinised on the Floor of the House. The Bill attempts to marry those concerns by time limiting the period to which regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
      The first few sets of regulations made under the provisions are likely to attract a high level of interest and scrutiny, as is proper. Future regulations, however, are likely to be in less controversial areas of legislation.
      The Standing Committee welcomed time limiting the application of the affirmative procedure, which was a novel method, but one that responded to concerns expressed when we discussed the matters there. The Government had felt that three years from Royal Assent would be a suitable time for such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Committee suggested commencement rather than Royal Assent, in cases where regulations were not made immediately. Regulations will, however, be made before the full commencement of the Act.
      In all probability, a commencement order will commence clauses 4 and 7 of the Act in full, but clauses 5 and 6 only to the extent that regulations can be made. A later commencement order will fully commence clauses 5 and 6, along with the rest of the Act.
      As clauses 4, 5 and 6 will not be commenced until April 1995, any regulations made under powers contained in those clauses would, if subject to the affirmative procedure only after commencement, automatically revert to the negative procedure. That was not the Committee's or the Government's intention, but we are sympathetic to the

      149
      Committee's concerns. We introduced amendments to extend the period in which amendments are subject to the affirmative procedure from three to four years.
      Most social security regulations are subject to the scrutiny of the Social Security Advisory Committee. The two main exceptions are regulations made within six months of the Act and regulations that concern rates of benefit. We had originally thought that regulations made under the appropriate section would only set out the rates of age additions. Accordingly, those would not fall to be scrutinised by the SSAC and paragraph 52 was included in schedule 1 of the Bill.
      The regulations will be broader than just the rates of benefit. It is appropriate, therefore, that the SSAC should consider those regulations. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Bradley: We, of course, welcome the fact that the amendments have been tabled. My memory of the Standing Committee is not that we were all leaping up and down, full of exhaltation and pleasure because of the time limit on the affirmative procedure. We were expressing pleasure because we had the affirmative procedure and because it would last for a longer period than had originally been intended, rather than at the novelty of time limiting, as the Minister put it.
      We also welcome the fact that the regulations will be scrutinised by the Social Security Advisory Committee. I assure the Minister that the Opposition will pay great attention, at every stage, to all the regulations that are introduced. As we have said on many occasions, we do not intend generally to accept that legislation should be by regulation, rather than primary legislation. The Bill is a classic case of more and more of the detail of legislation being pushed towards regulation and so we intend to scrutinise that at every turn, and by every means possible, to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of this crucial legislation for disabled people. However, we welcome the amendments.

    Clause 5

      TEST OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK
      Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 18 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 10, line 41, leave out ("12") and insert ("21")
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23.
      Mr. Scott: These amendments extend the own-occupation test to make it more reasonable and to clarify its application.
      The Bill introduces two tests of incapacity. The own-occupation test will apply to most people at the onset of their period of sickness and will be applied for the first 28 weeks of incapacity. In essence, it is a test of whether people can do their own job and it mirrors the present system.
      We will have to decide who can qualify for the own-occupation test. When the Bill was considered in Standing Committee we proposed that if someone had
      150
      worked for more than eight weeks in the past 12 they should undergo the own-occupation test. If someone did not fulfil that requirement, they should undergo the all-work test at the beginning of their incapacity—the latter is the new, functional medical test, with which those hon. Members who have taken part in our discussions will be familiar.
      In Committee, the argument was advanced that the qualifying period for the own-occupation test was unreasonable and I undertook to consider the matter further. On reflection, we came to the conclusion that the qualification was less than totally reasonable. It would have meant that someone who had been in work for 20 years and was made redundant would face the all-work test immediately if he or she fell sick after only five weeks of redundancy.
      In deciding the qualification for the own-occupation test, our aim was to produce a simple, workable definition that would ensure that as many people as possible underwent the own-occupation test when they became sick. Only in exceptional circumstances did we expect anyone to have to undergo the all-work test at that stage.
      The amendment means that someone who has undertaken an occupation for more than eight weeks in the past 21 weeks will face the own-occupation test at the onset of incapacity, which is a much more reasonable approach.
      Amendment No. 20 is purely technical and serves to clarify the drafting of section 171B(4). It applies either to disability working allowance or the training long-linking rule, as it applies to a person, where we do not want the long-linking rule to affect the test of incapacity that is applied. Section 171B(4) as it stands could be interpreted to have the effect that, where a person had been working and receiving DWA and made a further claim to benefit, he would be subject to the all-work test even though he had clearly been working for more than eight weeks prior to the claim. That is not what we want and amendment No. 20 puts the issue beyond all doubt, ensuring that the own-occupation test is applied where appropriate. That will be the second beneficial move.
      Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are also designed to clarify the application of the own-occupation test. As I explained before, in the majority of cases, for the first 28 weeks, a person's incapacity will be measured against his own occupation. We want as many people as possible to undergo the own-occupation test at the start of their period of sickness. We always intended that people on training courses—whether paid or unpaid—and who would return to their previous job or employer would be covered by the provision.
      Amendment No. 22 is designed to ensure that we have such powers, and amendment No. 21 is a small technical amendment required for the paragraph proposed by amendment No. 22 to be inserted. Amendment No. 23 ensures that we have the necessary powers to ensure that the provision to apply to people who had more than one job during the 21-week period, or who had more than one job at the same time, are also included within this provision.
      I understand the concerns which hon. Members have about the own-occupation test and the all-work test, but I hope that they will at least agree that the amendments are important improvements to the own-occupation test.
      Mr. Bradley: We have now come to the amendments where I thought that we would be having the debate on the

      151
      medical test. But as we had a mini-debate on that—with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not intend to range over all the issues of concern which were raised by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), which I fully support. However, it seems yet again that this matter has become a great yawning gap in the legislation.
      It is the most difficult area for us to debate effectively, even at this late stage in the passing of the legislation, because as yet we have no details of what the medical test will be. We do not know whether it will apply to the own-occupation or to the all-work test, or whether it refers to work at all. As we know, yet again there is no definition of work in the Bill, let alone the other definitions about which we previously expressed concern as they were not on the face of the Bill.
      I shall not range over all the concerns about the medical test to which we will clearly return when the medical test is published and goes out for further consultation. I would just seek some clarification about where work on the medical test itself has got to. I am aware that the so-called panel of experts has had meetings. Has that panel now completed its deliberations, or is it having further meetings to consider and refine further this document for which we are awaiting?
      Will the revised medical test which is to go out for consultation still be published in August of this year? If and when it is published, how will consultation on the revised document be undertaken? What organisations and individuals will be consulted on that test?
      5.15 pm
      Crucially, can the Minister give me some guidance on how the Government intend to respond to the clear divergence of opinion within the so-called panel of experts about the way in which the test is being put together? The Minister is well aware of a letter which was sent to the noble Lord Astor from a number of organisations which are involved in the new medical test. They have sought clarification on one point upon which the Minister may want to comment.
      The letter, dated 6 May 1994, states:

      "It really will not be acceptable if panellists' concerns about various aspects of the test are not acknowledged in the final report of the consultation and departmental evaluation of the new test".
      Will their differing views about how the test can operate in practice be presented in the final report? The letter continues:
      "We seek your assurance that there will be an opportunity to address our concerns, for example in a special section of the report."
      If the deliberations have moved on to a point where the revised medical test is about to be finalised—it is clear that there are a lot of differences of opinion about how the functional test will apply in practice—will those panellists be afforded the opportunity before the report is published to express their views further?
      Will those differences of opinion be expressed in the report or do the Government intend to try to impose their consensual view upon the panel of experts to come out with a report which they believe reflects all the issues that the 80 panellists are expressing? These are very important matters on which we must judge the medical test within the legislation.
      I hope that the Minister can give the House some assurances about the progress and presentation of that test
      152
      and how it will be then further debated, and the issues of concern brought back to the Floor of the House through regulation for our further consideration.
      Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) acknowledged that the work has been proceeding. The results of the work—that is to say, the consultation process, the assessment panels and the evaluation study phases have already been completed—are now being analysed, and the detail of the tests will be revised to take account of the outcome of the consultation, development and evaluation processes.
      Our next step is still to publish the results with our final proposals in a report in August. Only after all that will we present our final proposals on the test to Parliament for approval in the form of regulations. The earlier publication of our final proposals should allow interested parties to make their views known before the regulations are laid, and should ensure that we develop a test that is fair. The panel's task has been to advise on the details of the test, although of course not on the basis of the policy. Nobody was asked in any sense to sign up to the basis of the policy when they agreed to take part in the panel's work.
      I must say that it has been an almost unique and very useful exercise to have the panel involved in the important work. I should emphasise, perhaps particularly at this point, that no decision has yet been made about the setting of thresholds which will determine whether or not a person is found capable or incapable of work. Nor will any decisions be made until the development and evaluation work is complete.
      Once we have published our findings, regulations will be laid, and it will then obviously be up to any organisation to come forward with their comments on those proposals. We will obviously take account of those as the final shape of the test is decided.
      Dr. Godman: Does the eight-week period incorporate training for a person's work? For example, welders work intermittently in the offshore fabrication industry, and if they are out of work for three or four weeks, they may not be able to reach the standards set for such work in that industry. They have been out of work to undergo periods of training to bring them back to the levels required by Norsk Veritas and an American insurance regulatory body. Does that eight-week period incorporate or include periods of training?
      Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman's intervention relates to a previous amendment, but that period certainly would include any period of training. I was talking specifically about the medical test and the arrangements being made for our proposals to be brought forward properly and publicly discussed. There will then be a final opportunity for the House to discuss the regulations which will flow from that. If I can leap backwards, the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that such a period will certainly apply.
      Mr. Bradley: I glean from the Minister's response that he intends to issue the final report, and that those panellists who have a dissenting view on it, rather than having their views highlighted in the report, will be allowed to comment on it. If I have misunderstood, I would welcome a correction from the Minister. It is important to discover whether the document will be published as though there was consensus. Will those panellists who disagree have an

      153
      opportunity to express their opinions separately, or will their concerns be highlighted when the revised report is published?
      Mr. Scott: It is my present intention that, once the Government have considered the work of the panellists and the evaluation process, they will come forward with their own proposals. It will then be open to anyone to make clear his views about them. Whatever people's final views, I am extremely grateful to those who have taken part in the work of the panel for the body of expertise that they have offered and the fact that they have concentrated on an important issue.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

    Schedule 1

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 19, line 24, at end insert
      ("under section 30A below or short-term or long-term incapacity benefit under section 40 or 41 below")
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43, 47 to 64, 72, 74 and 75.
      Mr. Bradley: The effect of the amendment, as laid out in the Department's document, is welcome. Widows and widowers who are incapable of work will qualify for incapacity benefit on the basis of their deceased spouses' national insurance contributions. Why are industrial injuries excluded from a similar provision?
      Mr. Scott: I am not sure that I can give an answer off the cuff, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Sunday Trading Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendments Nos.1 to 4 agreed to.

  Sunday Trading Bill
    Schedule 1

      RESTRICTIONS ON SUNDAY OPENING OF LARGE SHOPS
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 4, leave out line 9
      5.24 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 8, 10, 11 and 13.
      Mr. Lloyd: During the many changes that the Bill has undergone, any reference to "licensed premises", other than in the list of definitions, has been removed from schedule 1. The definition is therefore redundant, and amendment No. 5 seeks to delete it. I hope that it will assist the House if I also say a word about the other amendments in the group.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 would provide an exemption for any stand used in an exhibition from the six-hour restriction that the Bill places on trading by large shops. According to the current law, stands at most exhibitions are able to trade legally on a Sunday, notwithstanding the provisions of the Shops Act 1950, because of a series of provisions in various local Acts, which allow trading at specific and listed sites. For example, the West Midlands County Council Act 1980 disapplies the closing and Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act to any shop or stand open during the course of an exhibition at the National Exhibition Centre.
      This is, of course, a matter for the House, but, as I see it, the amendments do not provide a loophole for large retailers to slip through. They would lay to rest any concerns of exhibitors who have always hitherto enjoyed free trading on a Sunday.
      Amendment No. 7 would allow large farm shops to trade at any hour on a Sunday instead of being restricted to six hours trading like other large stores. Up to a point, shops on farms have always been in a privileged position regarding Sunday trading. Section 58 of the 1950 Act allows on a Sunday
      "the sale at a farm, of produce produced thereon".
      That provision was intended to provide that, if a farmer sold a customer some of his own produce, he would not be in breach of the Sunday trading provisions.
      Times have changed, however, and some of the farm shops now in operation are larger than 3,000 sq ft. If those shops have been trading on a Sunday they may well have been doing so in breach of the 1950 Act by selling far more than the produce of the farm on which they are situated. Whatever the potential anomaly in allowing a large shop to open at any hour on a Sunday, as long as it is on a farm and sells wholly or mainly home-grown produce, the practical effect of the amendment would be very limited.
      Amendment No. 8 would extend the list of those large shops that the Bill allows to open beyond six hours to include shops where the goods sold were "wholly or mainly" motor and cycle supplies. The 1950 Act allows the sale of motor and cycle supplies and accessories on a

      155
      Sunday. Partly as a result of that provision, large motor supplies shops, such as Halfords, have been trading all day on a Sunday for a considerable number of years. Such retailers have managed their business, at least in part, on the assumption that all-day trading on Sunday is a lawful activity for them.
      Amendment No. 10 concerns pharmacies. Under the 1950 Act, pharmacies may sell medicines and medical and surgical appliances on a Sunday. That reflects the fact that, irrespective of the general considerations that Parliament might wish to apply to Sunday trading, it should be possible for a pharmacy to open at any time on a Sunday to dispense medicine and sell products that can genuinely be considered to have a medical application.
      The Bill as originally worded provided an exemption only for the sale of medicinal products and surgical appliances. That meant that items such as thermometers could not be sold by large pharmacies outside the six permitted hours on a Sunday. The amendment simply allows large pharmacies to sell those items that, under current legislation, they are permitted to sell on Sunday outside the new six-hour period—for example, when they are on rota duty.
      I make those points for clarification. The Government are, of course, entirely content for the House to decide freely upon the amendments.
      Mr. David Alton: The debate has fallen rather earlier than some may have anticipated, but it is good to see that so many hon. Members are in their place.
      The Sunday Trading Bill and the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) have been debated in the Chamber and in the other place for what seems to have been an interminable time. The Minister will be as pleased as everyone else in Parliament when this matter is finally resolved.
      May I say at the outset of consideration of the Lords amendments that, although those of us opposed to Sunday trading regretted the measures agreed at an earlier stage, we felt that at least a commitment to compromise had been made. Indeed, the word was used both by the Minister and other hon. Members at various stages. Having been amended in another place, the idea that the Bill remains a compromise has now been blown out of the water.
      The shopping hours reform lobby has abused the law, spent its millions and bought its preferred option at bargain basement prices from legislators who salve their consciences at the expense of families, communities, low-paid shop workers and small businesses. Everything we warned about in this Chamber during the earlier stages of the Bill has now come to pass. Every commodity under the sun is now on sale on Sundays. Employees who once spent Sundays with their families are now forced to work, and the special traditional nature of one day of peace and quiet has been destroyed by mercenaries whose only ideals may be measured in sterling.
      The Bill was sold on the basis of the right to shop. That flaccid language of rights and choice, shorn of reference to duties, obligations or responsibilities, hides the real cost of Sunday trading. Thoreau once said that, if we cut down the trees, the birds will no longer be able to sing. By destroying Sunday as a unique day, ordinary people will lose the opportunity to spend time with one another, their families and relatives, and to have a day of tranquillity away from the hustle and bustle of every other day of shopping.
      Mr. James Couchman: The hon. Gentleman makes many presumptions. He presumes that the House will agree with the Lords amendments. He should wait for the debate.
      Mr. Alton: Far from waiting for the debate, I am participating in it, and trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman, who has been one of the leading advocates of Sunday trading, that he should join us in the Lobby later, should it be necessary, to oppose the Lords amendments.
      The noble Lord Earl Ferrers, the Minister dealing with Sunday trading in the other place, said:
      "I would add just one personal caveat. I have mentioned it before, and I do so without any form of direction. I think that we should be careful about bringing into the Bill a great number of additional exceptions. We have already agreed an exception for motor supply shops. If all the exceptions which have been proposed were accepted, we might well find, as my noble friend Lady Young has said, that the reform is becoming largely indistinguishable from the total deregulation which this place has already rejected."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 1994; Vol. 553, c. 1682–3.]
      Thus, the Home Office Minister in another place has said that, were the amendments then before the other place accepted, the Bill would become indistinguishable from the total deregulation which the House of Commons had earlier rejected. I remind hon. Members that those amendments are now incorporated in the Bill, and we are invited to vote on them this afternoon.
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: The hon. Gentleman mentioned motor accessory shops. We are not changing the law on those, as they have been allowed to trade since 1950. If his wife or children were to break down on a Sunday and wanted a part for their car, he would not want them stranded on the motorway because the shop had closed. We are not changing the law, but simply putting it back.
      Mr. Alton: I take that point. I am not dealing with all the amendments in precisely the same way. I shall come to the detail in a moment.
      We should listen carefully to the warning of the noble Lord Earl Ferrers, that, if a range of new exemptions and exceptions were agreed, the carefully crafted compromise made in this House would be placed in jeopardy. The compromise left many of us cold, because we still said that Sundays should remain a special day.
      Amendment No. 7 deals with farm shops. I feel strongly that it is unnecessary. When considering its merits, it is important to do so from a rational perspective. Were the amendment passed, any farm shop which had an internal floor area exceeding 280 sq m or 3,000 sq ft or, from another perspective, was larger than the Chamber of the House of Commons could open for unlimited hours on Sundays. How many farm shops fall within that category, and what is the nature of their business? I hope that the Minister will answer those points.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: Those are not my amendments, but I have explained them to the House. The hon. Gentleman has given only half the picture and, in fairness to the House, he should give the whole picture. Only shops situated on a farm that sell products wholly or mainly supplied from that farm will fall within the scope of the amendment. So it is drastically restricted, as I said in my explanation.
      Mr. Alton: That makes the measurements which I gave the House sound equally absurd. What sort of business will be able to produce such a volume? I am arguing that the amendment is unnecessary.
      Mr. Peter Luff: I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the efficient use of space by farm shops. In my experience, they are often located within large barns, so are comfortably in excess of the floor area that he mentioned, although they are genuinely small businesses of the kind that he and I are trying to protect.
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
      Another issue is why farm shops need to open for longer than six hours on Sundays, given that they will not provide an emergency service. Any farm shop that exceeds 280 sq m must be entering into significant commercial activity, selling a wide variety of products to attract sufficient custom to remain profitable.
      While the amendment requires farm shops to sell at least 51 per cent. of goods produced on the farm in question, it further permits the shop to sell up to 49 per cent. of other goods, such as other foodstuffs, tourist souvenirs, gardening equipment and garden furniture. As a consequence, the amendment would create further unfair competition and anomalies within the Bill, giving preferential treatment and trading advantage to one type of retailer over another.
      Could not the type of store envisaged as opening under this provision more accurately be described as a garden centre, grocery store, supermarket, or even tourist shop, rather than a traditional farm shop? It is unfair to permit large farm shops to open beyond the six-hour limit, when supermarkets, tourist shops—and, depending on the outcome of a later amendment, garden centres—will be required to close after six hours.
      Amendment No. 7 also represents the liberalising of the existing law, so it also jeopardises the carefully crafted agreements previously worked out in this House. Under section 58 of the Shops Act 1950, farm shops, regardless of size, are permitted to open all day on Sundays, but only to sell produce produced thereon. Under this amendment, while farm shops will be allowed to sell 51 per cent. of their own-grown produce, they will also be free to sell up to 49 per cent. of goods brought in from outside.
      Mr. Ray Powell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the marvellous garden show in London. Only recently, it disclosed that exhibitors buy most of the flowers on their stalls elsewhere. Would not even the large farm shops import goods that were not produced on their farm if they were allowed an opportunity to trade for more than six hours? Would not that be unfair?
      Mr. Alton: It would indeed. As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) rightly described, it would be another element of unfair competition, which is at the heart of the arguments that he, I and other hon. Members in all parts of the House have advanced against the Bill throughout. It will inevitably destroy smaller businesses, it will inevitably build in unfair competition and it will greatly damage the traditional tranquillity that families and communities have enjoyed on a Sunday when it has been a special day.
      Amendment No. 8 deals with motor and cycle supply outlets. The Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association have widely distributed briefings to Members
      158
      which argue in favour of amendment No. 6, in permitting large motor and cycle supply outlets—those of more than 280 sq m—to open for unlimited, as opposed to six-hour, Sunday trading. The main thrust of the RAC and AA argument is:
      "The House of Lords amendment is a technical amendment to the Bill. It does NOT seek a new concession for motorists but merely seeks to maintain the current legal position for motoring supply outlets".
      They say that large motor supply outlets provide an emergency service on Sunday, and that if those large centres were restricted to six hours' opening on Sunday, lives—the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) intimated that too—would be put at risk and significant inconvenience would be caused to motorists.
      That is misleading in several respects. Amendment No. 6 represents a significant liberalisation of the law. To argue that the Lords—
      Mr. Luff rose—
      Mr. Alton: If I may advance for a moment, I shall happily give way.
      Mr. Luff: It is a short point. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to amendment No. 8, not amendment No. 6. I wish to clarify that.
      Mr. Alton: I am speaking about amendment No. 8, but it also involves amendment No. 6. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the list of amendments, he will see that that is the case.
      To argue that Lords amendment No. 6 is a technical amendment which merely retains an existing exemption already granted to motor and cycle supply outlets is inaccurate and highly misleading. The House of Lords amendment is far broader in scope than the existing law governing motor or cycle supply outlets on Sunday.
      The Shops Act 1950 exempts motor and cycle supply outlets to open on Sundays regardless of size, but only to sell a narrow range of products. Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950 states that a shop may open for the serving of customers on Sundays for the sale of
      "aircraft, motor, or cycle supplies or accessories".
      The courts have always interpreted that provision narrowly, ruling that neither a pair of tights converted for use as a fan belt nor a fridge to be installed in a caravan were motor supplies or accessories. Rather, the term
      "motor, or cycle supplies or accessories"
      has been interpreted to include only items that are directly usable for mechanical purposes, to service a motor vehicle or bicycle or, in, certain circumstances, to decorate a vehicle, for example, furry dice. It is worth noting that that definition would not include new or second-hand cars or bicycles, but rather only parts for them.
      In contrast, the proposed amendment exempts large motor or cycle outlets to open to sell their full range of products for unlimited hours on Sundays, provided that
      "the trade or business carried on"
      in the shop
      "consists wholly or mainly of the sale of any one or more of the following—

      (i) motor supplies and accessories, and

      (ii) cycle supplies and accessories".

      The key term used in the amendment is "wholly or mainly". Although that term will be the subject of judicial interpretation, it is expected that, for the purposes of the Bill, it will mean 51 per cent. turnover.

      159
      Consequently, if the amendment were accepted today, motor or cycle supply outlets such as Halfords would be able to open for unlimited hours on Sundays, with up to 49 per cent. of their sales coming from goods that may not lawfully be sold under the existing law.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant rose—
      Mr. Alton: I wish to make a little progress.
      Stores such as Halfords would be free to extend their business activities significantly—for example, to sell equipment for use in caravans, for tourists, maps, camping equipment, picnic ware and so on, and continue to open for unlimited hours on Sundays, whereas their competitors are required to close after six hours.
      The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) are probably anxious that I discuss emergency services, so I shall discuss that now. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the emergency services such as the RAC and AA rely on outlets such as Halfords for the supply of repair parts on Sundays. I believe that the AA and the RAC carry most general spare parts with them in their vans. The need to have access to stores such as Halfords on Sundays is minimal.
      Mr. John Marshall rose—
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Alton: Please would the hon. Gentleman wait?
      Most RAC and AA vans do not carry a wide range of specialised parts designed for specific markets or cars. However, I believe that the emergency services tend to rely on specialist traders, which mainly operate out of garage sites, to supply those parts, as opposed to the general high street traders.
      The RAC and AA, in their briefings, have said that 30 per cent. that is 330,000—of breakdowns take place after 6 pm on Sundays. It must be asked, however, how many of those breakdowns involve the use of spare parts that are not usually carried in AA or RAC vans, and which are supplied in stores such as Halfords. In addition, I hope that the Minister will say how many of those cases would involve the car being repaired on Sundays, as opposed to being towed away and repaired on Monday morning.
      It should further be noted that small motor supply outlets are exempted under the Bill to open for unlimited hours on Sundays. If there is significant and sufficient demand for spare parts before 10 pm and after 6 pm on Sundays, those smaller outlets will undoubtedly remain open, adding to the number of shops and premises that trade on Sunday.
      Mr. Fabricant rose—
      Mr. Alton: I shall finish the argument, and then I shall give way.
      I do not believe that adequate evidence is available to establish that large motor and cycle supply shops provide an emergency service on Sundays during the early mornings or evening hours which neither can be nor is being met by small motor outlets or specialist dealers who supply the RAC and AA direct. The acceptance of amendment No. 6 will only increase the anomalies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Amendment No. 8."]—amendment No. 8, and I think as it affects amendment No. 6 earlier. It will only increase the unfair competition and difficulties of enforcement already created in the Bill.
      160
      I happily give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have worked on several Committees, including the Committee that considered the Shops (Amendment) Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), and the Committee on the Bill that we are debating.
      Does he accept that, if he were to remove the "wholly or mainly" from the definition of the supply of goods in stores such as Halfords, which was one of his arguments, people—not the RAC or the AA, but people who do their own car maintenance—might buy spark plugs but be unable to buy a spark plug spanner or, perhaps more worryingly, be able to buy brake pads but not the right tool kit to put the brake pads in? Although he may be of sufficient wealth to have his car serviced by professional organisations, does he accept that many people in this country do their own servicing?
      Mr. Alton: Of course I accept that, and I do not think that it will impinge on them, as the present law has failed to do in the past. There is no reason why people should be inconvenienced. It is simply that, if we do not want, as I do not—the hon. Gentleman and I entirely disagree about that—large numbers of extra retail outlets to open throughout the country, we must be careful not to provide, as we have in this legislation, so much coach-and-horses provision that anyone and everyone will be able to open at every hour of the day and the night.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I accept the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman expresses about the notion of large stores being added to the ones that already open. However, does he accept that the number of makes of motor cars nowadays is so great that it is possible that only large stores will have the correct, and sufficient numbers of, spare parts to suit any one of any range of cars? That argument is the most powerful, I think, and it is for that reason—and the fact that, under the old law, Halfords and other large motor spare stores have been allowed to build—that they have extended and expanded their services.
      Mr. Alton: I should have thought that it was the other way round—that cars of a more marginal nature, which are not supplied by one of the big car manufacturers, would be most likely to be affected in the way that the right hon. Lady describes. I should have thought that every other trading day, when those outlets are open and people can provide themselves with the spare parts and pieces they need, would provide them with sufficient opportunity to do so without having to extend that time as the amendments seek to do.
      I think that the Minister will agree that we attempted, during long, laborious hours in Committee, on Report and during the various debates on the Shops (Amendment) Bill, to reach a sensible agreement. We all accepted that there would be some anomaly. We all admitted that there were massive anomalies in the Shops Act 1950. There are bound to be anomalies in any legislation that the House passes, but we do not need to add to them. Some of the Lords amendments seem to do that and, worse, they seem to undermine the law by trying to push still further the case for wholesale liberalisation. That was what the noble Earl

      161
      Ferrers argued when the Bill was in the other place. That carefully crafted, constructive compromise is at stake today.
      We will not be able radically to change the nature of the Bill at this late stage. The message that will be sent out to people who have observed the proceedings governing the Bill and who have followed the arguments throughout will be that yet another aspect of the debate has gone by default. They will receive the message that yet another loss has been occasioned because of the legislators' failure to safeguard what has traditionally been the one special day enjoyed by families and communities the length and breadth of the land. It is for those reasons that I have raised my opposition and questions to the Lords amendments.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I wish to make a few simple arguments in support of Lords amendment No. 8. The most telling point in the amendment is that it simply restores the legislation that existed before we entered on the laborious and lengthy exercise of trying to modernise the Shops Act 1950.
      The subject of amendment No. 8 is the one sphere in which the 1950 Act made an exception. The number of people who now own cars has risen substantially since 1950, when there were 2.3 million. There are now, in 1994, perhaps regrettably, 22 million car owners. In 2000, there are likely to be 25 million car owners.
      We must not assume that every one of those car owners will be able to enjoy the pleasures of membership of one of the motoring organisations. There are currently 10 million people who are not members of a motoring organisation and depend entirely on their own resources and access to spares to make their cars roadworthy. Until now, they have been able to go to Halfords or a large store with a wide range of spare parts for cars and motor cycles on a Sunday if their vehicle was not functioning in order to repair it so that it would function on Monday through to Saturday.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who oppose the amendment could do so logically if the law also said that breakdowns could not occur on Sundays?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I am not entirely sure whether I agree with my hon. Friend, but hon. Members can make up their own minds.
      I sincerely believe that we should not attempt to make the Bill more restrictive than necessary. I have no problems with my position; I have never been anything other than a total deregulator on the issue. I am sad that we have had to impose restrictions, but I am glad that we have at least some agreement in the House on the sort of restrictions that we have agreed to accept. I am concerned that we should not now renege on those agreements by saying that we want to impose a greater restriction on the sale of motor spares than existed in the 1950 Act. I ask my colleagues to consider the subject carefully and to support the Lords amendment No. 8.
      Dr. Robert Spink: I shall not delay the House long. I shall not reiterate the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), as he made them extremely well.
      162
      I shall deal with the principle of whether or not the regulations are tightly in place. I see that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has just entered the Chamber, so I shall use the words of his national poet, Dylan Thomas:
      "Time let me play and be
      Golden in the mercy of his means
      …and the sabbath rang slowly
      In the pebbles of the holy streams."
      The sabbath rang slowly, but the sabbath will never ring slowly again as a result of the decision that we have made. I believe that we shall come to rue the day that we passed the Sunday Trading Bill. In principle, we should seek to keep Sunday as a special day, and resist the amendments before us.
      Mr. Luff: I had not intended to intervene in the debate on this group of amendments, but in view of the confusion over amendment numbers in the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), I think that it is important to clarify the issue.
      The hon. Gentleman repeatedly referred to amendment No. 6 in relation to motor supplies and cycle supplies, but amendment No. 6 relates to exemptions for stands at exhibitions, as does amendment No. 11. I hope that amendments Nos. 6 and 11 will not attract any controversy in the House. The amendments to exempt exhibition stands from the provisions of the Sunday Trading Bill are genuinely technical. Exhibitions are not generally affected by the Bill, and the amendments are simply to ensure that individual stands in exhibitions, which might otherwise fall within the definition of a shop, are not affected either.
      The amendments are minor, but they are important to the exhibition industry of the United Kingdom if our venues are to be able to compete on an equal basis with exhibition venues overseas, particularly in the European single market. The amendments do not undermine the Bill's principle or provide a loophole in the law. The term "exhibition" has already been defined, so it remains a question of fact. For this purpose, in any dispute about whether something constitutes an exhibition, the courts can decide on the facts on the basis "you know an exhibition when you see one".
      The Sunday Trading Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power simply to continue with existing exemptions in local legislation for some venues such as Earls Court, Olympia and the National Exhibition Centre outside Birmingham. Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 ensure that exhibition venues throughout the countries of England and Wales are treated on an equal footing with other venues, with one rule being applied to all. I hope that they will command universal support in the House.
      Mrs. Peacock: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) with a word on amendments Nos. 6 and 11, which are important, not only to the exhibition industry, but to manufacturing industry, many of whose members exhibit at exhibitions that commence on Sundays. Sunday is the very day that retailers are able to visit exhibitions to order and buy goods for sale in their shops. It is most important that we do not impose any restrictions that could affect our manufacturing industry.
      As chairman of the House of Commons motor club, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister about amendment No. 8, which has been sensibly placed in the Bill by their

      163
      Lordships. Perhaps the original legislation should have contained the provision—I certainly want to see it continued.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said, more than 10 million car owners in this country do not belong to the AA or the RAC. None of us wants to see young families or anyone else stranded and having to wait until the shops open the next morning to buy the necessary parts to repair their car if it breaks down after hours. I hope that the House will recognise that.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) has completed her speech.
      6 pm
      Mr. Jim Lester: I have circulated amendment No. 10 to most hon. Members, as it principally affects a constituency company, Boots. It reinstates in the Bill provisions that originally existed in relation to pharmacists. The pharmacists do not seek additional hours or changes in the hours, but want to be allowed to sell products that are essential for people's health. Pharmacists have been able to sell those products until now, and the amendment restores the original position without affecting the opening hours.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No 6 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
      ("(za) any shop which is at a farm and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of produce from that farm,")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 191.

      Division No. 269]

      [6.00 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Burns, Simon

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Butcher, John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Butler, Peter

      Arbuthnot, James

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cann, Jamie

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Carrington, Matthew

      Atkins, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cash, William

      Austin-Walker, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baldry, Tony

      Clappison, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Colvin, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Congdon, David

      Betts, Clive

      Conway, Derek

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Boswell, Tim

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boyes, Roland

      Couchman, James

      Brandreth, Gyles

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

      Bright, Graham

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Darling, Alistair

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      164

      Dorrell, Stephen

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      MacKay, Andrew

      Dover, Den

      Maclean, David

      Dowd, Jim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Madel, Sir David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Dykes, Hugh

      Malone, Gerald

      Eggar, Tim

      Mandelson, Peter

      Elletson, Harold

      Marland, Paul

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Evennett, David

      Mates, Michael

      Faber, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Flynn, Paul

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Morley, Elliot

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      French, Douglas

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gale, Roger

      Mullin, Chris

      Gallie, Phil

      Nelson, Anthony

      Garnier, Edward

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Norris, Steve

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Gorst, Sir John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Gunnell, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hague, William

      Page, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Paice, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Harris, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Harvey, Nick

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pickles, Eric

      Hawkins, Nick

      Pope, Greg

      Hawksley, Warren

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hicks, Robert

      Rendel, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Richards, Rod

      Horam, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Sackville, Tom

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Sims, Roger

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Speed, Sir Keith

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sproat, Iain

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Knox, Sir David

      Steen, Anthony

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Stern, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sweeney, Walter

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sykes, John

      Leigh, Edward

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Lightbown, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Luff, Peter

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Thurnham, Peter

      165

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

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

      Watts, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Tredinnick, David

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Trend, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Trotter, Neville

      Whittingdale, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tyler, Paul

      Willetts, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wood, Timothy

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Walden, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Sir George Gardiner and>

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Mr. Michael Fabricant.

      Ward, John

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Gapes, Mike

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Garrett, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      George, Bruce

      Allen, Graham

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Alton, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Amess, David

      Gordon, Mildred

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Graham, Thomas

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Hain, Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Hall, Mike

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hannam, Sir John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Hanson, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Hardy, Peter

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Heppell, John

      Benton, Joe

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Home Robertson, John

      Blunkett, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hutton, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Byers, Stephen

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Jessel, Toby

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clelland, David

      Keen, Alan

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Corbett, Robin

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Cousins, Jim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Cummings, John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Litherland, Robert

      Davidson, Ian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

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

      Lord, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Loyden, Eddie

      Devlin, Tim

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dixon, Don

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dobson, Frank

      McFall, John

      Dover, Den

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Enright, Derek

      Maclennan, Robert

      Etherington, Bill

      McNamara, Kevin

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      MacShane, Denis

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      McWilliam, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Madden, Max

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mahon, Alice

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mans, Keith

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marek, Dr John

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fraser, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      166

      Martlew, Eric

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Meacher, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michael, Alun

      Spellar, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Milburn, Alan

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Sumberg, David

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thomason, Roy

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Olner, William

      Timms, Stephen

      Parry, Robert

      Tipping, Paddy

      Patchett, Terry

      Turner, Dennis

      Pawsey, James

      Walley, Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pike, Peter L.

      Waterson, Nigel

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wilkinson, John

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Winnick, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rogers, Allan

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Simpson, Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. William O'Brien.

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

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 4, line 46, at end insert—
      ("(bb ) any shop which is a nursery, garden centre or do-it-yourself home improvement shop, or a combination of these, and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of any one or more of the following—

      (i) plants,

      (ii) garden supplies and accessories, and

      (iii) materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of buildings,")

      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 12.
      Mr. Lloyd: We have just debated a group of amendments that made some limited exemptions from the six-hour restrictions on Sunday trading by outlets measuring more than 3,000 sq ft. Lords amendment No. 9, however, would liberate many more outlets from that rule by adding the larger nurseries, garden centres and DIY shops to the exempt category. Again, it is for the House to judge the extent to which it wishes to dilute the large shop-small shop compromise that it reached some months ago; but I draw hon. Members' attention to the questions of definition and enforcement that are involved, as I believe that the answers that they give to those questions should be taken into account in the decision that the House reaches.
      I understand that garden centres and DIY shops were linked in the same amendment in another place because its sponsors felt that it was extremely difficult to draw a clear distinction between garden centres—which sell garden furniture, as do many DIY shops—and DIY shops, which sell paving slabs and gravel like many garden centres. Both

      167
      often sell lawn mowers, power tools, barbecue equipment and Christmas decorations; indeed, many DIY shops sell plants and shrubs. It would certainly be very hard to distinguish their product ranges at law.
      There is also a problem in distinguishing DIY and garden centres clearly from other shops. Many department stores sell garden furniture, power tools and lawn mowers. Many self-styled DIY shops sell flat-pack furniture, kitchen units, carpets, toys, curtains and a range of other products that are commonly found in a large number of shops that do not currently claim to be DIYs. If the amendments were carried, it would not be surprising if some of those other shops claimed quite convincingly that they were DIY shops as well—or hastened to adjust their range of goods to qualify under any definition that might be constructed to distinguish them. I hope, therefore, that the House will consider with care the law enforcement task that they will be placing on local authorities. To work effectively, the law must have sufficient clarity. We all know that the anomalies in the Shops Act 1950 made it difficult for local authorities to apply the law in practice, which led to the law being increasingly flouted. We should take care to ensure that that does not happen again.
      Another reason why local authorities became reluctant to try to enforce the Act was that the public increasingly began to feel that it was unfair. The House will thus want to consider whether a DIY shop selling power tools when a department store cannot, or a large garden centre selling pet food, as many do, while a large pet shop must stay shut will be felt to be fair by the public. It is for the House freely to decide who may open and when, but all hon. Members, whatever our views on Sunday shopping and wherever we stand in the spectrum—whether we believe in greater restriction than the Bill would provide or whether we would deregulate entirely—want the law that we finally put on the statute book to be readily enforceable by the local authorities and the courts and to be regarded by the public and the retail trade as reasonable and fair.
      Mr. Alton: The Minister's warning is well timed and well made. I hope that hon. Members will recall what he said when they vote. Will he confirm that we are not dealing with small enterprises and businesses, because about a third of DIY shops' output—about £1 billion—is of non-DIY merchandiser? We are not talking about small beer by any means.
      Mr. Lloyd: I cannot confirm the figure, but it is substantial. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
      If the House does not agree Lords amendment No. 9, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall move a manuscript amendment to Lords amendment No. 12 to remove the reference to Lords amendment No. 9.
      Ms Joan Ruddock: The Minister has been helpful. Despite being a self-confessed deregulator, he has—perhaps in slightly veiled language, but probably clearly—drawn the House's attention to the dangers of accepting the amendments.
      I carefully read the debates in the other place. The amendments were part of a wide group of amendments, of which Lords amendment No. 9 was successful. The debate focused almost entirely on the desirability of activities such as going to garden centres and DIY shops and on leisure activities and how enjoyable they were. There was talk of there being more browsing than buying on such
      168
      occasions, which was coupled with dire warnings of loss of trade if restrictions were placed on hours. In that debate, it seemed that, because customers' activities were associated with leisure, all other considerations that had previously applied in debates on the Bill were forgotten.
      The proposal appears to have been made without any reference to the way in which the consensus grew in the House in favour of extending Sunday trading. Indeed, a similar consensus had initially been reached in the other place—that the opening hours of large enterprises should be restricted.
      As we have heard, those enterprises have the greatest impact on our way of life on a Sunday. They have the greatest impact on staff conditions and terms of employment, on vehicle movements as people shop in them and on the environment because of deliveries and other such factors and because of the noise pollution that is associated with shoppers arriving and leaving in their cars. Both Houses rightly felt that restricting those enterprises to six hours of trading between 10 am and 6 pm on a Sunday was sufficient and that, if any compromise were to be consistent with preserving the special nature of Sunday, there should be only limited exemptions to the provision. I believe that those exemptions are substantial.
      I have considerable sympathy with genuine horticulturists. Many small family firms have been in business for a long time and have traded without restrictions on a Sunday. We can well understand how they feel and we question the proposal in the Lords amendments, which did not give exemptions to small family firms of nursery men and women and did not properly explore the question of employee exemptions.
      The horticulturists' association has advanced powerful arguments about the seasonal nature of their work, the rural location of businesses and the family interests involved. We cannot, however, properly consider them and weigh the evidence before we vote tonight because the amendments do not offer us a choice. They couple nurseries with garden centres and DIY shops. Many of the enterprises to which the amendments refer are large, are owned by large companies with multiple interests and, in urban areas, are located on sites where there is a combination of a garden centre and a DIY shop.
      I vouch for the fact that there is interest in gardening in urban regions. I know how popular garden centres are. Even in urban areas, particularly those in my constituency, many small garden centres are essentially large houses with their own private grounds from which plants are grown and supplied. I remind hon. Members that centres that fall under the 3,000 sq ft restriction will not be caught and that the amendments are not relevant to them. The large centres, which hon. Members will know many examples of and which combine DIY shops with garden centres, posed problems, as the Minister suggested, when drafting the amendments and led to the coupling of the two types of enterprise. That is the weakness of the amendments. Lord Norrie said:
      "We all know a garden centre and a home improvement store when we see one."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 1994; Vol. 553, c. 1670.]
      We probably do today, but in past decades, the types of stores, the produce that they offer and their selling techniques have changed enormously. We were conscious of that when we looked back to the 1950 Act. We must recognise that there will be changes and diversification and that it will be extremely difficult to distinguish, as it is

      169
      already in some cases, DIY shops from other stores or a garden centre that sells many products other than plants and immediately associated goods.
      Courts, a high street stores group, sent out a letter, which I am sure all hon. Members received. It talks about DIY stores offering for sale not those items that we use for home improvements, but kitchen items, tables, bunk beds, mattresses, pillows, duvets, cutlery and glassware. That is a huge list, backed up with photographs, so that we can all see how impossible it is to find a definition—or at least, a definition that would stand any reasonable test—of the difference between centres that have primarily DIY goods and those that have a range of very similar products, or the same products, and a lesser range of DIY tools and equipment.

      If the amendments were agreed to, they would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. They would totally undermine the regulation, and the policing of that regulation, that the House set in train. Simplicity is at the heart of the Bill, as it was at its heart when it left the House—simplicity based on a size definition, which for all goods and services that are not urgent necessities made a distinction between premises larger than 3,000 sq ft and smaller premises. If we passed the amendment, it would signal a step-by-step move towards total deregulation.
      6.30 pm
      Let me remind hon. Members that both Houses overwhelmingly rejected total deregulation of Sunday trading. Both Houses also fundamentally endorsed a compromise, in which there would be no restriction on opening for small shops, thus giving them a competitive edge in trading opportunities, but a six-hour limit for larger enterprises. That fundamental compromise not only gained the consent of both Houses, but, as is equally important, was supported by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and by the group of major retailers organised into the Shopping Hours Reform Council.
      The Lords amendments would fatally undermine the basic premise on which the Bill was constructed—a regulated extension of Sunday trading. For those reasons I shall vote against them, and although I acknowledge that there will be a free vote, I hope that many or all of my colleagues will follow me in opposing amendments that effectively wreck a Bill for which consent in the House was so hard won.
      Mrs. Marion Roe: I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), and I intend to put the opposite case. Not only am I chairman of the Conservative parliamentary horticulture committee, but for a number of years I have been parliamentary consultant to the Horticultural Trades Association, which represents virtually all the garden centres in the country.
      During that time I have come to know the way in which the industry operates. I know the people who work in it and the people who use it. It is a diverse industry : at one end there are the large chains of garden centres, many attached to DIY stores, all of which employ a substantial number of people; at the other end are the small family businesses in which a few people work all the hours that God gives them to make a living out of something that they love, and about which they are passionate.
      170
      Another thing that I have learnt is how important garden centres are to the British people. Gardening is the most popular pastime in this country. It knows no social bounds; it is a great leveller; it captivates the wealthy man with his rolling acres and the poor man with his allotment. Every hon. Member has thousands of constituents who earn their living from garden centres, or much of whose leisure time revolves around them.
      The Lords amendments, which are designed to exempt garden centres and DIY stores from the six-hour restriction on Sunday opening, are eminently sensible. Let us consider what difference it would make to our Sundays if we agreed to them.
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady makes a compelling case for garden centres, which would attract huge sympathy and agreement in the House, but in view of the failure to table any other amendments to the Lords amendments, would we not face a problem with the entanglement between the concept of DIY stores, which the hon. Lady mentioned only cursorily, and that of garden centres? Does the hon. Lady agree that as we are not to be given the chance to vote in a way that would distinguish between the two but have to vote for or against both, we are faced with "like it or lump it" amendments?
      Mrs. Roe: The hon. Gentleman may have some problems in that connection, and I sympathise with him, but there may be hon. Members on both sides of the House who would be happy for the amendments made by the House of Lords to be agreed to. It is for hon. Members to make their own decisions on the Lords amendments before us.
      Mrs. Angela Browning: It has already been said that DIY shops tend to sell flat-pack furniture. Anyone who has ever bought any of that, whether a full kitchen or simply a chest of drawers, cannot but be aware how much DIY that involves—too much, as far as I am concerned. I know that it is not popular in the House to admit that one buys one's own furniture, let alone has to put it together when one gets home, but there is definitely a large element of DIY involved in purchasing the sort of furniture sold in such shops.
      Mrs. Roe: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, who has made a valid point.
      Let us consider what difference the passing of the amendments would make to our Sundays. I believe that no change whatever would result, and I shall explain why. There would certainly be no need for any more policing; more people would not need to work longer hours, and we would not need to allow any new activities that we have not happily allowed to take place for years. The truth is that the amendments would simply maintain the status quo, and would allow millions of people—our constituents—to carry on doing what they already do on Sundays.
      The big question is why on earth the provision was not included in the original compromise option? If the deregulation option had been chosen, garden centres would have been allowed to open, and if the Keep Sunday Special option had won, garden centres would have been exempted, so why did not the compromise between those two extremes include that element, which was acceptable to both? I do not think that anyone knows. It seems to many people that it was a mistake. It is now up to both

      171
      Houses to consider and refine the legislation and to correct such mistakes, and that is just what amendment No. 9 would do.
      I cannot accept the argument that we should oppose the amendment, not because it is not sensible—obviously it is sensible—but because it goes against some ill-defined principle. I have said what would happen if we agreed to the amendment. Now let us consider what would happen if we opposed it. Who would gain? I cannot think of anyone who would benefit from new restrictions being imposed on garden centres and DIY stores. Not those who work in them—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mrs. Roe: May I move on? Then I shall give way.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It will be too late then.
      Mrs. Roe: Who would gain? Not those who work in them—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
      Mrs. Roe: I am sure that the hon. Lady's -point will be well made, and she will be able to make it in a few moments.
      No one would benefit—certainly not those who work or shop in the businesses concerned. So who would lose? That is far more apparent. Many of our constituents would lose—people who own such stores, people who work in them and people who visit them.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way now?
      Mrs. Roe: If the hon. Lady will give me a few more moments I will give way to her. All of us have thousands of constituents who will suffer if we oppose the amendment just because of some ill-defined principle.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady said that she could not think of anyone who would lose by the amendment. She obviously does not live near a do-it-yourself shop.
      Mrs. Roe: I do.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady will lose, then. She also knows who will gain if the amendment is defeated—those who live near do-it-yourself shops and who rely on a little peace on Sunday. They will not get it if the amendment is passed.
      Mrs. Roe: I actually said that I believed that the status quo was what we wished to achieve. Many people use the garden centres and the DIY stores. If the hon. Lady will give me time, I will show in a moment exactly what happens when the hours are restricted and the sort of reaction that we are likely to find among our constituents.
      Sir Kenneth Carlisle: As my hon. Friend knows, I am on the council of the Garden Industries Federation. She was talking about losers. It is clear to me that a group of people who would also lose are those who work in companies, often small companies, manufacturing garden equipment for sale. They would lose because the majority of their sales are made on a Sunday. The biggest
      172
      day in the year is Easter Sunday. If we want to maintain employment, we should give a proper outlet to the good products that are made in this country.
      Mrs. Roe: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) makes a good point and I am grateful for his support. He is extremely knowledgeable in this matter, and I assure the House that he knows what he is talking about.
      It is difficult to judge what the customers will think. Most do not yet realise what is going on in Westminster. In Northampton during March this year all the DIY shops and garden centres opened on Sunday only for the hours that would be available to them if we reject the amendment—that is, from 10 am to 4 pm. On those four Sundays, literally thousands of people turned up before 10 am and after 4 pm. They were working in their homes and gardens and they needed equipment and supplies. We must realise that for most working people Sunday is the only day on which they can buy those supplies. More than 6 million people visit garden centres every Sunday. The people in Northampton were amazed and angered at what they found and could not believe that Members of Parliament were considering restricting garden centres and DIY stores. When they were told that restrictions were indeed being considered, many questioned whether Members of Parliament lived in the real world.
      Mr. Michael Lord: Will my hon. Friend again acknowledge that many hon. Members have no desire to restrict the Sunday trading of small garden centres? Because of the size limit, many will not be affected. We are talking only about the larger garden centres, which many of us would not want to restrict if they were not linked to DIY centres. As the Lords amendment links the two, however, those of us who are fond of garden centres of all sizes but wish to block the DIY side have no choice but to vote against the amendment.
      Mrs. Roe: It is up to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) to make up his own mind on the amendment. I shall support it, and I am explaining to the House why.
      The House may think that I exaggerate the effect of imposing new restrictions on garden centres and DIY shops on Sundays. Most garden centres do up to 40 per cent. of their weekly trade on Sunday alone; for DIY stores, the figure is around 30 per cent. Sunday is the most important trading day for them. If we reject the amendment, we shall artificially restrict the busiest day of our constituents' week. Let there be no doubt that if we reject the amendment we shall seriously damage the economic well-being of many of our constituents.
      People I have met in the stores ask me what is going on. When I tell them that it is possible that their Sunday hours will be restricted, they cannot believe it. They want to know why we would cut their wages or even put their jobs at risk. To be honest, I do not know what the answer is.
      Opposition Front-Bench Members—some of whom, I believe, are sponsored by the Co-operative movement—have persuaded their colleagues to vote against the amendment as a matter of principle. I in no way seek to make a party political point, but I cannot believe that any union really wants to inflict unemployment and reduced wages on workers, many of whom are union members, for absolutely no practical point.

      173
      6.45 pm
      I have heard three arguments against the amendment. First, it is said that as a matter of principle we should not amend the agreed compromise. I have already shown that that argument is not valid. The chosen option is a compromise between two other options, both of which exempted garden centres. The omission of such stores from the option is a mistake. Without the amendment, the Bill will be a bad piece of legislation. It is our role and our duty to correct that mistake.
      Secondly, I have heard it said that it will be difficult to police the exemption. But the exemption maintains the status quo, so the amendment will impose no greater burden on authorities than already exists. Thirdly, I hear it said that the amendment will allow unscrupulous retailers to get around the general six-hour rule by pretending to be a garden centre or DIY store. At a considerable stretch of the imagination, one might suppose that that could happen, but any sensible person looking at the matter objectively would soon realise that it simply would not happen. The amendment is so drafted that in the event of any dispute the onus is on the retailer to prove to a magistrate, first, that the store is a garden centre or DIY store and, secondly, that it sells wholly or mainly the prescribed goods. That double hurdle is a staunch test. Moreover, as all stores will be able to open for up to six hours on Sunday anyway, such a retailer is unlikely to risk a £50 fine just to open for an extra hour or two on a Sunday. In practice it will never happen, just as it has not happened under the current system.
      I have been asked why DIY stores and garden centres are linked in the amendment. The answer is simple: in practice, there are inextricable links between the two types of store. Improving one's home is exactly the same sort of activity as improving one's garden. Many garden centres sell DIY items and most DIY stores have garden centres. The two types of store are a distinct sector of retailing and they cannot and should not be separated.
      I understand that no party has whipped against the amendment tonight, so it is up to us to make up our own minds. That is how it was in the Lords. Indeed, the Labour peer Baroness Nicol, a staunch supporter of the Keep Sunday Special campaign, actually spoke in favour of the amendment. The choice is between some unfounded fears and an ill-defined principle on the one hand and the well-being of our constituents on the other. If hon. Members vote against the amendment, people will lose their jobs and their established leisure activities. Every hon. Member who votes against the amendment will be directly blamed by his or her constituents. I cannot believe that we can seriously consider forcing our garden centres and DIY stores to close on the very day when they are most active. As we already know, most people find it difficult to understand much of what we do in this remote Chamber; they will be totally incredulous if we vote today to close their garden centres and DIY stores.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) is plain wrong about the Lords amendment that she supports. It is simply not the case that passing the amendment would preserve the status quo in DIY stores. The status quo in DIY stores is that a large proportion of the trading that goes on is illegal. The Bill will make it legal to trade for a set number of hours on a Sunday. The status quo does not enable do-it-yourself stores to trade for unlimited hours on a Sunday. Those which do so are breaking the law and some of them are
      174
      now facing quite large fines, which do not bother them very much because large fines to them were an engine for achieving a change in the law. Now, they ride on the backs of garden centres and hope to obtain unlimited trading on Sundays in stores in which a large part of the trade is not in DIY goods at all. They rely on the hon. Lady's genuine arguments on behalf of garden centres to obtain for them what they have been seeking all the time. They first tried the bully-boy tactics of hoping that, by simply breaking the law, they could get their way. They then appeared to support compromise measures, which have been carried through the House, and, finally, they overturned those compromises in favour of complete deregulation on Sundays. We in this House would be behaving quite unreasonably if we allowed anybody to get away with such tactics.
      I have great sympathy with those garden centres which want to continue their present activities, but the proper course for those who feel that it requires amendment of the Bill as it originally left the House would be to seek amendment to the Lords amendments so as to narrow down the Bill and achieve that effect. Even then, we are talking only about larger garden centres and larger numbers of hours than the six hours which will be allowed in any event. The House must decide whether it is prepared to bring the issue of unlimited trading back into the high street. We are talking not only about the garden centre which is outside the main centre of population, but the DIY store in the high street and, even more, the DIY store in the shopping complex, which is putting the high street out of business. We are talking about the ability of those who have already posed a threat to the traditional high street to have unlimited trading on Sundays.
      I urge hon. Members to heed the warnings from both Front Benches. It must be the first time that, during the proceedings of this Bill, I find myself in such substantial agreement with the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and spokeswoman. On different points, they referred to the dangers which will arise if we allow the Lords amendment to stand.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not it a fact that, in a year's time, if the amendment is allowed to stand as the Lords have agreed, we shall almost certainly hear electrical stores complaining that it is quite wrong that a DIY store may sell exactly what they are not allowed to sell in those extended hours? We shall therefore be asked, almost straightaway, to move further away and add further exclusions to the restrictions in the Bill.
      Mr. Beith: That is absolutely right. One may almost say that anomalies are being prepared for the next stage of argument about anomalies. We have all seen the way in which the anomalies argument has been used in the Sunday trading issue to cast doubt on the propriety of obeying the law as it stands and to argue for changes in the law. Now, we shall see new anomalies built in to pave the way for further changes to the law beyond the compromise for which the House voted. It was not the compromise that I wanted. I wanted a more restrictive approach to Sunday trading, for reasons which other hon. Members have cited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, it drives a coach and horses through that compromise and brings back the whole issue of unregulated trading. Anyone who walks into Texas, or B and Q or any of the

      175
      large DIY stores can see that they are general stores, selling a wide range of merchandise—£1 billion of merchandise other than DIY goods. They shall be putting themselves in the unfair trading position that they have wanted all along if they secure the benefit of the amendment.
      Therefore, I urge all hon. Members, especially those who have supported the Shopping Hours Reform Council and its proposals, to resist the amendment, which makes nonsense of everything that has been done up to now.
      Mrs. Browning: I am pleased to have an opportunity to support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Like her, I, too, support the Lords amendments. I have a particular interest in garden centres since, in my constituency, a large garden centre is a major employer in east Devon—Otter Nurseries, which is known throughout the county of Devon. It started off as, arid still is, a family business run by Mr. and Mrs. White. Over the years, they have developed their business and their reputation and now employ some 160 people, including 65 people who are employed on a Sunday. Such is the nature of their business that people arrange coach trips to visit the garden centre. I visited it myself on a Sunday. I am aware how popular it is, early in the morning as well as late on a Sunday afternoon.
      The economy of my constituency, especially the east Devon part, will be severely affected if the trading hours of that garden centre were to be restricted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne pointed out, the Shops Act 1950 permitted garden centres to sell produce—as they did—to motor accessory stores and farm shops. Therefore, restrictions on large garden centres such as Otter Nurseries would not enhance its ability to provide jobs or to provide a service to the public. It would detract from what it is already able to do under the law. It would be most unfortunate if the Bill, which is looking to free the market place more on a Sunday, adversely affected something such as a large garden centre. By garden centres and home improvement stores opening on a Sunday, their popularity with the public has become apparent.
      Listening to some of the speeches from both sides of the House, I wonder about the argument that, if a DIY store were to open, it would be unfair competition to the regular furniture stores. DIY stores are not Harrods, delivering its cabinet furniture, delivered by two gentlemen wearing gloves. DIY stores sell a totally different range of furniture, as I pointed out in an intervention. Also, garden centres—
      Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mrs. Browning: May I finish this point and then I shall give way? Garden furniture or patio furniture is becoming increasingly popular. I recently had great difficulty in finding a couple of chairs with cushions on them in furniture stores in my constituency. The only place that I could buy them and be offered a choice was at Otter Nurseries in my constituency. Therefore, the idea that garden centres are selling Chippendale cabinets and putting Courts and other furniture companies out of business is somewhat unfounded. I wonder how many hon. Members put their own furniture together or do their own decorating, rather than have a little man come in to do it. I suspect that it is not that many.
      Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend mentioned furniture. I have here four photographs. Three are of DIY stores, all
      176
      selling pine furniture, and the fourth is of a furniture store selling pine furniture. Three stores would be allowed to open and one would not. What is her answer to that?
      Mrs. Browning: Like my hon. Friend, I have also received those photographs. However, she will be aware that DIY stores require people to move their furniture home. There is a great difference between furniture shops, which offer a delivery service to their customers, and shops from where customers are prepared to struggle, with roof racks or rented vans, to take their furniture home themselves. I have studied those photographs very carefully and I have been round DIY stores, garden centres and furniture stores to see the way in which they market merchandise and there is a distinct difference between what happens to one as a customer when a purchase of furniture is made from a DIY store and what happens when one goes into a regular furniture retail outlet.
      Sir Harold Walker: Characteristically, a large trading estate sites Do It All, Allied Carpets, MFI and B and Q cheek by jowl. The hon. Lady is proposing that Do It All and B and Q should be allowed to open when we are telling Allied Carpets and MFI to shut shop. Allied Carpets sells carpets identical with those on sale at B and Q, which can be delivered. Doubtless, those carpets will be sold after 4 o'clock, when we will have told Allied to stop trading. Can she defend that?
      Mrs. Browning: Yes, I can, because the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a very small number of ranges in which there is an overlap of interest. If one goes into a DIY store, one can see immediately whether it is a DIY store or a furniture store. There is certainly an overlap in certain ranges, but in the sort of DIY stores that have been mentioned tonight, such as Texas, one can see that it is a DIY store. The floor area is predominantly devoted to a whole range of things, from plumbing materials to decorating materials to paints and so on. The other lines that such stores carry are subsidiary lines. If we were to start precluding shops from opening simply because of an overlap of a small number of lines, it would be a great pity. In a way, it is a pity that we have not been able to separate the DIY interest from garden centres as I have a constituency interest with regard to garden centres. I would hate garden centres to be penalised simply because of the arguments against DIY stores trading.
      Garden centres offer a much wider range of choice of services. In addition to plants, garden centres offer facilities for garden design. People enjoy going to Otter Nurseries for lunch or for tea in the afternoon. It is a whole-person experience. I would hate that whole-person experience to be restricted from 10 am to 4 pm. More seriously, there would be a grave effect on east Devon in my constituency. Many of my constituents would be disappointed about that, and I trust that the House will accept the Lords amendment and reject the opposition to it that has been voiced tonight.
      7 pm
      Mr. Ray Powell: I have listened to some of the arguments about garden centres and DIY stores and have tried to separate them. The difficulty when I presented my private Member's Bill was whether we should include garden centres or DIY stores. We listened to the arguments

      177
      and agreed in Committee that we would accept the argument for garden centres to open, but on a restricted timetable.
      Garden centres are ideal in April when we want to buy our plants to plant out. They are ideal in May, June, July and August when we see the lovely shrubs and flowers and when we can make a special garden from the flowers and plants that we can buy from garden centres. However, have you visited a garden centre in October, November or December, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If you visit one in December, you will find that it sells all sorts of Christmas decorations, toys and, as one would expect, Christmas trees. It will also sell deck chairs which can be bought as presents for the summer.
      There is a garden centre in Pyle in a constituency near mine which sells all the types of furniture that one can buy in a DIY store. It would also be possible to buy a swimming pool on a Sunday from that garden centre, at whatever time one cared to visit it.
      Arguments were raised in the Committee that examined my private Member's Bill to such an extent that the Committee agreed to include garden centres in my Bill. Before agreement was reached in that Committee, there was pressure from the DIY stores. It was argued then that if we allowed garden centres to open because gardening is a very popular hobby, we should not deny people who want to visit DIY stores to buy shelving or to buy goods to repair or decorate their homes. The arguments were such that we agreed to include DIY stores.
      Of course, since 1986, the Government have been dragging their feet in respect of Sunday trading and the Shops Act 1950 despite the fact that DIY retailers were making millions of pounds at the expense of other retailers because the 1950 Act was not imposed on those who were breaking the law.
      Nevertheless, we decided to include DIY stores in my Bill. However, because of the lack of time and the lack of Government and some Opposition support, my Bill fell. I had been lucky—if one can call it that—to come third in the ballot and seemed to have plenty of time for my legislation. Indeed, it had received plenty of support.
      At that time, the Government were prepared to allow my Committee to do the spadework and to prepare a Bill so that, after stopping my Bill, they could step in and have a ready-prepared Bill themselves. When the Government introduced their Bill, they made many promises about partial deregulation.
      We all accept that the debate about the future of Sunday trading has produced sharp divisions between retailers and consumers and within the general community. However, all have been united on one principle—the new law must be effective. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading when he introduced the Bill:
      "We want the option to work in practice and to command the respect throughout the country which the current regime sadly lacks."—[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 818.]
      Much was made of the claim for the option chosen, although it was not my choice. It was said that it was relatively simple and straightforward. Large shops of more than 280 sq m were permitted to trade for up to six hours, with unrestricted trading for small shops plus a limited number of special categories. Left alone, that at least offered the prospect of an end to the anarchy in the high street which has offended so many people in recent years.
      178
      However, there was always a fear that certain retailers, indeed the very ones who had broken the existing law for longest and gained most from doing so, would continue to put self-interest before principle. Therefore, it is not particularly surprising, although it is regrettable, that the moment the ink was dry on the six-hour option formula which they had supported so vocally as the compromise option, the DIY and garden centre retailers were lobbying to gain exemption from that formula.
      The DIY chains were a major force in the Shopping Hours Reform Council which lobbied for the six-hour option. A director of B and Q was seconded from that business to be deputy director of the SHRC.
      In seeking exemption from the formula which they had designed, the DIY and garden centre lobbies have had a problem. It is not enough for them that they should be allowed to sell just goods for decorating the home and for gardening. That is no longer the nature of their business. Major DIY chains sell furniture, kitchens, lighting, telephones, small electrical items, blinds and carpets. Some of the most recent businesses to open have extended the list to furnishing fabrics, linens, large electrical goods, gifts, pictures and mirrors, china, glassware and cutlery. Between a quarter and a third of their sales may be in non-DIY goods.
      In 1993, the Central Statistical Office published an analysis of sales by DIY shops in 1990 which showed that non-DIY merchandise then accounted for more than £1 billion—nearly 28 per cent.—of the retail sales of all DIY businesses. The source for that is Business Monitor SDA 25 Retailing 1990. That is broadly comparable in size to the total—all merchandise—of national sales for that year of John Lewis department stores, House of Fraser including Harrods, Debenhams, Dixons UK, Storehouse including British Home Stores, Habitat and Mothercare, and Argos.
      In short, large DIY shops, and to a lesser extent garden centres, have become general traders in a wide range of goods. Therefore, they made representations to hon. Members that they should be allowed to trade without restriction if they are open wholly or mainly for the sale of DIY or gardening merchandise.
      What does "wholly or mainly" mean? Much was made in the debate in another place of the view that Parliament should have confidence in the good sense of the courts. One of their Lordships indicated that the words "wholly or mainly" had been considered in revenue law where it means 90 per cent. But none of those who wish to permit unrestricted opening of DIY shops and garden centres can believe that that interpretation would apply here because few, if any, would qualify on that basis.
      Moreover, the courts may be expected to show good sense that they, can only implement the law passed by Parliament. Mr. Charles Flint, the Treasury counsel, said in an opinion that
      "the effect of the current draft is that a DIY shop could lawfully sell a wide range of supplies, going beyond those to be used in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings, and the amount of such non-DIY supplies could amount to a substantial proportion of the sales made by the shop."
      Furthermore, he says that
      "as this is a criminal statute any ambiguity in interpretation will lead to it being considered in favour of a defendant who is prosecuted…the test of wholly or mainly must permit the shopkeeper to open the shop for a subsidiary purpose such as the sale of non-qualifying goods, even if that subsidiary purpose is not ancillary to the principal purpose of selling qualified goods; thus the shopkeeper who opens a shop for the principal purpose

      179
      of selling DIY goods could lawfully sell any other type of goods."
      That is the legal interpretation. We are all interested in the law, so we all understand that.
      That raises again the question asked in another place but not answered by anyone. A large modern DIY store has anything up to 90,000 sq ft of selling space. What is to stop B and Q from diverting 40 per cent. or more of its space to merchandise from its sister business, Comet? By the same score, it would be technically possible for a Sainsbury-owned Homebase to incorporate a food supermarket within its perimeter. If branches of Comet traded for more than six hours because they were sited within the perimeter of B and Q shops, how would their Lordships expect the chairman of Dixons—and the owners of Dixons and Currys—to react? What would they expect local authorities to do to restrain Currys, which had opened illegally for more than six hours?
      That is the argument. How will we enforce a restriction of six hours on DIY stores and garden centres which are blatantly trading, despite the Shops Act 1950 and despite breaking the law of Parliament? They are exploiting their position. How will we control them, and how will we ensure that the law that is passed is enforced?
      These are not fancifully speculative considerations. Anyone who has observed the length to which some DIY traders have gone recently to exploit the loopholes in the current law cannot be sanguine about the use to which new loopholes may be put if they are allowed to remain in the Bill. Unless the amendment is rejected, the Bill will remain fatally flawed.
      Since 1986, some of us, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), have spent a lot of time discussing the Bill and the anomalies. I am sure that we do not want to see a flawed Bill being accepted tonight. I hope that many hon. Members will join me in the Lobby to vote against it.
      I am sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am not a consultant for any other union—as a matter of fact, I am not really a consultant for USDAW—[Interruption.] At least I still have my membership, unlike one of my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench—I shall not mention names. I received a letter dated 13 June from the deputy general secretary of USDAW. I shall read the final paragraph so that hon. Members clearly understand that I am on the union's side and I shall be going into whichever Lobby the union wants me to. USDAW is interested in ensuring that there is work for its employees, whether it be during the week or on a Sunday, but it still wants a restriction of six hours for its members who work in DIY stores and garden centres.
      7.15 pm
      The letter states:
      "USDAW, therefore, calls upon"—
      all Members of Parliament—
      "to oppose the amendments in respect of Do-It-Yourself Stores and large Garden Centres, to ensure that the six hour compromise which has been accepted by both Houses is not undermined by belated opportunism."
      We all accept that. I cannot understand where the deputy general secretary got the phrase "belated opportunism", because USDAW was a party to destroying the whole idea that we should reject the Bill as it presently stands.
      I am pleased to hear the Minister say that at last he supports a Lords amendment which will totally destroy all the promises that he and the Government made about the six-hour compromise. Many Opposition Members fell into
      180
      the trap of thinking that the six-hour compromise was the solution to the problem. After arguing the matter in 1986, we defeated the Thatcher Government and their proposals for total deregulation by a mere 14 votes. When they had a majority of 140, it was quite an achievement to defeat them by 14 votes.
      I am sure that many people will complain about the fact that Sunday has become an ordinary day of the week. There is an opportunity for the House to limit at least some part of Sunday trading by restricting garden centres and DIY stores. I hope that those who are responsible for DIY stores will ensure that the six-hour restriction is maintained. If not, I hope that the Government and local authorities will ensure that heavy fines are imposed. I hope that all hon. Members will join me and my colleagues in voting down these Lords amendments.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: My contribution will be brief. Before their Lordships got their hands on the Bill, it had three main advantages which I would commend to the Government for inclusion in all future legislation: it was fair, simple and enforceable. It was easy for people to understand, it was fair to everyone and it was simple and enforceable for local authorities.
      The position which their Lordships want to push forward in the amendment is to enable two groups of shops—garden centres and DIY stores, and in some cases shops which are both—to have extra hours on a Sunday because some of their customers cannot be bothered to get up early in the morning, or perhaps they want to continue gardening or DIY-ing late into the night.
      If one goes round the DIY stores and garden centres on a Sunday, as I have done recently in my area, one will find that they sell such diverse things as furniture, carpets, sweets, food, newspapers, pets, pet food, car parts, bicycles, sports goods, sports shoes, video and music cassettes, crockery, electrical goods and a variety of other items. We are effectively saying that a DIY store or garden centre can sell those goods on Sundays when other shops will not be allowed to sell them and that cannot be fair.
      Secondly, we are being asked to support an amendment that states:
      "any shop which is a nursery, garden centre or do-it-yourself home improvement shop, or a combination of these, and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of any one or more of the following".
      I must declare an interest as I am a barrister and if this amendment is agreed it will create much work for me and my colleagues. Major DIY stores will spend a great deal of money on my colleagues sorting out in court what the phrase "consists wholly or mainly" means. So, in five years' time we will be back in the House reconsidering the Sunday trading legislation in the light of a host of anomalies. I remind the House that that is why we legislated on the matter in the first place.
      The third question is that of enforceability. What will happen when local authorities check on DIY stores, such as Dixons, Currys or anyone who decides to start selling DIY or garden materials? What about a furniture store that starts to sell deck chairs? Is it "wholly or mainly" involved in plants, garden supplies and accessories, or is it a furniture store that has a subsidiary interest? Enforcement will become a minefield.
      I strongly recommend that hon. Members stick with what the House decided, which was that we wanted a simple, enforceable and easily comprehensible solution.
      Mr. Pike: It is very rare that I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), but I certainly do tonight and I strongly underline his comments.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I have taken a different line from that in the Bill and from the compromise agreed during our earlier debates in the House. I did not believe that we should support the Shopping Hours Reform Council compromise, but ultimately it was carried. It got a majority in the House and, eventually, in the other place, but almost immediately an attempt was made to make a major breach in that compromise. Although I did not support it, one has to accept that the people who advocated it outlined certain principles—it could be easily understood and enforced and would not create fortunes for barristers interpreting exactly what it meant.
      The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) got it completely wrong when she spoke of the status quo. Why should we talk about the status quo for certain people—people who in some cases have chosen to break the law for some considerable time? The House will know that I have said on many occasions that in this country we do not break the law if we want to change it. We believe in doing so through democratic means.
      Mrs. Roe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that garden centres were legally selling the items covered by the Shops Act 1950. I was referring to that fact when I mentioned the status quo.
      Mr. Pike: I accept the hon. Lady's point, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore said, DIY stores were the first deliberately to challenge existing legislation by breaking it and they have been doing so for a long time. Then other stores, such as Sainsbury and Tesco, thought that if the DIY stores were getting away with it, why should they not challenge the law? Now this Bill is going through Parliament.
      I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members hope that, whatever side we were on at an earlier stage, we will not have to debate the issue again next year or the year after. One would hope that the Bill will at least stand, be enforceable and be observed, despite my reservations.
      I have strong reservations about whether some people will observe the six-hour limit. I have grave doubts whether Sainsbury or other stores will abide by that rule. Initially, they will do so, but I fear that in a few years' time they will break it. If we allow Lords amendment No. 9 to stand, we are asking for such stores to challenge and break the law because they will rightly be able to ask, "Why should others be able to get away with it, if we are not allowed to do so? Why should there be a difference and why are they put in an exclusive bracket?"
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore spoke ably on the DIY aspect. DIY shops will look closely at what they are selling and may well choose to include even more excluded products, as long as they still meet the criteria of "mainly". For the Bill to state "wholly or mainly" leaves the outcome wide open. Stores might well decide to sell other goods because the profit margins are better. They could change their stock to get around the law, if they are put in the privileged position that would result if we agreed to Lords amendment No. 9.
      We accepted a compromise and it would be wrong for the House to accept the Lords amendment. We should
      182
      reject it, because it is a serious breach of the principle that we agreed a few months ago and it would be wrong to breach that principle.
      I genuinely believe that if we pass the amendment we will be asked in 12 months' time to put superstores such as Sainsbury and Tesco in the same bracket, and then some other store a year later. The result will be total deregulation and all that that means, which is what I feared was many people's ultimate objective.
      People will be able to do the shopping that they want to do during the six-hour period on a Sunday between 10 am and 4 pm. If they want to go to Sainsbury, Tesco or whatever the store happens to be—perhaps Pioneer, the Co-op superstore in my constituency, which opens on a Sunday—or to do some gardening or DIY, most people will be able to ensure that they go to the garden centre or DIY store between 10 am and 4 pm. Those stores will not lose any money if the amendment is rejected. If the trade is there, they will get it. It will merely mean that people have to shop between 10 am and 6 pm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four!"] I am sorry and thank my hon. Friends for correcting me; it was a slip of the tongue. People will be able to organise their day and ensure that they get the plants that they want to plant or the piece of furniture that they want to put together. That is perfectly reasonable and, therefore, we should reject the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who spoke for the Opposition, ended her speech with a reference to a letter that she had received from a group of stores or shops. In my brief contribution, I shall echo that precedent by referring to a letter that I received from my friend Stephen May, who is one of the directors of the John Lewis Partnership.
      I have no interest to declare in that partnership, other than that of being a fairly regular customer, but my friend makes an important point in recording that the John Lewis Partnership was certainly not an advocate of the six-hour option, but heard the House's judgment that it wanted something clear and simple. Lords amendment No. 9 would wreck that clarity and simplicity. It abandons the simple distinction between deregulation for small shops and six hours' trading for large shops by allowing large DIY stores and large garden centres to trade when they like. It introduces what I feel is grossly unfair competition in respect of the huge volume of non-DIY or gardening goods which those types of outlets can sell.
      7.30 pm
      The simple point which I want to leave with my colleagues is the extent to which the competition is unfair, and this is not a trivial matter. The sales of non-DIY goods in DIY businesses are more than the sales of all merchandise sold in John Lewis department stores, Debenhams or Argos. It would mean that a washing machine could be sold by a Comet section within a B and Q, but not in a Currys, and a carpet could be sold in Texas, but not in a carpet store.
      If amendment No. 9 stands, we shall be plunged back into anomalies, with shops pretending to be one thing when they are actually another and loopholes being exploited for commercial advantage. The law would be unclear as well as unfair, and clarity and fairness were certainly two of the major objectives which were secured and aimed at by the six-hour option that the House has adopted. I hope very much that the attempt to moderate, modify or change the

      183
      system with the clear and reasonably fair principle with which the Bill left the House will not now be undermined by the acceptance of the Lords amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Couchman: I have listened carefully to the arguments from the hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and for once I find myself in agreement with them.
      It is worth offering to the House the view of the chairman of the Shopping Hours Reform Council, Baroness Jay. She believes that, as the proposers of the six-hour option, the council does not support any changes which threaten that compromise. The Bill as drafted achieved a successful and careful balance between the concerns of consumers, citizens and employees, and she states that that balance was difficult to construct.
      While Baroness Jay believes that there may be room for some adjustments—I think she probably means the issues that were settled in the previous group of amendments—she states that the council cannot support exemptions that may damage its integrity and standing.
      The six-hour option first saw the light of day in my name in a private Member's Bill which was introduced on the Order Paper on the same day as the Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore. It is impossible for me to support amendment No. 9. I regret very much the fact that small garden centres in particular have found themselves tangled up in the amendment with the big do-it-yourself shops. I was under absolutely no doubt that the owners of the big do-it-yourself stores, recognising that total deregulation would not find favour with the House, were content to accept the six-hour option. I regret that we have been faced with this amendment at all, and I for one will seek to disagree with the Lords.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 293.

      Division No. 270]

      [7.33 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coe, Sebastian

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Colvin, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Conway, Derek

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Ashby, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Aspinwall, Jack

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

      Atkins, Robert

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Baldry, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Duncan, Alan

      Betts, Clive

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Eggar, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Elletson, Harold

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Boyes, Roland

      Faber, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bright, Graham

      Flynn, Paul

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fraser, John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Butler, Peter

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Garnier, Edward

      Cann, Jamie

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Cash, William

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chidgey, David

      Gorst, Sir John

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      184

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Page, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pickles, Eric

      Hayes, Jerry

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Henderson, Doug

      Rendel, David

      Hicks, Robert

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hodge, Margaret

      Richards, Rod

      Horam, John

      Riddick, Graham

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

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jack, Michael

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knox, Sir David

      Sims, Roger

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sproat, Iain

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Stern, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Stewart, Allan

      Leigh, Edward

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Sykes, John

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

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

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Malone, Gerald

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Marland, Paul

      Viggers, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ward, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waterson, Nigel

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Watts, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Wells, Bowen

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whitney, Ray

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Willetts, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. Michael Fabricant and

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. Michael Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Boateng, Paul

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Booth, Hartley

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Boswell, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Keith

      Amess, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

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

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burns, Simon

      Ashton, Joe

      Byers, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barron, Kevin

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Bates, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Battle, John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bayley, Hugh

      Chapman, Sydney

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Church, Judith

      Bendall, Vivian

      Churchill, Mr

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Blair, Tony

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Blunkett, David

      Corbett, Robin

      185

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cousins, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jamieson, David

      Darling, Alistair

      Jessel, Toby

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

      Jowell, Tessa

      Day, Stephen

      Keen, Alan

      Denham, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Devlin, Tim

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dewar, Donald

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dicks, Terry

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dixon, Don

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dowd, Jim

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

      Dunn, Bob

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lewis, Terry

      Enright, Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Litherland, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lord, Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Loyden, Eddie

      Forman, Nigel

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foulkes, George

      McFall, John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Maclean, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike

      MacShane, Denis

      Garrett, John

      McWilliam, John

      George, Bruce

      Madden, Max

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mahon, Alice

      Godsiff, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mandelson, Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marek, Dr John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Marlow, Tony

      Graham, Thomas

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mates, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Gunnell, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Hague, William

      Meale, Alan

      Hain, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Hall, Mike

      Michael, Alun

      Hannam, Sir John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hanson, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Hardy, Peter

      Milburn, Alan

      Harris, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Heppell, John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mudie, George

      Hoey, Kate

      Mullin, Chris

      Home Robertson, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Hood, Jimmy

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Olner, William

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hoyle, Doug

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Patchett, Terry

      186

      Patnick, Irvine

      Stephen, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Stott, Roger

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thomason, Roy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Timms, Stephen

      Radice, Giles

      Tipping, Paddy

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tracey, Richard

      Redmond, Martin

      Trimble, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Turner, Dennis

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Tyler, Paul

      Rowlands, Ted

      Vaz, Keith

      Ruddock, Joan

      Walden, George

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walley, Joan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Short, Clare

      Wareing, Robert N

      Simpson, Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wilkinson, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Winnick, David

      Spellar, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Worthington, Tony

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mr. David Alton and

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Stuart Bell.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 agreed to.
      Amendment made to Lords amendment No. 12, to leave out '(ba) or (bb)' and insert 'or (ba)'—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Lords amendment No. 12, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 24 agreed to.

    Schedule 4

      RIGHTS OF SHOP WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING
      Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 10, line 47, at end insert—
      (" "catering business" means—

      (a) the sale of meals, refreshments or intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, or

      (b) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off the premises.")

      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 43.
      Mr. Ray Powell: On the amendments dealing with employment protection, it was emphasised in Committee and on the Floor of the House that not only would staff who were expected to work on Sundays be given an enhanced payment—we talked about double time—but fuller protection than is currently in the Bill. As we are reaching the final stage of the Bill, some of us are alarmed that no protection is given to the hundreds of thousands of shop workers who will be expected to work on Sundays.

      187
      Will the Government consider introducing some sort of amendments or statutory instrument so that employees compelled to work on Sundays will be given some protection? The least that those who have been demanding for years that shops be open on Sundays should do is give one of the most poorly paid group of workers in the country—shop workers—a decent wage when they give up their Sundays to provide a service to the shop and the country. The least that we can do is ask the House to consider that at the first opportunity, so that workers receive the enhanced payment promised to them when the Bill was in Committee and elsewhere.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 43 agreed to.
      Ordered,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 9.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Ordered,
      That Mr. James Arbuthnot, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. Alan Meale and Ms Joan Ruddock be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Ordered,
      That three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Ordered,
      That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Reason for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 9 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Patnick.]
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: In August this year, Britain will go to the United Nations to stand condemned in the dock of world opinion for its failure to protect and extend citizens' rights in this country.
  What we are really debating here today is the United Kingdom's shunned responsibilities and the Conservatives' failure to meet their human rights obligations to British citizens. It is sad that fundamental political questions of serious concern such as rights and democracy are debated in the United Kingdom's Parliament only by the luck of an Adjournment debate, rather than being central to our concerns. I am afraid that it shows how detached Parliament as a whole, and the Conservative Government in particular, has become from people's basic concerns.
  By sharp contrast, the next Labour Government will deliver a renewed and real commitment to defining and protecting the rights of the British people. We shall do so not only because we have signed international treaties but because of our core belief that people's rights should be protected and are intrinsic to a democratic country, and not only because the United Nations will be looking over our shoulder to monitor our human rights record, but because we truly value the human dignity that should be inherent in every citizen in the country.
  That will be just one strand of the attack on the failures of our democracy which the next Labour Government will introduce in the new democratic settlement. A fundamental political divide even transcends political parties. It is the divide between those who believe in a pluralist system with many ways into our democracy and those who believe that only one track exists in our democracy and that whoever wins the general election and installs someone in 10 Downing street has the whole of political wisdom summed up in their character. That false premise becomes increasingly less sustainable as the present Government go on.
  The positive aspect of this debate, however, is that that effort to build up sustainable human rights in the United Kingdom must be just one part of a wider change in our democracy to a plural democracy of independent, strong and legitimate local authorities, regional assemblies that count for something and have real powers, a second Chamber elected by the people and a House of Commons worthy of the name. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) here tonight as he has done much in the latter regard. He recently tried to put some flesh on the bones of the idea floated by the Prime Minister about improving Prime Minister's Question Time. As one of the outstanding parliamentarians of my intake, I hope that he gets all the success that he deserves.
  In considering how rights affect the effort to build what John Smith called a new democratic settlement for a new century, we must first look at incorporating into British law the European convention on human rights and then seek to build up a knowledge and awareness of individual rights and responsibilities among the British people so that never again will people feel powerless and defenceless whenever

  189
  a central Government use their overbearing powers to slice away at individual liberties. That has patently taken place over the past 16 years and was also evident in the centralising tendencies of previous Governments. We should all have a little humility in that regard because Governments of all political colours have abused the overbearing power of the Executive to centralise power. In a society with no written checks or balances, little stands in the way of the central machine once it gets under way. Introducing those checks and balances—those impediments to arbitrary Executive power—must be one of the foremost tasks of the incoming Labour Government.
  As I have said previously in the Chamber, I do not believe that written rights are a panacea for all the ills in our political society—far from it—but I firmly believe that the writing down of rights for everyone to see provides a framework in which the ordinary individual, even the schoolchild, can operate. Those constraints on executive power which should be in place can then be better understood by the average individual and not be the subject of judicial archaeology to discover an individual's specific rights.
  It is therefore important that we move rapidly towards written rights for individuals and citizens in this country, and there is no better starting point than the internationally agreed texts on human rights. The clearest and most widely respected text is the international covenant for civil and political rights. In effect, it is an international bill of rights, put together by the United Nations and agreed by the nations of the world. It is a measure against which our human rights record should be studied.
  As a signatory to the international covenant for civil and political rights, the United Kingdom has wittingly and willingly agreed to uphold the citizens' rights set down in its 27 articles, to adopt new legislation where necessary, to effect those rights fully and to ensure that anyone whose rights are violated has an effective remedy. Every five years, the Government must submit an account of their rights record and report on their progress in introducing legislation to effect rights. That report must be submitted to the United Nations human rights committee, which then examines it. In its most recent response to the United Kingdom's report in 1991, the committee expressed concern about the Conservative record on a wide variety of rights issues. Many of those issues remain unaddressed today: the lack of judicial process in respect of emergency measures in Northern Ireland; inadequate legal aid provision; the treatment of asylum seekers and discrimination in the application of immigration laws; restrictions on freedom of information and excessive censorship.
  That statement has been submitted not by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, nor by one of the groups on the libertarian wing of civil rights, but by a sober and responsible organisation affiliated to the United Nations which treads very carefully before issuing statements in respect of the human rights record of any country and which therefore must be taken more seriously than any easy party political point scoring that might take place in this Chamber.
  As a nation, by ratifying the international covenant for civil and political rights we have officially recognised that:
  190
  "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".
  The failure of the Conservative Government to uphold in practice those equal and inalienable rights has contributed to the steady erosion of freedom, justice and peace in this country in the past 15 years. I shall seek to highlight those failures in the submission that I intend to make to the United Nations human rights committee next month.
  We have signed and agreed that all peoples have the right of self-determination and that
  "by virtue of that right they may freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
  Have the peoples of the United Kingdom been given that choice? Do the Government respect that fundamental right? I suggest that we consult the Scottish people for an answer to that question. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West may have a similar view to express for Wales, but the Scottish people have consistently voted and expressed their desire through opinion polls for some type of devolution. That has been made transparent at the ballot box, in the opinion polls, in surveys and in conversation. It is in the atmosphere that those people want further self-determination and no one can deny that. In 1979, a majority of Scots voted directly for the creation of a Scottish Assembly, yet the Conservative Government have refused to respect their desire for a new political status. Similar considerations apply in Wales, where the rights of the Welsh people have been neglected.
  The Labour party is committed to upholding the right of self-determination of peoples by creating a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The realisation of that fundamental right found in the UN's covenant is long overdue in its application to our country.
  I am sure that we would all say that we believed in the principles of justice and fairness. The international covenant for civil and political rights entrenches those principles. It states that everyone should be guaranteed the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It states those things baldly and clearly for all to see. There is no need to go back to the 17th century to read the obscure Habeas Corpus Act 1679 or even further back, to the 13th century, to read Magna Carta. It is there in plain language for every individual citizen to read in the covenant.
  The covenent says that all persons must be afforded effective protection of the law, without discrimination. It states that a trial must take place without undue delay. It obliges Governments to provide legal assistance to anyone charged with a criminal offence who does not have the means to pay for it. It also obliges Governments to ensure that anyone charged with a criminal offence is informed promptly, in a language that he understands, of the nature and cause of the charge, and that that person is given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, including the free assistance of an interpreter if necessary, and is not compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. It also obliges Governments to ensure that everyone who is convicted of a crime has the right to review by a higher tribunal.
  Many people would say that such rights prevail in the United Kingdom under common law, but that is insufficient. That is not in itself adequate to protect the individual's rights, to make us aware of our individual rights and to enable us to understand them. Without that

  191
  understanding, those rights become meaningless to the individual unless he is accompanied by a learned lawyer or some other assistant to his rights.
  I do not believe that we should require assistance to meet our rights. Those rights should be plain for all to see and for all to understand. Again I use as my benchmark the youngster at school who should grow up knowing in plain language where he or she stands on some of the fundamentals. That is the beauty of the incorporation into British law of the European convention on human rights, which states clearly the basic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of worship and privacy.
  Once one grows up with the knowledge of those things, they stay with one for ever and one is prepared to defend them for ever. They are not something gifted to one by an obscure legal judgment. They belong to one and they cannot be taken away from one. Once one knows one's rights, it is far easier to understand one's responsibilities and social obligations. It is far easier for a teacher at school to explain to a child, "Yes, you know that you have the freedom of speech, but rights overlap." There are difficulties with some rights. A person's right to freedom of speech does not mean the liberty to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema, as the famous American case showed. With such debate and exchange, our young people will genuinely become citizens rather than subjects in our society—something that I hope all hon. Members would welcome.
  The European convention on human rights is not that frightening, even for Conservative Members. It has existed in its current form since 1951 and everyone has been able to take it into account in moulding the development of law in the United Kingdom. I may sometimes be critical of the judiciary, but in many respects it is ahead of the politicians, and the subject under discussion is one of those respects. Many of the senior judiciary realise that the precedents set in European law, particularly rights law, are being drawn into British common law, even without the European convention on human rights being formally incorporated into British law. It is happening by stealth. Why can we not incorporate the European convention clearly, openly and honestly and begin the wider process of education?

  We take for granted many rights that one would have to struggle hard to find in written form. I have already mentioned some of them. While we search for those rights which may prevail in the United Kingdom there are undoubtedly many areas of concern in the law in respect of human rights. The judiciary is still largely unrepresentative of the population. I make no case for a proportion of judges to be women or to be from an ethnic minority, to be black or to be white, but it is wrong that a mere handful of the senior judiciary are currently women and it is wrong that only two or three are from what may be categorised as ethnic minorities or are black.
  I commend the work of the Lord Chancellor, but the judiciary must become more representative if its members are to reflect and find acceptance within our society as arbiters of law and rights. I wish the Lord Chancellor well in his efforts towards that end, but I believe that further effort is required. Proposals will be forthcoming from the next Labour Government to ensure that a more balanced judiciary is in place by the end of the first term of the Labour Government.
  The miscarriages of justice have been plain for all to see in the trials and media coverage. Criminal trials all too often suffer undue delay. Justice delayed is justice denied,
  192
  which is not acceptable in modern society. Black and ethnic minorities, people with mental health problems, those already incarcerated and women suffer discrimination within our judicial system. Without a requirement in court to refer to legislated, written rights and with a barely discernible commitment to upholding the rights in the covenant, people up and down the country are subject to wrongful searches, arrests, detentions, convictions and imprisonment. That is not the way to ensure that citizens in this country support the judicial process and the hard-working police we are so lucky to have in this country. It is the way to undermine those institutions rather than strengthen them. I believe that written rights would help to strengthen those very forces of law and order now so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
  The legal aid system in this country is shameful. The Government have directly violated the right to free legal assistance for those who need it. The United Nations human rights committee stated in 1991—the last time that the Government had to report to the United Nations—that legal aid provisions in the United Kingdom were "excessively restricted". Those are not my words, but the words of the United Nations. The Conservatives have not only ignored that criticism, but have now placed the right to justice of the vulnerable and the poor in even greater jeopardy by legislating in April last year to reduce legal aid eligibility still further. Even more people are now being denied access to the courts where their cases can be dealt with openly and honestly.
  The right to remain innocent until proved guilty is another basic human right and a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Not only has the proposed erosion of that right in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill been criticised by lawyers, pressure groups and politicians of all parties, but it is clearly in breach of our obligation under international law to guarantee a fair trial as defined in the international covenant for civil and political rights.
  The European Commission of Human Rights has already ruled that the removal of the right to silence in Northern Ireland under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 should be considered by the European Court. It is not good enough for our country to be periodically dragged into the courts, whether it is at the European level or whether it has to come before the United Nations every five years or so as the naughty boy of the international democratic community, unable to live up to international obligations that it helped to draft. The Government's school report states, "Must do better".
  We in the Labour party recognise that there is a balance to be struck between convicting the guilty and ensuring that the innocent are not convicted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has made many proposals aimed at speeding up the conviction of the guilty, early intervention in the case of young offenders and other steps to reduce crime and protect the victims of crime. The rights of innocent people must be protected. We must ensure that suspects are not exposed to misleading questions which may result in false confessions and grave injustice. I shall not delay the House by rattling off the list of cases in which individuals have wrongly convicted themselves out of their own mouths as a result of such questioning. Those sad cases are known to all of us in this place.
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill does not confine its proposed rights violations to an erosion of the right to silence. It threatens the lifestyles of minority

  193
  cultures and will jeopardise the right to free movement and peaceful assembly. What sort of democracy can we claim to be when we are denied the right of assembly and peaceful protest? Those rights are enshrined in the covenant, so the Government are obliged to adhere to them. The covenant is not a voluntary process, but something written in international law to which the Government have voluntarily subscribed. It is not a menu from which they can take what they like and leave the rest. The Government are once again absolving themselves of their responsibility to adhere to the convention, much to the detriment of the rights and lives of United Kingdom citizens.
  Under the international covenant for civil and political rights, we are also entitled to liberty and security. We must be protected from arbitrary arrest or detention and be accorded the due process of law. The right of freedom of association, which includes the right to form and join trade unions, is also enshrined in the covenant. The denial of trade union membership to employees at GCHQ is a disgrace and a grave violation of those rights. That, too, will be put right urgently and quickly by an incoming Labour Government after the next general election.
  As immigration spokesperson for the Labour party, I am constantly confronted by violations of the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers. For example, the right of aliens to have an expulsion decision review is specifically and clearly stated in the international covenant for civil and political rights, but the Government breached their obligation to that right by passing the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
  The Act removed the right of appeal against refusal of both entry clearance and leave to enter from visitors and students intending to study for less than six months and from prospective students and their dependants. It amounted to a removal of redress from about 25 per cent. of applicants. Many thousands of people who had appealed previously, had their appeals upheld and, therefore, could visit friends and family in this country found themselves without the right of appeal and denied the ability to test the decisions of the Home Office and the Government. It has compounded the existing problems of discrimination and disadvantages suffered by individuals from non-white countries that the Conservatives have failed to address.
  Asylum seekers are not only detained en masse without trial, but are kept in difficult conditions, often for many months. It is in breach of the Government's obligations not to deprive anyone of his liberty
  "except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as established by law"
  and to treat all persons that are deprived of their liberty
  "with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person".
  Can the conditions at Campsfield detention centre, where detainees are driven to go on hunger strike, be considered humane or dignified? How can the death of Omasese Lumumba, who died in Pentonville prison, where he was forcibly detained awaiting an asylum decision, be justified?
  Prisoners are also denied the humanity and respect that is their right. Many prisons in the United Kingdom are overcrowded, with low standards of health care and sanitation, and problems such as drug taking are on the increase.
  194
  The international covenant for civil and political rights states that the essential aim of the penitentiary system should be the reformation and the social rehabilitation of prisoners. The United Nations human rights committee stressed the importance of that in its last report on the United Kingdom, yet prisoners in this country are offered little or no attempt at rehabilitation. Training and education facilities are limited, access to counselling and psychotherapy is denied to most prisoners and the use of solitary confinement continues.
  Why does the Conservative political agenda appear to favour the imprisonment of as many people as possible? Their philosophy of prison works, as outlined by the Home Secretary's speech to the rabid Conservative conference last year, which proclaimed just that. It also proclaimed objectives such as locking up 12 to 14-year-olds and making community sentences "a proper punishment" with no regard to rehabilitation. That will serve to violate and not protect the rights which are bound in the UN convention.
  I feel strongly that the best answer to the crime problem in Britain, particularly where it affects young people, is to give those young people a job; to give them some hope and some future. Then they will find less time to do the damage they so often do when denied that hope and that future by being denied a job.
  There is not even an effective means of redress for prisoners whose rights have been violated, although the international covenant for civil and political rights clearly states that there must be such a remedy. We should have a prison complaints system that is independent and representative and full legal rights to representation and appeal.
  Along with other citizens, prisoners must have their rights safeguarded in a civilised society and we shall follow closely the appointment and activities of the prison ombudsman to see whether he lives up to the benchmarks set by the United Nations.
  It is fundamental to the international covenant for civil and political rights that the rights it serves to protect are accorded to all citizens equally and without distinction, yet the Conservative Government have continued to preside over institutions and to implement procedures which are clearly in breach of the convention's non-discrimination articles.
  The Government have continued to ignore the unequal position of women in many spheres of economic and social life in the United Kingdom and have even refused to implement many of the recommendations put forward by their own independent watchdog, the Equal Opportunities Commission, when it has suggested anything approaching a radical overhaul of sex equality legislation.
  The rights of ethnic minorities are also negotiated and the Commission for Racial Equality cites continuing evidence of widespread discrimination on racial grounds.
  It was with some regret that I read the Home Secretary's comments in the recent European election raising fears of mass immigration from eastern Europe, raising the spectre to frighten people here by saying that millions of people would come into the United Kingdom from central and eastern Europe, and, indeed, telling some untruths in respect of the policies of my own party.
  It really sits ill with such a person to pose as the friend of the ethnic minority communities, seeking to ensure racial harmony while stoking the very fires of prejudice and discrimination that so afflict our country. That was as

  195
  deeply disappointing as his failure to condemn the Mail on Sunday for its distortion of the story relating to those Jamaicans who came to Britain at Christmas time and its statement that those people had vanished.
  The Home Secretary knows as well as anyone else that by the same definition millions of British tourists vanish at any one time because people are not counted in and counted out of nations when they go on holiday. It was a ludicrous story for the Mail on Sunday to run and it was even more offensive that the Home Secretary could not find it in himself publicly to state his condemnation of the way in which that front page story was run in order to incite individuals to a wrong perception of the situation concerning immigrants or visitors from Jamaica.
  It was really not good enough to come forward with a less than adequate statement on racial harassment and minor changes to the law on racial harassment when we all know that the race card will be played at election time, as it was played in the European elections and the last general election and as it will be played in the next general election.
  Quite frankly, I hope that the Home Secretary, not least because of his own family background—I do not wish to linger on that, but I understand that he came from a family of immigrants and has made much of himself from that background and I welcome the fact that he has done that—should consider the fortunes of those setting out on the same path. To feed prejudice and the poison of discrimination does no credit to him or his office.
  Under the international covenant for civil and political rights we are entitled to privacy and the Conservative Government have made a mockery of that right. Infringements of individual privacy by the state and large corporations are now rife, let alone the bugging and the use of long range lenses to pry into the lives of individuals by the media.
  Surveillance and bugging have become more prevalent, and employees complain of intrusive monitoring of their personal lives in the work place. There is even talk of introducing identity cards—but to imagine that such cards will have a serious impact on crime is to delude oneself. I fear that the Prime Minister is snatching at another of the one-off ideas that he comes up with sometimes, such as boot camps. They will have no effect whatever on hardened criminals such as drug dealers, and others who can easily obtain access to false identity cards. That happens throughout Europe, and the introduction of identity cards will not influence such people by one iota.
  Press regulation is inadequate, and the press complaints body is unrepresentative. The need for a formal privacy law can no longer be ignored. Even the Government's own consultation paper "Infringements of Privacy" admitted that the law does not protect people adequately from harassment. Opposition Members recognise the need to balance the right to privacy with rights to freedom of information and expression. We require not only the introduction of privacy laws but a freedom of information Act, "right to reply" legislation and a free press.
  For too long we have drifted away from fundamental principles of open government and free information towards censorship, excessive secrecy and unaccountability in government. Those developments are not the product of any personal defects in Conservative Members; they are a logical extension of centralised power in this country, which is unchecked and unchallenged, with no one item able to stand in the way of the will or whim of members of
  196
  the Executive. That, rather than the inadequacies of this or that political personality, is the fundamental fault in our political system.
  At present, we do not even have minimal legislation on freedom of information. The Conservatives have not only held but withheld information as they have seen fit. Even the citizens charter allows public authorities to keep basic consumer information secret from the public. Sometimes the Conservatives give us a glimpse of commitment to upholding their human rights obligations; in this instance, they have promised to release information on request under a new code of practice on access to Government information. It is a bit surprising that the effect of the code will be limited in practice: unlike a freedom of information Act, it is not actually enforceable. Rather than having access to documents, we shall be given only selective answers to questions. Even then, information on immigration, nationality and refugee policy will be exempt—and the Conservatives are planning to charge for the information.
  The same circumstances apply to so many of our rights. Legislation for rights protection may be in place, but that is not enough to ensure that our rights are made effective in practice. The Government do not merely have an obligation to legislate; they have a responsibility to make good their rights protections. A pertinent example is the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. That right is essential if we are to have a representative and accountable Government, and maintain a sense of citizenship that has faded steadily over the past 15 years.
  Little wonder that there is a pervasive feeling of alienation from the institutions of politics; little wonder that there is a low turnout in our council and European elections—and, in my view, an unacceptably low turnout in our parliamentary elections. Little wonder that there is a deep, genuine and growing contempt, if not for this place, for some of the people in it and for antics that the public perceive as irrelevant and unimportant—antics that we get up to when there are matters of great import to be discussed.
  We in this place have a necessary duty to correct that problem. I believe that we must ensure that our procedures are brought up to date—not in a dry technical sense, but as an important, indeed central, part of our democracy. In an electronic age, people at home should feel that they share our beliefs and respect our opinions, rather than seeing what we do as a form of the cult comedy that so often appears on our screens.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Speeding up our procedures involves a difficulty : it often means that opportunities for Back Benchers are wiped out. For instance, the second Adjournment debate used to be an acceptable part of House of Commons procedure, but is now exceedingly difficult to secure. Tonight is an example of that. I am in no way criticising my hon. Friend, but I warn him that modernising our procedures often means fewer opportunities for Back Benchers who may want to put urgent points of view on awkward subjects.
  Mr. Allen: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's views in that respect, and in particular for the doughty fight that he, as a legislator, has carried out against the Executive. I think that many newer and younger Members of Parliament pride themselves on emulating, in their own way, his efforts to perform that task.

  197
  I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the Executive now has powers that would make Stalin salivate. The Prime Minister, in 10 Downing street, has the ability to appoint senior judiciary and every member of the Cabinet—the senior Executive; he has the ability to appoint Members to the second Chamber, should that ever be necessary. If 1,000 Members in the other place were to perish and the majority was not there for the Conservative party, the Prime Minister could appoint additional Members, unencumbered by a bill of rights or a written constitution.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) thinks long and hard about these matters. He may agree that one of the central problems of this place is the fact that the legislature is not an independent body but, to all intents and purposes, the creature of the Executive. It is almost possible to use an analogy that was used the other day, involving the film "Alien": within the legislation is the enormous parasitical body of the Executive, controlling its every movement. I am waiting to see it burst out from the Minister at some point in the near future.
  I consider the control exercised by the Executive to be the enemy of democracy. The only answer is to develop a pluralist democracy of many institutions, each with its own legitimacy and power, that can confront and conflict with the Executive on the road to consensus. I think that the Executive has often allowed Back Benchers the few crumbs of power that they have in order to disguise the fundamental inadequacy of this place in holding the Executive to account.
  The international covenant for civil and political rights guarantees everyone the right and opportunity to participate in the conduct of public affairs, to vote or be elected and to have equal access to public service. In 1994, we still have massive over-centralisation and restricted access to the opportunities that I have cited. Central Government refuse to devolve power to the nations and regions. Again, I make no passing party-political point; Governments of all descriptions have always tended towards centralisation because they have been unencumbered and unrestricted by written rights and constitutional developments, and local democracy has been classically undermined over the past 16 years.
  I often wonder why many of my hard-working colleagues in local government stand for election. They do a vital and tremendous job, but they no longer have influence or control over budgets. Many members of the Conservative, Labour and other parties now choose not to enter local politics and serve their community because they feel that it would be useless to do so in the face of the Executive power that is being used against them. Many people take great pride in being able to make small local achievements, but their right and ability to do so is being denied by the Government's massive centralisation drive, which conflicts with one of the basic tenets of civil and political rights in the international covenant.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first objectives of a Labour Government should be to restore dignity to local government?
  Mr. Allen: I feel strongly that local government should be given some form of genuine independence from the centre. How that should be achieved—by using the
  198
  Parliament Act 1911, by defining its financial abilities and by making clear its power—will require wide discussion and probably some genuine consensus in the House.
  We must listen to the voices outside and must give them power and let 1,000 flowers bloom, even though from our point of view some may be weeds. It is important to hear people and ensure those developments. In that way lies economic recovery. The great personal strength of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher—using the centralised machine to its nth degree—has proved one thing to all of us: that centralisation can no longer deliver economically. It was tried with its best driver but failed. The answer to our economic ills lies in a far wider effort, involving independent local communities, individuals with rights and the ability to define their own futures and with the regions and nations of the United Kingdom operating together.
  I do not believe that our economic salvation lies with centralisation. It will be guaranteed, as it is in many of our leading competitor countries, only by those who seek to devolve energy and power and give people their head to innovate and be entrepreneurial. The way that the Government are going, running counter to the international covenant on civil and political rights, is the wrong way to go—more and more centralisation will mean that we are less and less effective.
  One of the classic examples is the plethora of unelected quangos. Billions of pounds of public money is dispensed without account or clearly defined lines of scrutiny to elected representatives. Our public services, having been in the hands, first, of locally-elected representatives and then nationally-elected representatives, are now increasingly in unelected hands.
  Membership of Parliament, for example, is not open to all, most starkly because the hereditary principle still operates in half of our legislature but also because the unsociable hours of Parliament and the lack of child care facilities prevent those with family responsibilities from participating in government. Black and ethnic minorities remain under-represented. An incoming Government must, above all, make it clear that as part of a new democratic settlement—a new pluralist settlement—we shall redeem our historic pledge to have an elected second Chamber and abolish the House of Lords in its current form. That, too, ties in with the international covenant on civil and political rights by ensuring that people are drawn into public affairs.
  It is nonsense that the vast majority of those who sit in our second Chamber are hereditary peers. That is becoming less and less tenable in this day and age. As I read in the newspaper the other day, what a farce we would say it was if the second Chamber in Germany, instead of being made up of regional representatives, were made up of relatives of the former Kaiser or Bismarck or that the second Chamber in Russia were made up of relatives and descendants of Lenin, Stalin or even the Tsars.
  I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East, before his sad death, felt vehemently that the hereditary peerage should be dispensed with quickly and that we should have proper elections to the second Chamber. Nothing less would be acceptable under a new Labour Government.
  Hon. Members, too, have no reason to be complacent for the reasons that I outlined earlier, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. This place needs to rediscover some teeth in terms of the way in which

  199
  it scrutinises legislation. Pre-legislative scrutiny is very important. The Special Standing Committees that have been in abeyance for many years need to be resurrected in some form. We must strengthen departmental Select Committees so they can report to the Floor. Since 1979, there have been 500 departmental Select Committee reports, many of them first rate, but only four have been voted on on the Floor of the House. What other organisation that any Member is connected with establishes a committee to do a job and refuses to receive its report? What nonsense.
  We must make some fundamental changes before we shall be seen to be fit to challenge the Executive. That Executive may be a Labour Executive. That is one of the reasons why resisting the temptation to shelve reform needs the inoculation of clear, open public commitments well ahead of a general election.
  The formal political process must be opened up to ensure broader representation of people, nationally and locally. We need a diversity of institutions—that is the definition of pluralism and is contrary to our unitary system—that are elected, accountable and, above all, independent of central Government, so that none of them is the creature of central Government and the Executive.
  We also require a plurality of electoral systems. I do not make a case for any particular electoral system, nor do I make a case for change in the first Chamber, but one of the things that I learned from two years hard labour on Lord Plant's commission into electoral systems is that there is no holy grail, no perfect electoral system. It is a matter of political judgment, and the judgment of my party, endorsed at its annual conference last year, is that there should be a regional list system of proportional representation for the European Parliament. It seems perfectly suited to that. That means that last week's election was the last election under first past the post and we will move on to a different system under a new Government. That should be welcomed by the Conservative party, since such a system would have meant that the disaster that they suffered would have been slightly mitigated.
  However, as a democrat I accept that there are swings and roundabouts, and that a mid-term Labour Government might find themselves the beneficiaries, by losing fewer seats than otherwise might have been the case.
  Secondly, the Labour party conference proposed that the second Chamber should be elected by a similar proportional representation system, using a regional list. Finally, the conference said that there should be a referendum, and that the people should decide on the electoral system to be used for this place, although there was a preference for single-Member constituencies.
  Those three pledges were not merely made by our national executive committee and our party conference, but were agreed by our former leader. Of all the people in my party, John Smith had the greatest gut instinct for democracy—perhaps because of his Scottish background, perhaps because of his devolution experience. He may have been a hard man to convince, but when he was convinced on a matter of democracy, he stuck with it in the strongest possible fashion—as I know well with regard to his deep personal commitment to a bill of rights, to incorporate the European convention on human rights. It is nothing less than a personal task to ensure that those commitments are carried through in his absence, as he would have wanted.
  200
  We must encourage greater participation in our democracy, if it is to be worthy of the name. We can do that by more than one-off participation once every four or five years at a general election; we should have lots of strings to our bow. We should have meaningful local elections and develop regional assemblies from the bottom up. They should not be imposed from the centre and thus be immediately repealable following a change of Government; they should be regions that people want, care for and build themselves. Devising those institutions, and ensuring that people feel that they own them, will be an important task.
  We should also have a judiciary that is more representative of and less distant from those whom it seeks to serve. We should have a European Parliament that defines its powers. Let us take the word subsidiarity at its face value, decide what should be done at the European level and define clearly what the powers of the nation state should be. In those contexts, backed up by the fact that individuals would know their rights, individuals would genuinely and meaningfully be able to participate at many levels in our democracy. That is a great cause, well worth working for in the next Labour Government.
  But that is for the next Labour Government, and here we are now with a Government who seem to have no desire whatever for any restraint to be placed upon their activities in the name of democracy, or of human rights or citizens' rights. An unrestrained executive power has allowed the Conservatives to pursue policies and introduce legislation that undermines human rights in many spheres. The result is a disillusioned populace, withdrawn from politics and lacking any real sense of citizenship and civic responsibilities. Participatory democracy has been stifled in this country.
  One of the key areas that we must examine to ensure that the international covenant for civil and political rights is made meaningful is the use and abuse of prerogative powers—the ability of a Government of any political party to take the nation into a war without any redress, and without even informing the House. The House debates matters long after the event, and then only because a motion is contrived to allow Members to have their say. Obviously, I do not say that the Executive should be prevented from taking the necessary action at a time of national emergency, but at the earliest reasonable opportunity that action should be ratified by the legislature—the people who represent the electorate.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recall that the House of Commons was in no way consulted about the decision to allow bombers to go from Upper Heyford and other British bases to attack Libya, and that there was no formal permission for the Gulf war? Those and many other factors mean that it ill becomes us to criticise the Americans too much about the Gulf of Tonkin.
  Mr. Allen: The same could be said of Kuwait as of Libya—and also of the Falklands conflict, in which actions were taken and only later, on a procedural technicality, was the elected House of Commons involved.
  Prerogative powers also extend to such activities as the appointment of the judiciary. How interesting it was to see the hearings concerning Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas in the United States Congress, at the same time as in this country two judges of the Court of Appeal were appointed without any reference whatever to the legislature. I do not

  201
  say that we should put our judiciary through the mill as Clarence Thomas was put through the mill, but there is a happy medium. Those individuals should at least have their appointments noted by the House.
  To have a Legal Affairs Select Committee—the only part in the St. John-Stevas jigsaw still missing from 1979—would be progress. The possibility of having a Secretary of State for Justice, answerable at the Dispatch Box, rather than having a Lord Chancellor in the other place, would be progress, too.
  Certainly we should understand how the individuals concerned come to be appointed. I shall digress briefly with one anecdote. The father of a friend of mine was to be appointed to a senior post in the judiciary, and when he went along for his interview the whole process, which lasted 40 minutes, consisted of a discussion of how the cricket team was doing at his old public school. He then left the interview and was told by letter the following day that he had got the job.
  There may be some exaggeration in my friend's story—I do not know—but it is difficult to discover the criteria used in individual appointments. It would be healthy for our democracy if, even if only nominally, such senior people were to come before the House or one of its committees to take up their posts and be given their duties legitimately by the legislature. I go no further than that. The present process undermines the credibility of the judiciary, and mystery does not add to that credibility in this modern age—the information age.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the question of a Secretary of State for Justice, when I was first elected here some 32 years ago, the whole place was hoatching with Queen's counsel on both sides. Both parties will soon be hard put to it to find QCs to occupy the positions of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. It is becoming a problem for the Conservative party and it is certainly a problem for the Opposition. In those circumstances, the idea of having an Attorney-General becomes that much more difficult. We Scots have seen this because we cannot have direct questioning of the Lord-Advocate, who is our equivalent of the Attorney-General. With a case such as Lockerbie, there can be extremely serious consequences.
  Mr. Allen: That is a genuine difficulty in respect of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Where I would draw the line would be that if the Lord Chancellor was accountable to this place, and if we genuinely had a Secretary of State for Justice, there would be no reason for that individual to have as a requirement a legal qualification, any more than we would expect the Secretary of State for Health to be a legally qualified doctor. It might be better if a Secretary of State for Justice, encountering the fundamental political problems and administrative problems that beset our legal system and our judiciary, was a person without legal qualifications.
  In terms of prerogative powers, there must be in principle one general rule—that in this day and age, any power exercised by the Executive should have legislative authority. Again, I am not saying that that would alter the way in which the power was used. However, let it be transparent and let it be on the face of a Bill that the Government—the Executive—have the power to take the
  202
  country into war, on the condition that at the earliest possible moment the House should be informed and allowed to debate the matter.
  Let it be on the face of a Bill that the judiciary should be appointed in the following way. Let it be on the face of a Bill that instead of treaties being covered by some obscure rule from the 1920s, they shall be ratified by this place if they involve international obligations. Again, perhaps, there is no need for a change in the way in which power is exercised, but essentially there is a need for a change in the way in which power is held to account. That needs to be made very clear in this place.
  Mr. Dalyell: I intrude on my hon. Friend's generosity, once again, to support him. It is not simply a matter of not formally debating military action before it happens. I have experience, as do some of my colleagues, of pleading with Speakers when ominous situations were developing to allow private notice questions so that something could be done before the event about what seemed to be important issues. But we are told that the situation is hypothetical and that we are not entitled to a private notice question. In those circumstances, it is a case of not being able to take action until the milk is spilt. That is deeply unsatisfactory, democratically and constitutionally.
  Mr. Allen: As usual, my hon. Friend finds the most knotty and difficult points of principle in my general case. I would be extremely cautious before saying that the Executive power itself could not be used as and where it was seen to be appropriate. However, I underline the principle that the legislature should then be able to scrutinise and hold to account the Executive in their actions. My hon. Friend may agree that that would be the only sensible way in which to proceed.
  We do not seek to hamstring the Executive. On the contrary, as many years' membership of the Public Accounts Committee has taught me, an effective legislature is a boon and a bonus to an Executive, unless it becomes deadlocked or gridlocked by the political problems that have beset the Executive in the United States. If it does not, it is of great assistance, not only in terms of value for money, in which the Public Accounts Committee revels, but in terms of good government. Some of the most appalling mistakes made by Government would have been checked if we had had an effective legislature.
  The poll tax is but one example. I led for my party, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who was with us earlier, on the Child Support Bill. My word, the Government must now wish that they had listened at that point, a year before the Bill became an Act. Would not they now give their eye teeth for a pre-legislative stage? They could then have listened to the fathers, the mothers and the children who could have told them about some of the nonsense that would emerge through the Child Support Act 1991. But we failed. The House failed in its duty of holding the Executive to account. Since we failed, literally thousands of people have suffered, many of them children.
  That is but one example. Hon. Members who have served on other Bills can tell the House from their own experience of how in education, or in immigration or other areas, the failure to provide proper legislative scrutiny has left a legacy, which is inherited by the schools, by the people seeking a visitor's visa, and by other individuals

  203
  affected by our legislation. We are not yet competent and professional enough in the way in which we scrutinise the Executive and their legislation. Clearly, that has to be put right, or we may, even then, be in breach of our commitments under the international convention on civil and political rights.
  The Opposition do not want prerogative powers and Executive powers done away with, but they should be held to account by the appropriate body, in a political philosophy which goes back 200 years through a separation of powers and all the other key democratic pillars to which many of us pay lip service. We want those powers held to account by the legislature and checked, at one remove, by an independent judiciary. That is the basis of any democracy. We do not have that basis in this country and we do not have it in this place. We want to see the Government of the United Kingdom revitalised, with renewed trust in their practice and institutions and revived participation on the part of all their citizens. We want to see citizens as shareholders in our democracy. The responsibility lies with Government and, if this Government will not take it, that responsibility, abdicated by the Conservatives, will be picked up and welcomed by an incoming Labour Government.
  The international covenant on civil and political rights sounds technical, it sounds dry, it does not look very sexy on the Order Paper, but all of us in the House would do well to put on our walls as part of our job description what it says in the following respect:
  "the ideal of free human beings, enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his or her economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights".
  That is not a bad job description for a Member of Parliament and it is one which we should take very seriously. Central to that will be the need to improve the UK system of checks and balances, so that the Executive may be held to account, as I have outlined, and a new, pluralist constitutional settlement based on those principles of subsidiarity and openness and entrenched rights in law.
  I have said that we are committed to incorporating into British law the European convention on human rights. We are also committed to establishing an all-party commission, which will devise a British bill of rights and bring that bill back to this place in a matter of years, perhaps two years, after the first incorporation has taken place. That will give individuals the right to challenge arbitrary decisions and excesses of powers that affect them and to guarantee a quality of treatment without discrimination. Those of us who are interested in that area—all of us should be—follow the proposals emanating from Northern Ireland at the moment about the possible consensus that could arise around a bill of rights in that part of the United Kingdom. There is much of importance for the other people of the United Kingdom in that, as well as for the people in the Northern Irish part of the United Kingdom and I wish those who are involved the very best in producing something that may have something to teach the rest of us about making sure that human rights are respected throughout the kingdom.
  Statute law will be used, and must be used, to correct the specific rights problems which are not always captured by the generality of rights legislation. Our new constitution will comprise that rights legislation, the election of a second Chamber, an examination of our electoral systems and referenda on the system to be used by the first
  204
  Chamber, English regional assemblies, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly, a reformed judiciary to which I have alluded, and independent local government.
  Very soon, our country will undergo the humiliation of having the Conservatives defend their rights record before the United Nations. Shortly thereafter, the UN human rights committee will issue its response, which, as the last one did, will inevitably highlight the deficiencies of the human rights record of the Conservative Government. Let this be the last time that our record is a source of shame for our country. Let a new Government, a Labour Government, build a nation aware of its rights and secure in their defence.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: On 4 November 1839, in my constituency, 20 men were killed, one of whom was George Shell, a cabinet maker from Pontypool. The night before he died, he sent a message to his parents saying, "If I die tomorrow, I will die in a noble cause." That noble cause was the same noble cause about which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has spoken tonight. It was the cause of democracy and human rights.
  George Shell was one of the Chartists to be shot down in front of the Westgate hotel in Newport. The Chartists campaigned against all the crude injustices and unfairness of the embryonic and very wretched democracy that existed at that time. Over the years, our democracy has improved. All but one of those Chartists' rights have been achieved. We have got rid of uneven sized constituencies. The property right has been abolished and the franchise is now universal.
  However, one of the Chartists' claims has never been achieved. As each year passes, that other point of the charter which they carried on their banners becomes more appropriate. That point was annual parliaments. I am not suggesting that we should head in that direction, but the position that we are in now is highlighted by the fact that, all that time ago, the Chartists foresaw the perversion of democracy that we suffer from now. Once every four or five years, one party persuades the country to vote for it.
  That persuasion is often not achieved by legitimate means. It is carried out by the use of money, half truths and bribery by a party. I can give the House an example of that as I had a ten-minute Bill on the subject. We no longer control the national spending by parties on elections. The proportion is £9 by the Conservative party, £4 by Labour and £1 by the Liberal Democrats. There is no check on that whatsoever.
  One of the advantages enjoyed by the governing party in the elections was that it was given poster sites, which could not be obtained by the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, by the Imperial Tobacco Company. That company told me in a letter that it did that because it knew that the Government had promised not to ban tobacco advertising. That was a thoroughly illegitimate way of obtaining advantage. We also know that the Government used the powers of advertising to put forward to the electorate an untruth about tax policy. However, on one day every five years over the past 15 years, the Government have persuaded the country to support them. On almost every one of the other days, a majority in the country opposed the Government. That is not the proper way to run a democracy.

  205
  I shall not repeat the main points that were raised so eloquently by my hon. Friend. However, we have a real difficulty in Wales because Wales has the largest democratic deficit of any country, certainly in the European Union. The democracies of eastern Europe emerged while our democracy in Wales was abused and battered more than ever before.
  Just over a fortnight ago, I was part of a panel on democracy in the European election campaign. One candidate admitted that he did not believe in democracy; he did not think that it was a good thing. He thought that the world should be run by 7,000 yogic fliers: these people had a special knowledge and they would get together, unelected, and decide everything. We have people in Wales who are not, I think, qualified as yogic fliers, but they are qualified as members of one party which cannot win elections in Wales. Fellow travellers of that party sit on quangos in Wales.
  Over the past 15 years, we have seen an enormous growth in the power of quangos and the amount of money that they use. They are staffed by people who cannot be elected—failed Conservative candidates in local and other elections that take place in Wales. At the same time as we have seen the process of unelected bodies growing in power, we have seen—as my hon. Friend pointed out—the denial of power, influence and resources for elected local councillors, so they have little power left now. Our democracy has been degraded by that process.
  The civil service is a great worry. We do not often talk about the value of our civil service. However, 150 years ago, we reformed the civil service because, like most civil services in the world, it was corrupt and politicised. Despite 15 years of Thatcherism, and despite 15 years of promotion by people who were seen by the Government to be "one of us" and to have a certain political view, we still have a civil service that is the least corrupt and the least politicised of any civil service in the world.
  What are we doing about it? We are offering the civil service to be market tested and, ultimately, privatised and contractualised, so that it will be run by people who are not devoted to public service. From the top to the bottom, civil servants are special. They have a special regard for their role, and they know that they are not out to make a profit. There is an element—often it is a powerful element—of service in that job. All political parties have had the benefit of a civil service that is not corrupt or partial. That is one of the great strengths of our democracy.
  Because of the Government's fanaticism for believing that everything private is good and everything public is bad, we are about to sacrifice that. We are about to see the civil service shrink into a small core—that is the expressed wish of many Ministers—with all the main civil servants being run by commercial firms and working towards commercial ends. What we will end up with is what Governments in other countries are ill served by—civil servants who are partial, politicised and corrupt.
  Never at any time in the past 150 years have we had so many cases of corruption in quangos and other public bodies, especially, sadly, in Wales. Almost every week, there has been a scandal in a public body in Wales over the past 12 months.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the need to reorganise our democratic process. Our faith in the democratic process
  206
  has collapsed—and so it should, because when most people go to vote they realise that their vote does not make any difference. The only votes that matter are those in the marginal seats. People who vote Conservative in Ebbw Vale or Labour down on the south coast realise that their vote does not make any difference whatever. It is only the small number of people in marginal seats who count.
  We have seen the travesty of democracy that has occurred so many times. The worst example was the 1983 election where a large number of people voted for the third party which had few representatives in the House. Unless we correct that situation and ensure that the views of voters are reflected in their representatives here, which we can do simply through the system that the Labour party is proposing, there will be a lack of respect for democracy.
  Today, I spent some time looking at a Bill that went through the House in 1985. The Prime Minister was the Government spokesman, and the acting leader of the Labour party was the Opposition spokesman. It was an atrocious piece of legislation. If one is looking for a bad Bill, that was it. It introduced personal pensions and it was interesting to read some of the prophetic remarks of one of our former colleagues, Mr. Frank Haynes, then the Member for Ashfield. He told us clearly what would happen as a result of the Bill.
  Tonight we heard about the legislation that set up the Child Support Agency. We are not an efficient democracy if we allow bad laws to pass, unchecked and without proper scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned another matter that has occurred to us during the past few days and it is interesting to note that the two are connected.
  The Prime Minister declared his views on civilising our procedures and stopping us from looking like an entertainment, for which he would receive warm support from all corners of the House, as happened in the debate yesterday. We are legislators. Legislation is not a spectator sport, or something to be enjoyed. It is not something for people outside to view for their entertainment, but we are seen in that way and it demeans our role and the people's view of us.
  How sad it was that, when someone attempted to take up the challenge that the Prime Minister made by asking us to send him our questions so that he could think about them and give a considered response, his answer to a serious question that involved the pensions of 6 million very anxious people and did not include combative words or try to strike any political advantage was not reasonable or civilised and did not produce light rather than heat. An editorial in The Times described his answer as a typical civil service briefing, followed by a cheap political jibe.
  Can we really take the Government seriously when they talk about reform of the House of Commons unless they show by their deeds as well as their words that they are serious about it?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North dealt ably with the legal system. At a more humble level, how are magistrates selected and whom do they represent? The lord lieutenant of a county chairs the committee that selects its magistrates. Being a lord lieutenant is hardly a democratic job. I applied for it once. I wrote to the Queen and said that I had noticed that all the lords lieutenant in my county had been prominent freemasons with brilliant military careers who lived in large houses surrounded by their own grounds. They were all white, male Gentiles, rich enough to do a job without any salary. I asked the Queen

  207
  whether she thought that I, as a shift worker in the steel works who thought that he could do a reasonable job, could be considered for it. I received a brief and polite reply, but my application was unsuccessful.
  The Guardian recently picked about 12 lords lieutenant at random and found, amazingly, that every one had been to Eton—hardly a cross-section of society, but they chair the committees that select magistrates. It is not surprising that, even in an area such as mine where we elect Labour Members of Parliament with very large majorities, most magistrates declare themselves to be supporters of the Conservative party. It is highly dangerous when we can draw maps of our towns and find that the magistrates come from one area and the defendants from another. That cannot be a good thing if we want a magistracy who can understand the people who come before them.
  My final point relates to language in this House. My hon. Friend said that we should have the right to use the language of our choice. This is the only Parliament that Wales has. Wales is England's first and, sadly, last colony, but if I were to speak in the original and ancient language of Wales I should be declared out of order. It has the same status here as riotous behaviour.
  Yet there are Parliaments in the world which can deal with eight or nine languages perfectly happily. You are looking nervous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall not speak in Welsh. On one occasion when Madam Speaker was in the Chair, I spoke in the words of Chaucer, which were totally unintelligible to almost everyone in the Chamber. I would be quite in order to speak in those words, and I shall for a moment:
  "Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
  The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
  And bathed every veyne in swich licour
  Of which vertu engendered is the flour."
  I shall stop there. But those lovely words of Chaucer are English—not Anglo-Saxon or Norman French. They are perfectly in order in this House, but they are gibberish to most people. Yet I cannot speak in Welsh, a language understandable by 20 hon. Members, in the House because that language is denied in the House.
  We look forward to the day when all of the lovely languages of these islands—Irish, Gaelic and Welsh—can be spoken here. That is one of our fundamental human rights.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that West Lothian and the Linlithgow constituency cannot complain about our lord lieutenant. He is the 23rd Earl of Morton, but he did leave school at 15 and was a chef, truck driver and building worker. He is a jolly good lord lieutenant.
  In his quite outstanding speech—one which was more than ephemeral and will be much-thumbed by many people in the Labour party—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) touched on the problem of Law Officers, and a Secretary of State for Justice.
  Often in life, one does not know that one is missing something until suddenly one does not have it. I am referring to the fact that the Scots do not have a Law Officer in the House of Commons. If anybody had told me 20 years ago that this was a serious situation, I think that I would have been relaxed about it. But one does not realise what is not there until one does not have it.
  208
  Perhaps I am obsessed with Lockerbie, but it was the biggest crime against western civilisation since 1945. One of the key Departments—proudly separate from the Scottish Office, incidentally—the Crown Office, through either the Solicitor-General or Lord Advocate, cannot be questioned in the House of Commons. I do not make a party point, but it is a deeply unsatisfactory situation.
  Another truth about British government, which I am sure my hon. Friend has tumbled to, is that when there is a problem which affects one Department, it is often very efficiently dealt with. If it is in the domain of the Home Office—in my opinion, a very efficient Department—my experience is that usually one gets answers and there is a coherent policy. Equally, if something is clearly in the domain of the Department of Transport, there is again a good reply; and that is also the case with the powerful Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The trouble starts when a problem straddles two, three or four Departments.
  I do not say that simply because it is an excuse for raising a subject which I would have wished to raise in a second Adjournment debate, but the gods were against me on this occasion for reasons which I shall not go into. It was an erosion of the rights of Parliament, and that is why I interrupted my hon. Friend to say that we should be careful about getting rid of anachronisms. The second Adjournment debate was an anachronism. It was highly inconvenient, but it was often an opportunity to air subjects of great urgency. Therefore, we should be careful about cutting down on what seem to be the sillinesses and slownesses of the parliamentary system.
  The subject of Lockerbie straddles the Crown Office, the Foreign Office, and it must be a matter of considerable concern to the Home Office. It is of considerable concern to the debate, because if we are talking about international conventions on civil rights, two groups have civil rights in this matter. One group must surely be the relatives of the victims of Pan-Am 103. They have their rights to the truth. Another group with rights are the 5,000 or so of our fellow countrymen who are working in Libya and are affected by sanctions.
  If Lockerbie were simply a matter of history some years ago and that nothing could be done about it, people like me would not be bothering the House of Commons at every available opportunity about it. It is an on-going issue because it is vitiating many of our relations with the Arab world. Only today, when I attended the Nuclear Forum, the most bitter complaints were made by senior executives of Babcock and Wilcox that orders that might have gone to Libya from Britain are going from South Korea. The effects of Lockerbie represent an on-going cost to one of the Arab countries with which we were most friendly.
  Now is not the time to go into the details of the Libyan connection. I do not want to chance my arm and I hope that I am not a parliamentary cheat in the sense of commenting on one subject under the guise of another. I have one question only to put to the Government as a whole, not least to the Home Office: what on earth do the British Government think are their obligations in trying to get to the truth of the Lockerbie crime?
  The law department has sat back and its behaviour has been described as simplistic by Queen's counsel in Scotland. Its officers have merely said, " Well, if anybody brings us any evidence, that would be a different matter." Consider what has happened within the past seven days. A man said to a court in Beirut, "I put that bomb on Pan-Am

  209
  103." Surely that is a matter on which there should be an investigation. Ministers should report to Parliament on its progress.
  All I am asking for at this stage is that some Minister says," We take this claim seriously. It may not be true, but we have sent out some detectives to talk to the Lebanese and Syrian legal authorities in relation to the court case." Perhaps those detectives will come back and report that that individual just mentioned Lockerbie in order to prolong his case so that he would not go to the scaffold for the quite different crime of murdering a Jordanian diplomat. We do not know whether anything active is being done.
  Part of the reason for the dissatisfaction felt by some of us is that we are not persuaded that the British Government really want to get at what could be an extremely embarrassing truth. I find it absolutely incredible that in the 800 pages of her memoirs the former Prime Minister does not mention Lockerbie once. What she does say is that it was justified, of course, to send planes to attack the working class areas of Benghazi and Tripoli. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has already said, that is what happened. Planes were allowed to take off without any discussion. It was justified on the ground that the Libyan state would never again take part in terrorist activities. Who had better information from the intelligence services than the former Prime Minister?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I fully appreciate the points which the hon. Gentleman made previously. With his long experience in the House, the last thing that he would ever do would be to cheat. He need not inform the House of that; the House knows it. However, he is now going a little beyond what the debate is about.
  Mr. Dalyell: I shall return rapidly to the covenant for civil rights. The international travelling public—not only people like Jim Swire and Martin Cadman, parents of the British victims, but the Americans, including those youngsters from Rochester university and their relatives who were on that plane in the pre-Christmas rush only because seats had been cancelled by American officials—have a right to know that the British and American Governments are doing everything humanly possible to get to the truth of that crime.
  I use the debate simply as a parliamentary opportunity to ask whether there will be a proper follow-up to what happened in Beirut. I took the trouble to go and talk to the Dumfries and Galloway police in Dumfries. I make no criticism whatever of the policemen. I am concerned about the Government Departments with which those policemen must liaise. I ask the crisp question: is anything being done to establish the veracity or otherwise of what happened last week in that Beirut court?
  9.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that he hoped that he was not a parliamentary cheat. The entire House will agree that he is no such thing. I have often listened intently and with respect to what he has said. The House will agree, however, that he occasionally allows his
  210
  enthusiasm and single-mindedness for a subject to allow him to travel at will across the boundaries and definitions of "order". But that is a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I respect his having made a point about Lockerbie this evening, I do not intend to follow him down that road, and I see from your demeanour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would be wise to stick to that course.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made an admirably succinct speech. I share his admiration for the standards in the civil service, but disagree fundamentally with his suggestion that the civil service should not be more businesslike. He might have learnt lessons from the late 1970s, when one looked at the need then to control public expenditure. I predict that, in successive Parliaments in the years ahead, the civil service will have to live with ever tighter financial constraints. It is right that it should learn useful lessons from the world of commerce, never trying to run the civil service as a business but being more businesslike in its approach.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on obtaining this debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss—in some detail, as we have heard—civil and political rights in the United Kingdom. I know of his enthusiasm for cricket. As I listened to him, I thought to myself, as he started and as he aimed for a few boundaries, that perhaps he was emulating his good friend who once played for Nottinghamshire, the former captain of the West Indies, Sir Garfield Sobers, but, as minute followed minute and five minutes followed five minutes, I obtained the distinct impression that he was seeking to emulate Joe Hardstaff; he was here to bat all day, and all night if necessary. I think that he appreciates the point I make.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that the United Kingdom is in the dock in any way for its record on civil and political rights. That cannot be the case. Sadly, his claims about an interest in the subject are not borne out by the attendance in the Chamber this evening. The debate was at an early hour. He made a speech that might well have been listened to by more hon. Members, but, sadly, that was not the case.
  I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's desire to modernise some of the operating procedures in Parliament, but I disagree with him fundamentally when he suggests that written rights should somehow stand above the sovereignty of Parliament. Our system of parliamentary democracy, based on the complementary roles of two Chambers and buttressed by the independence of the judiciary, continues to serve us well, as it has done for a long time.
  Before I discuss the subject of the debate, I should like to discuss two or three arguments that the hon. Gentleman made. He spoke about the right of silence. Under the law of all three UK jurisdictions, any person suspected of a criminal offence has, and will continue to have, the right to remain silent at all stages of the criminal process. The burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains unchanged.
  The law on the right of silence that we propose to enact in England and Wales does not alter those basic principles of our law. The right of silence provisions simply allow the courts, in certain limited circumstances, to draw an inference from a suspect's silence when it is appropriate to do so, alongside other evidence, in determining guilt or innocence.

  211
  The hon. Gentleman discussed subjects that are familiar to him, and to me, because we have debated them long and hard in the Chamber and in Committees—immigration and asylum. I do not propose, although the temptation is there, to turn the debate into a fully fledged debate on those subjects. I draw just two points to the hon. Gentleman's attention.
  He spoke about the abolition of appeals against refusal of visit visas. He did not—I think that he could not have done so—name any other country, with or without a written constitution, that signed up to the international covenant that is the subject of our debate that has a right of appeal against the refusal of visit visas. He knows, as the House knows, that that right existed for only 23 years, I think, on the statute book, and it is not a right whose demise will cause serious lament.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke about asylum seekers and about their being detained en masse. He might have explained to the House that less than 1.5 per cent. of asylum applicants are detained, and that they are detained because of the judgment that they will not comply with reporting restrictions. He also spoke about them as asylum seekers, and he well knows that the vast majority of people detained in Campsfield house are people whose asylum applications have already been determined and who are there enjoying a right of appeal, or perhaps have had their appeal refused and are awaiting fresh documentation from their home countries because they have destroyed their documentation.
  I return to the the subject of the international covenant for civil and political rights. I shall shortly describe the way in which the United Kingdom meets its obligations and responsibilities under the covenant, but it may be helpful if I refer briefly to the origin and content of that instrument. Under the United Nations charter of 1945, the international community pledged itself to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
  As a first definition of those rights and freedoms, the universal declaration of human rights was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 as
  "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations".
  More than 40 years later, the universal declaration remains an essential statement of human rights by which Governments around the world can measure their progress in that field.
  It was always recognised, however, that the universal declaration would not create legally binding obligations. Therefore, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights undertook the drafting of two legally binding instruments—one covering civil and political rights, the other dealing with economic, social and cultural rights. The two covenants were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966.
  The international covenant for civil and political rights took effect in the United Kingdom in 1976. Based largely on those contained in the universal declaration of human rights, the covenant puts into legally binding treaty form a wide range of civil and political rights and seeks to meet the problems of protecting those rights in practice. The rights contained in the covenant are comparable to those contained in the European convention on human rights and include the right to life, to liberty and security of the person
  212
  and to freedom of thought, expression, assembly and association. More than 100 countries are now parties to the covenant.
  The principal question that arises from our ratification of the covenant, and that which most clearly separates the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and myself, is the best means of providing for the rights recognised in the covenant in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman believes that the only way to protect human rights in this country is to incorporate an international human rights instrument—like the covenant or the European convention on human rights—into domestic law. The rights and protections afforded to the British people would, he said this evening, be transformed if only such an instrument were entrenched in our constitution.
  As the House well knows, that approach runs counter to the way in which rights and freedoms have been protected in this country over many centuries. The Government do not accept the case of those who argue that the incorporation into domestic law of the broadly drafted propositions of an international instrument would, in practice, clarify and strengthen liberties in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, it would weaken the current position by making the law unclear and uncertain.
  The basis of liberty in this country is the long-established principle that a person is free to do as he wishes unless the law requires otherwise. Under our constitution, unlike that of many other countries, rights and freedoms are the natural possession of the individual, not something conferred by the state. That possession is assumed—it is not dependent on some constitutional device and it can be limited only by a democratic decision of Parliament. An individual seeking to know his rights has only to consult the law to establish what he cannot do; he does not have to consult a constitutional lawyer to find out what he can do.
  If we accepted the view of the hon. Gentleman, we would overturn that principle and weaken the system of parliamentary democracy in this country. The areas of public policy covered by the general principles contained in the international covenant and the European convention have traditionally, and rightly, been the province of Parliament rather than the courts. Where this is necessary, it is for Parliament to enact detailed legislation on matters that affect the rights of the individual. It must have regard to the United Kingdom's obligations under those international instruments to which we are party, but the final decision rests with Parliament.
  Incorporation would transfer this final responsibility to the judiciary, enabling the courts to strike down legislation that had been approved by Parliament. That would not, I believe, be a welcome addition to their present role of interpreting and enforcing specific legislation. The important issue is not the competence or good faith of our judiciary, but whether it is desirable or appropriate for such matters to rest with judges, who are not directly accountable to the public, rather than with democratically elected Members of Parliament. The Government's view remains that it is not.
  Our opposition to incorporation does not, however, affect our continuing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. The lack of such formal provision in the United Kingdom does not detract from our major contribution to the preparation and implementation of instruments such as the international covenant for civil and political rights.

  213
  Article 40 of the covenant requires each state party to submit to the human rights committee established under article 28 a report at regular intervals on the measures adopted to give effect to the rights recognised in the covenant. The United Kingdom submitted a periodic report in 1977, 1984 and 1989; our fourth periodic report is due to reach the United Nations in August this year. A state party is subject to public, oral examination by the human rights committee on each of its reports; the United Kingdom was examined on its third periodic report in 1991.
  The Government value the system of reporting and examination as an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness with which they meet their obligations under the covenant. Each periodic report contains a factual account of the legislation and administrative practice in the country relevant to the articles of the covenant and, collectively, the reports demonstrate the progress that we have made in ensuring that people in the United Kingdom enjoy the rights and protections for which the covenant provides. As with previous reports, copies of the fourth periodic report will, on publication, be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and be made freely available outside Parliament.
  In describing the way in which the United Kingdom meets its covenant obligations, the fourth periodic report will be able to draw on a substantial body of legislative and administrative changes in recent years, which strengthen further the protection given in practice to individual rights and liberties in this country. I should like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the more significant developments.
  Articles 2 and 3 of the covenant require nondiscrimination on grounds of race, gender or other improper grounds in the enjoyment of the rights recognised in the covenant.
  The 1991 census of population was the first to include a question on ethnic origin, and has provided much information on the size and distribution of the ethnic minority population, which will help the Government, local authorities, employers and others to identify inequalities and plan action to overcome them.
  The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the Race Relations (Remedies) Act 1994 amend the Race Relations Act 1976 to strengthen the statutory protection against racial discrimination, while changes to the immigration rules expected to come into force later this year will remove virtually all the sexually discriminatory elements of our immigration control.
  Article 7 prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In order to meet its obligations under this article and under the United Nations and Council of Europe conventions against torture to which we are also party, the Government are keen to ensure that rigorous mechanisms are in place to enable people to lodge any complaint they may have about their treatment in detention.
  So it was that, in April this year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary appointed a prisons ombudsman to consider grievances from prisoners once they had exhausted the internal complaint procedures. In
  214
  February this year, the Scottish prison service introduced a new system for dealing with prisoners' requests and complaints.
  In Northern Ireland in December 1992, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State appointed an independent assessor of military complaints procedures to provide an independent check on the Army's own procedures for dealing with complaints against its personnel serving in the Province.
  In immigration, visiting committees have been appointed at the detention centres where detainees are held for more than a few days, while arrangements have been introduced by all police authorities in England and Wales for members of the public to be appointed as lay visitors to police stations.
  Article 9 deals with the right to liberty and security of the person, and here the further safeguards introduced for those in police detention in Northern Ireland are relevant. The codes of practice for the detention and treatment of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 came into force on 1 January this year.
  Any police officer failing to comply with the codes is liable to disciplinary proceedings. The codes of practice represent a further important safeguard for those detained at the main police offices or holding centres. Other safeguards include the monitoring of all interviews on closed-circuit television and the appointment in December 1992 of an independent commissioner for the holding centres to observe and report on the conditions in which detainees are held.
  Article 10 addresses the treatment of prisoners. Here we shall refer to the openness of the new parole system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Prisoners will receive a copy of their parole dossier, be interviewed by a member of the parole board and given reasons for their parole decision. We shall also be able to report on the new system for dealing with life sentence prisoners and on the development of sentence planning and through care in the prison service.
  Article 13 concerns the expulsion of aliens, and a development of particular note, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which came into force in July last year. The Act provides for accelerated and streamlined asylum procedures to ensure that unfounded asylum applications are dealt with expeditiously and with finality, while genuine refugees continue to be protected.
  One of the main provisions introduced by the 1993 Act is an in-country right of appeal—with an oral hearing before an independent special adjudicator—for all refused asylum applicants, regardless of their immigration status. Together with other important safeguards contained in the Act, that represents a considerable strengthening of the rights of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
  Other developments relevant to our covenant obligations include the provision of the Education Act 1993 for the establishment of grant-maintained schools of a religious character, which falls under article 18, on freedom of religion; the implementantion of the Children Act 1989 and the United Kingdom's ratification of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which are relevant to article 24, on children's rights; and the Welsh Language Act 1993, which, in accordance with the cultural rights

  215
  conferred by article 27, further promotes and facilitates the use of the Welsh language—even if that does not extend to the Chamber of the House of Commons.
  A further provision—to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has referred before—is the first optional protocol to the covenant, which recognises the competence of the human rights committee to receive and consider communications from individuals who claim that their rights under the covenant have been violated.
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, the United Kingdom has not ratified that optional protocol because, since 1966, an adequate and effective means of redress has been available to individuals in the United Kingdom through the procedures and institutions established under the European convention on human rights. The hon. Gentleman and I have debated that in the House on other occasions.
  The protection afforded by that machinery is now familiar and well used. The Government do not believe that the position of people in this country would be significantly enhanced by the ratification of the optional protocol. The United Kingdom has signed the 11th protocol to the European convention, which, among other things, makes mandatory and permanent the right of individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for giving way with his usual courtesy.
  216
  If it is appropriate for an individual's human rights to be heard before a court in Strasbourg before German, Italian and French judges, why may they not be heard in a domestic court before a British judge?
  Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, even Joe Hardstaff used to come out for a second innings from time to time. The hon. Gentleman either has not been listening, or has missed the point of what I have been saying for the past 15 minutes or so. If he reads Hansard, he will see that it is absolutely clear. He and I have fundamentally different approaches. I have set out my view, and because of the lateness of the hour, I do not intend to repeat all that I have said.
  I have demonstrated the United Kingdom's commitment to its obligations and responsibilities under the international covenant. They are to be seen in the legislation that we have enacted—which I have just listed—and the administrative reforms that we have instituted, some of which I have mentioned. They reflect the practical rather than philosophical approach to human rights that we have always taken in this country. That brings me to the point to which the hon. Gentleman has just alluded.
  We are less concerned with fine-sounding constitutional provisions than with ensuring that, in reality, the rights and freedoms of the people in the United Kingdom are fully in accordance with our international obligations. The Government look forward to continued progress in this regard, within the framework provided by the covenant.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Carpets
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the cost to the Palace of Westminster of the new carpet which was put down during the spring recess in the Cloisters offices and other places; why it was necessary to replace the existing carpet; how long it had been there; what was the cost of replacement; what happened to the old carpet; and if he will make a statement on carpet replacement in the Palace of Westminster and on the estate.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The programme of planned maintenance and replacement of carpets in the Palace of Westminster is the responsibility of the Director of Works and is determined by their condition and the need to maintain adequate standards of safety. The replacement of the carpet in the Cloisters was two years overdue. Expenditure for the carpet replacement programme is included in the annual and 10-year rolling programmes of works which are considered by the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Finance and Services Committee before being submitted for approval by the Commission.

EDUCATION

  Museums Schools Services
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether OFSTED, the Office of Standards in Education, will continue to publish thrice-yearly reports on museums schools services as formerly issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the new independent Office of Standards in Education. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Fees and Awards
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether spouses of European Economic Area nationals living and working in the United Kingdom who are not themselves nationals of a member state are entitled to home fee status under the provisions of the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1983.

  Mr. Boswell
  No. The regulations do, however, extend home fees status to EC nationals and EEA migrant workers, and the children of both, living in the EEA for three years immediately prior to the start of a course. Dependants of EEA nationals living and working in the United Kingdom, who are not themselves EEA nationals,66
  can qualify for home fee status by a period of three years residence in the United Kingdom immediately prior to the start of a course.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the children of Turkish workers legally employed in the United Kingdom are admitted to courses of general education, apprenticeship and vocational training under the same educational entry qualifications as children of nationals of the European Union member states; and that they benefit from the advantages provided for under national legislation in this area as required by Association Council decision 1180, article 10 of the Turkey/EC association agreement and additional protocol; and that such children are not required to pay overseas student fees.

  Mr. Boswell
  None. However, the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1983 provide home fee status to anyone, regardless of nationality, attending further and higher education institutions if they have been resident within the United Kingdom for three years immediately prior to the start of the course, other than for the purpose of receiving full-time education. The children of Turkish workers legally employed in the United Kingdom for such a period therefore automatically receive entitlement to home fee status.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which local education authorities have been written to on an individual basis by his Department about the nature and content of information being provided by the local education authority to parents on the question of grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has written within the last 20 months to the following local education authorities about the nature and content of information that they have circulated to parents and governors on the question of grant-maintained status:

  Avon

  Lancashire

  Barnet

  Leicestershire

  Berkshire

  Lewisham

  Birmingham

  Liverpool

  Bolton

  Merton

  Bradford

  Newcastle

  Cleveland

  Northamptonshire

  Cornwall

  Northumberland

  Cumbria

  North Tyneside

  Derbyshire

  North Yorkshire

  Durham

  Nottinghamshire

  East Sussex

  Salford

  Essex

  Sheffield

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Somerset

  Havering

  Staffordshire

  Humberside

  Surrey

  Kent

  Wiltshire

  Knowsley

  Wirral

  Lambeth

  Several have been written to on more than one occasion.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many ballots for grant-maintained status, and in respect of which schools, have been declared void as a consequence of misleading information being circulated to parents.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  One ballot for grant-maintained status has been declared void on the grounds that voting in
  67
  the ballot is likely to have been influenced to a significant extent by misleading information. The school in question is Christ Church middle school in Staffordshire.

  Ballots may be voided on these grounds under section 31 of the Education Act 1993, which came into effect for ballots initiated on or after 1 January 1994.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the outcome of the complaints about his Department's advertising campaign on grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Patten
  The Advertising Standards Authority last week published its conclusions that these advertisements were not misleading and that they in no way breached the authority's code of practice.

  I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor General has also examined the advertising as part of his normal audit and found that the Department had followed all the established conventions about Government publicity, that Ministers had agreed the detailed content of the advertisements and that they had been properly briefed on the conventions.

  The Department's campaign has therefore now been given a clean bill of health on all counts.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Addiction
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were identified as drug addicts in each year since 1979, by drug of addiction.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1988 to 1992 on children notified as drug addicts is in the table. Information for 1987 is not readily available and information for earlier years is not available on a comparable basis.

  All drug addicts aged under 21 notified to the Home Office during the year by type of drug to which addiction was reported12 and year

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  1988

  Age group

  Type of drug

  Under 16

  16

  17

  18–20

  Total under 21

  Heroin

  10

  52

  152

  1,214

  1,428

  Methadone

  0

  3

  8

  113

  124

  Dipipanone

  0

  1

  2

  29

  32

  Cocaine

  0

  4

  19

  103

  126

  Morphine

  0

  2

  3

  44

  49

  Pethidine

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Dextromoramide

  0

  0

  2

  13

  15

  Levorphanol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydrocodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxycodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Phenazocine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Piritramide

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydromorphone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Opium

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  All addicts

  10

  56

  169

  1,312

  1,547

  of which

  0

  3

  23

  458

  484

  renotified

  1As an addict can be reported as addicted to more than one notifiable drug the figures for individual drugs cannot be added together to produce totals.

  2At time of last notification in the year.

  68

  All drug addicts aged under 21 notified to the Home Office during the year by type of drug to which addiction was reported12 and year

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  1989

  Age group

  Type of drug

  Under 16

  16

  17

  18–20

  Total under 21

  Heroin

  9

  32

  119

  1,153

  1,313

  Methadone

  1

  4

  8

  89

  102

  Dipipanone

  0

  0

  2

  25

  27

  Cocaine

  3

  4

  18

  96

  121

  Morphine

  1

  0

  2

  45

  48

  Pethidine

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dextromoramide

  0

  0

  0

  13

  13

  Levorphanol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydrocodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxycodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Phenazocine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Piritramide

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydromorphone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Opium

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All addicts

  13

  36

  135

  1,259

  1,443

  of which;

  0

  6

  24

  431

  461

  renotified

  1As an addict can be reported as addicted to more than one notifiable drug the figures for individual drugs cannot be added together to produce totals.

  2At time of last notification in the year.

  All drug addicts aged under 21 notified to the Home Office during the year by type of drug to which addiction was reported12 and year

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  1990

  Age group

  Type of drug

  Under 16

  16

  17

  18–20

  Total under 21

  Heroin

  8

  33

  133

  1,280

  1,454

  Methadone

  2

  7

  19

  250

  278

  Dipipanone

  1

  0

  1

  26

  28

  Cocaine

  2

  3

  26

  148

  179

  Morphine

  0

  3

  1

  31

  35

  Pethidine

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dextromoramide

  0

  0

  1

  11

  12

  Levorphanol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydrocodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxycodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Phenazocine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Piritramide

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydromorphone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Opium

  0

  0

  2

  14

  16

  All addicts

  11

  39

  163

  1,482

  1,695

  of which;

  1

  8

  19

  489

  517

  renotified

  1As an addict can be reported as addicted to more than one notifiable drug the figures for individual drugs cannot be added together to produce totals.

  2At time of last notification in the year.

  All drug addicts aged under 21 notified to the Home Office during the year by type of drug to which addiction was reported12 and year—continued

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  1991

  Age group

  Type of drug

  Under 16

  16

  17

  18–20

  Total under 21

  Heroin

  13

  43

  129

  1,235

  1,420

  Methadone

  5

  7

  30

  406

  448

  Dipipanone

  0

  0

  2

  30

  32

  69

  1991

  Age group

  Type of drug

  Under 16

  16

  17

  18–20

  Total under 21

  Cocaine

  2

  7

  13

  155

  177

  Morphine

  0

  1

  4

  27

  32

  Pethidine

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Dextromoramide

  0

  0

  2

  7

  9

  Levorphanol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydrocodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxycodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Phenazocine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Piritramide

  o

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydromorphone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Opium

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  All addicts

  16

  50

  155

  1,534

  1,755

  of which;

  3

  2

  26

  499

  530

  renotified

  1As an addict can be reported as addicted to more than one notifiable drug the figures for individual drugs cannot be added together to produce totals.

  2At time of last notification in the year.

  All drug addicts aged under 21 notified to the Home Office during the year by type of drug to which addiction was reported12 and year—continued

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  1992

  Age group

  Type of drug

  Under 16

  16

  17

  18–20

  Total under 21

  Heroin

  12

  66

  174

  1,544

  1,796

  Methadone

  2

  20

  53

  501

  576

  Dipipanone

  1

  1

  5

  20

  27

  Cocaine

  1

  4

  34

  187

  226

  Morphine

  0

  1

  3

  14

  18

  Pethidine

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dextromoramide

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Levorphanol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydrocodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxycodone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Phenazocine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Piritramide

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hydromorphone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Opium

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  All addicts

  14

  82

  229

  1,900

  2,225

  of which;

  0

  5

  28

  494

  527

  renotified

  1As an addict can be reported as addicted to more than one notifiable drug the figures for individual drugs cannot be added together to produce totals.

  2At time of last notification in the year.

  Number of persons cautioned and prosecuted for offences of begging and sleeping out under the Vagrancy Act 1824 by area 1988 to 1992

  Begging

  Sleeping out

  Area/Year

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Metropolitan Police District

  1988

  156

  500

  10

  12

  1989

  207

  1,251

  —

  12

  1990

  297

  1,447

  1

  12

  1991

  457

  1,486

  —

  5

  1992

  848

  1,029

  1

  5

  70
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual general practitioners provided notification of drug addiction in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), then the Minister of State, Home Office gave her on 12 February 1993,Official Report, column 827. The figure given in that reply, which related to 1991, was obtained during a special study undertaken for another purpose, and information relating to the number of individual general practitioners who have provided notifications for each year since 1979 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total number of individuals notified as drug addicts in each year since 1979, by drug of addiction.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is published in tables 1 and 2 of the following Home Office statistical bulletins—issue 7/90, "Statistics of the Misuse of Drugs: Addicts Notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1989", and issue 15/93, "Statistics of Drug Addicts Notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1992". Copies of these publications are in the Library. These provide information on new addicts annually since 1979. Information on renotified addicts is only available from 1987.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of doctors in each year since 1979 who may prescribe diamorphine for drug addiction purposes.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ninety doctors are currently licensed by the Home Office to prescribe diamorphine for the treatment of drug addiction. Details of the numbers licensed in previous years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rough sleepers have been(a) arrested, (b) cautioned and (c) prosecuted for begging in the Metropolitan police area for each of the last five years, and in 1994 to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected centrally on the residential status of persons arrested, cautioned and brought before the magistrates courts in England and Wales.

  The table shows the number of persons cautioned and prosecuted for offences of begging and sleeping out by area from 1988 to 1992. Data for 1993 onwards are not yet available. Arrests data are not collected centrally for these specific offences.
  71

  Begging

  Sleeping out

  Area/Year

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  City of London

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  5

  5

  —

  —

  1990

  6

  3

  —

  1

  1991

  9

  11

  —

  —

  1992

  5

  5

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  1988

  164

  573

  13

  17

  1989

  220

  1,402

  —

  24

  1990

  325

  1,640

  4

  29

  1991

  540

  1,839

  8

  20

  1992

  1,016

  1,425

  2

  14

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are given to the Metropolitan police for dealing with beggars; what changes he has made to them recently; and what proposals he has for changing them.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Maclean
  As a measure of protective security, staff are instructed to keep the perimeters of buildings clear. No specific instructions are given to the security staff about those sleeping rough or begging. No problems have been experienced in either category within the past three months.

  Firearms
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving guns there have been in each year since and including 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures of notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which can be found in the Library—lastest edition, 1992, Cm 2410, table 3.1. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Police Staffing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his plans to make chief constables responsible for their own establishments; if he will continue to give substantive answers to questions from hon. Members regarding police staffing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The representations which we have received about the proposed changes to the police funding system have favoured dispensing with central controls on police force establishments.

  One of the changes, which is proposed by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, is that the Home Secretary will no
  72
  longer be responsible for approving police force establishment. The present system of detailed monthly returns will, therefore, no longer be needed for that purpose. Consequently, I propose to discontinue that requirement on police forces as from April 1995.

  Certain items of information will be needed for financial planning purposes, and we are at present considering the minimum level of data which will be sought from forces. This is unlikely to be asked for more frequently than twice a year.

  Under the proposed new arrangements, the number and mix of staff in police forces will be the responsibility of local police authorities. Home Office Ministers will continue to give substantive replies to questions from hon. Members about staffing numbers based on the latest available data.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) serving police officers, (b) civilian staff assisting the police and (c) crimes there were in the latest available three years for each police authority in Wales, for Wales as a whole and for England; and what was the ratio of crimes to police officers in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is in the table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police and police and civilian strength

  Police force area

  Serving police officers

  Civilian staff

  Recorded Offences

  offences per police officer

  1991

  Dyfed-Powys

  944

  270·0

  25,970

  28

  Gwent

  995

  332·0

  38,673

  39

  North Wales

  1,343

  476·0

  44,418

  33

  South Wales

  3,142

  1,162·0

  161,977

  52

  Wales

  6,424

  2,240·0

  271,038

  42

  England

  118,642

  49,714·0

  5,005,135

  42

  1992

  Dyfed-Powys

  960

  292·0

  28,539

  30

  Gwent

  1,000

  347·0

  40,961

  41

  North Wales

  1,356

  505·0

  49,204

  36

  South Wales

  3,164

  1,194·0

  168,554

  53

  Wales

  6,480

  2,338·0

  287,258

  44

  England

  119,399

  51,898·0

  5,304,459

  44

  1993

  Dyfed-Powys

  966

  303·0

  24,743

  26

  Gwent

  989

  348·5

  400,008

  40

  North Wales

  1,341

  511·5

  48,102

  36

  South Wales

  3,142

  1,286·5

  166,165

  53

  Wales

  6,438

  2,449·5

  279,018

  43

  England

  119,100

  52,722·5

  5,251,340

  44

  Criminal Justice
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will publish the 1993 report on race and the criminal justice system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991;

  (2) when he will publish the 1993 report on costs of the criminal justice system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991;

  (3) when he will publish the 1993 report on gender and the criminal justice system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend's responsibility under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is in each year to publish information as he considers expedient to assist persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice to avoid discrimination—whether on the basis of race, gender or any other improper grounds—and to enable them to be aware of the financial implications of their decisions. Information about race and gender issues was published in 1992, and information on costs in 1993. This year we have published a paper on gender; and a larger publication dealing with race will be published in July.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to ensure that its treatment of asylum seekers does not breach article 5 of the European convention on human rights and article 9 of the international covenant on civil and political rights.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I am satisfied that the proper detention of people in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971 does not breach the United Kingdom's obligations under those articles.

  Special Police Protection
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the funding arrangements for police protection of special households; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The introduction of cash limits on police funding from April 1995 will necessitate the use of a new formula for allocating funding to police forces. This formula is currently under construction. Special account will need to be taken, within the formula, of security issues, including the need to protect special households. The enactment of clause 15 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill will ensure that no payments will be made under the new arrangements until Parliament has approved a report setting out the considerations behind the grant allocation.

  Betting and Gaming
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to relax the present advertising restrictions for bingo halls to allow advertising(a) in newspapers, (b) on the radio, (c) on television, (d) on bill boards and (e) through local signage, other than that presently permitted to a certain distance from the halls themselves;
  74
  (2) what plans he has to abolish the requirement for 24-hour advance membership of bingo halls.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that these matters are the subject of discussions between the Bingo Association of Great Britain and the Gaming Board for Great Britain. I will await the outcome of those discussions before considering proposals for relaxation of the restrictions.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring forward proposals to allow payment of prizes up to the current £6 limit from amusement-with-prizes machines to be made in cash, rather than replayable tokens, in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This matter is under review.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relax the restrictions on siting amusement-with-prizes machines in betting shops, pubs, casinos and private clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are reviewing current policy on siting of amusement-with-prizes machines in betting shops. The outcome of the review will be made known once a decision is reached. Changes to primary legislation would be required.

  These machines are already sited widely in public houses and other premises. Casinos and members' clubs are eligible for two jackpot gaming machines.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the suitability of the present £6 limit for amusement-with-prizes machines in relation to the level of prize payments from society lottery scratch cards; and what plans he has to increase the pay-out limit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Amusement-with-prizes machines are intended to provide amusement as opposed to a form of gambling for significant amounts of money and are not analogous to society lottery scratch cards. The limits for machines are, however, kept under review.

  Parking Enforcement
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Metropolitan police have taken to ensure that there will be a single telephone number for inquiries regarding clamped or towed-away cars after the contract for this service expires in September 1994 ; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that the Metropolitan police and the Parking Committee for London, which acts as a co-ordinating body for the new parking enforcement work of the London boroughs, have discussed the unification of the boroughs' computerised public inquiry service, dealing with vehicle removals and clamping, and the similar inquiry service provided by the police.

  It is expected that a single system, with one inquiry point for motorists whose vehicles have been clamped or removed in London, will be provided by October 1994. Meanwhile, from 4 July 1994, arrangements involving the exchange of computer terminals will make it possible for the inquiry centre which is telephoned first to provide a full service to all callers.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to the Metropolitan police for the protection of General Pinochet during his recent visit; and if he will call for reports from other police forces.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 17 March,Official Report, column 781.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what immigration procedures were adopted in respect of the recent visit to Britain of General Pinochet.

  Date

  Location

  (a) Connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland

  14 December 1993

  Railway line near Woking station

  Small device exploded on railway line. Slight damage to line. No injuries.

  16 December 1993

  Railway line near Brookwood and Farnborough stations

  Two devices discovered. Disrupted by controlled explosion.

  20 December 1993

  King Edward Buildings, Sorting Office, London, ECI

  Postal device discovered. Made safe. No damage no injuries

  Travellers Tavern, Elizabeth Street, Victoria, London, SW1

  Six devices discovered in a holdall. No injuries. At least one ignited. Minor damage.

  Mount Pleasant Sorting Office, Rosebury Avenue, London, EC1

  Package ignited. No injuries. Minor damage.

  Northfields Tube Station, Ealing, London, W13

  Small device ignited in a litter bin. No significant damage. No injuries.

  27 January 1994

  C&A, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage.

  Mothercare, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage.

  Silverdale Travel Goods, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Incendiary device ignited; some damage.

  28 January 1994

  C&A, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage.

  Mothercare, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Incendiary device made safe.

  29 January 1994

  Nightingales, Oxford Street, London, W1

  One incendiary device ignited and another made safe; little damage.

  18 February 1994

  Record shop, 157 Charing Cross Road, London, WC2

  Incendiary device discovered and made safe.

  19 February 1994

  Record Shop, 157 Charing Cross Road, London, WC2

  Very small high explosive device exploded; minor damage. Incendiary device made safe on previous day

  Top Shop, Oxford Circus, London, W1

  Two incendiary devices ignited; little damage.

  Hennes, Oxford Circus, London, W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage.

  Newsagents, Great Cumberland Place, London, W1

  Incendiary device ignited destroying shop.

  Burtons, New Oxford Street, London, WC1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage.

  Burtons, Regent Street, London, W1

  Incendiary device ignited and very small HE device detonated; little damage.

  Liberty's, Regent Street, London W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage.

  Mister Byrite, Oxford Circus, London, W1

  Incendiary device made safe.

  22 February 1994

  Mr. Handy, Edgware Road, London, W2

  Incendiary device made safe (left over from above series).

  9 March 1994

  Heathrow Airport, London

  Four mortars launched from a car parked at the Excelsior Hotel, landing on or near the northern runway. None exploded and there was no damage.

  76
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  General Pinochet was admitted to the United Kingdom as a visitor in accordance with the immigration rules.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) of 21 January,Official Report, columns 909–18, if he will list the incidents of terrorist activity in Great Britain since 4 November attributable to groups (a) connected with Northern Ireland and (b) not connected with Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As previously, the list classifies acts of terrorism according to the definitions in section 14(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
  77

  Date

  Location

  11 March 1994

  Heathrow Airport, London

  Four mortars launched from waste ground, landing on an aircraft parking area near Terminal Four. None exploded and there was no damage.

  13 March 1994

  Heathrow Airport, London

  Five mortars launched from waste ground, landing in the vicinity of Terminal Four. None exploded and there was no damage.

  15 March 1994

  Railway line near Sevenoaks, Kent

  Explosive device discovered. Believed to be left over from the series of attacks in December but had failed to detonate.

  21 March 1994

  Railway line, Orpington, Kent

  Timer of explosive device discovered. Believed to be left over from series of attacks in December but had failed to detonate.

  12 May 1994

  MGM cinema, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Incendiary device found. Device had mal-functioned and is believed to have been one of a series of devices planted in West End cinemas in 1991.

  6 June 1994

  Sevenoaks railway station, Kent

  Device made safe in controlled explosion.

  10 June 1994

  Liberty's, Oxford Street, London, WI

  Two incendiary devices discovered and made safe.

  11 June 1994

  Mr. Byrite's, Oxford Street, London, WI

  Incendiary device ignited causing little damage. A further device had failed to detonate.

  13 June 1994

  Railway line, one mile from Stevenage station

  Device exploded on embankment by railway line. Little damage.

  (b) Other acts of terrorism

  4 November 1993

  Turkish Embassy, Belgrave Square, London

  Petrol bombs thrown. Minor damage. No injuries.

  Turkish Airlines Office, London

  Petrol bombs thrown. No injuries.

  London Islamic Turkish Association Centre, London, N16

  Petrol bombs thrown. Extensive fire damage. No injuries.

  British Telecom Office (wrongly identified as T C Zjraat Bank), London, EC2

  Bricks and Petrol bombs thrown Minor injuries to five BT employees.

  Sabanci Turkish Bank, London, EC2

  Petrol bombs thrown. Minor damage. Member of public injured.

  Rural Crime
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received on the number of volunteer foot patrols, backed by local police forces, which are operating in response to the increase in rural crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Following my announcement at the national neighbourhood watch conference in December, there has been considerable interest in the idea of volunteer foot patrols. Helpful discussions have been taking place with the police on this matter. It is essential that any patrolling should be supported by the local police and carefully monitored. Some examples of good practice already exist for voluntary patrolling. In respect of rural crime prevention, I have been delighted with the enthusiasm with which both police and public have greeted the parish constables initiative. There are now more than 60 schemes in operation around the country.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines or instructions currently exist for the treatment and medical care of prisoners with epilepsy.

  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. Elliot Morley, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the guidelines or instructions which currently exist for the treatment and medical care of prisoners with epilepsy.
  At reception every prisoner is asked if they suffer from fits or epilepsy. If they do, enquiries are made about the nature of the treatment they are receiving. Further investigation may be required to see whether there is supportive evidence, as found in an electroencephalogram, or whether other conditions which can mimic epilepsy can be excluded from the diagnosis.
  The prison doctor would then decide whether working conditions which could prove dangerous to a epilepsy sufferer,

  79
  such as working with machinery at heights or driving, should preclude a sufferer from working in these conditions. Medical instructions are issued accordingly.
  The training of all doctors and nurses includes the treatment and management of epilepsy. The induction training of all prison officers, includes training specifically aimed at the recognition of the symptoms of an epileptic episode, together with training in the appropriate first aid response.
  In our plans for continuing medical education of prison health care staff, the management of epilepsy is to be given high priority.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have died as a result of epilepsy in each prison service establishment in each year since 1984.

  Establishment

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brixton

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coldingley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidstone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Stafford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners were held in establishments where prisoners were unlocked for a total of at least 12 hours on weekdays, on the last day of each month since April 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about what percentage of prisoners are held in establishments where prisoners were unlocked for a total of at least 12 hours on weekdays on the last day of each month since April 1992.
  This information has only been collected since June 1993. The available information is as follows:

  Month

  Percentage of prisoners held in establishments where prisoners were unlocked for 12 hours or more on weekdays Per cent.

  1993

  June

  22

  July

  22

  August

  23

  September

  23

  October

  23

  November

  24

  December

  24

  1994

  January

  26

  February

  27

  80
  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. Elliot Morley, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary had asked me to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of prisoners who have died as a result of epilepsy in each Prison Service establishment in each year since 1984.
  The attached table gives details of the number of those prisoners whose death has been medically attributed to epilepsy or effects related to that medical condition. The most recent death in custody which was certified to be epilepsy-related occurred in 1992.

  Month

  Percentage of prisoners held in establishments where prisoners were unlocked for 12 hours or more on weekdays Per cent.

  March

  29

  April

  31

  May

  32

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of hours per week which prisoners spend in purposeful activity, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average number of hours per week which prisoners spend in purposeful activity, at the latest available date.
  In May 1994, prisoners spent an average of 26.06 hours per week in purposeful activity.

  Prison Catering
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the facility provided by ARA caterers in each of the prisons where they are operating; and what are the comparable costs of catering provided by public employees compared with contractors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  81
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of the facility provided by ARA caterers in each of the prisons where they are operating and about the comparable costs of catering provided by public employees compared with contractors.
  ARA provide a contracted catering service at Woodhill and Bullingdon. The costs of these contracts are not disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Group 4, who subcontract to ARA, provide a service at Wolds Remand Prison, the cost of which is included in the operating fee payable to the contractor.
  The average costs of contractors to provide catering in the eight establishments (apart from Wolds) where catering is contracted out is £552 per inmate place per year. Costs are not available on a comparable basis for establishments where the service is provided by public employees, that is, prison officers and/or civilians, but the average staff cost in such establishments is £369 per inmate place per year. This excludes all overhead costs, at establishment and national level, including administration, supply and training. These costs do not include food, for which both contractors and public sector caterers are given the same minimum allowance.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what restrictions on the use and unfurling of banners in Hyde park have been imposed in respect of the March for Jesus on 25 June; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 15 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your question about what restrictions have been imposed on the use and unfurling of banners at the March for Jesus in Hyde Park on 25 June.
  We have asked the organisers that the majority of banners are furled on entering the Park and placards are deposited at convenient points, to be collected by their owners at the end of the event. The organisers have agreed, as they did on each of the previous occasions they have used the Park.
  This is a standard condition that applies to all rallies and other assemblies in the Royal Parks including, for instance, the miners' rally in Hyde Park in October 1992. It is intended to reduce the risk to those taking part from large numbers of often quite excited people waving wooden poles around. It also prevents a lot of litter, as most placards are rather flimsy and are abandoned in the park at the end of the rally.
  We have agreed that that they may display a selection of international flags at the entrance to the Park. We have allowed them to bring the main banner with the title of the rally into the Park, and also individual church or geographical banners to help people identify the location of their group.

  Naval Firing Range, Dodman Point
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether his Department has been consulted by the Ministry of Defence over the possible siting of a naval firing range off Dodman point in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: My Department has not been consulted on this matter. I know,
  82
  however, that, in making his decision, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will take into account the possible implications for the local tourism and leisure sectors upon which the Cornwall economy so much depends.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Illegal Radio Operators
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the fees charged to short-wave radio users for detection of sources of interference from illegal radio operators, total revenue from such fees in the most recent convenient year, and the extent to which such fees cover the cost of such detection.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No separate fee is charged for the detection of illegal radio operation. The cost of this work is covered in the licence fees charged to licensed users. Details of current licence fees for all categories of licensed users are in the Wireless Telegraphy (Licence Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, No. 659, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 30 May.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council confirmed in principle the common position on the draft open network provision —ONP—voice telephony directive that it had adopted on 30 June 1993, following the failure of the conciliation procedure with the European Parliament, adopting none of the amendments to the common position proposed by the European Parliament. There was no general agreement on the two proposed decisions on trans-European networks for integrated services digital networks—TEN-ISDN —which will be considered further by the Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER. The Council adopted conclusions on the Commission's fourth annual report on the implementation of Euro-ISDN and a resolution on the co-ordination of activity on interchange of data between Administrations—IDA. A number of problems remained unresolved on the proposed decision on IDA, particularly on costs, finance, the list of projects and the committee structure. The decision was referred back to COREPER for further discussion.

  Commissioner Bangemann reported orally on the work of his group of "prominent persons" on information infrastructure. The report of the group will be published shortly and will emphasise the importance of increased competition in telecommunications as well as the need for market-led investment from private sources, rather than new Community funding. The report will be presented to the European Council in Corfu on 24–26 June, possibly with specific recommendations from the Commission.

  The Council agreed conclusions setting out the next steps on standards for advanced television and invited the Commission to draft an article on conditional access for pay television to be included in a draft directive on standards. The text of a draft Council resolution on development of digital broadcasting was agreed. The Commission made brief presentations on the Green Paper on mobile and personal communications and the draft

  83
  directives on mutual recognition of telecommunications and satellite licences. There was a short debate on postal services; the Commission noted that further work was needed on the development of a European terminal dues system which should ideally be completed in advance of the forthcoming Universal Postal Union conference in Seoul in the autumn. The Commission undertook to use its good offices to assist in this process and also reaffirmed its commitment to produce proposals on universal service, reserved services and technical standards in line with the February 1994 Council resolution.

  No formal votes were taken at the Council.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in establishing the Coal Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  I intend to appoint Sir David White as chairman of the Coal Authority, subject to Parliament's enacting the Coal Industry Bill. In the meantime, Sir David will advise my Department on the establishment of the authority and its policy. Sir David will give up his current appointment as a part-time member of British Coal.

  The Government gave a commitment in their coal review White Paper that the headquarters of the Coal Authority would be located in Nottinghamshire. I am now able to announce the initial accommodation arrangements being made for the authority pending its own consideration of longer-term arrangements. The authority's headquarters will be located at 200 Lichfield lane, Berry Hill, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, which British Coal Opencast will also continue to use for the time being. The Authority will additionally take over British Coal's abandoned mine plans facility at Bretby in Staffordshire, and co-locate certain associated functions.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had on the future of the Coal Research Establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The future of the Coal Research Establishment is a matter for British Coal.

  British Coal announced on 15 June that a new company, CRE Group Ltd., comprising CRE's technical and consultancy services together with CRE's laboratory-scale research and development activities, will be offered for sale later in the year. CRE's large-scale R and D activities will be retained within British Coal.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings, hospitality or protection was offered to General Pinochet during his recent visit to Britain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department offered no meetings, hospitality or protection.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultations he has had with(a) his colleagues in other Government Departments, (b) the fire service and (c) the Fire Brigades Union on the scrutiny report on the fire service; and when he intends to make an announcement regarding the report;
  84
  (2) what decisions he has made regarding the scrutiny report on the deregulation of the fire service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The fire safety review team has completed its work and its report has been submitted to the Government. Ministers are now considering the report and the question of its publication. No decisions have been taken on it, nor have any consultations begun with interested parties outside Government. But the Government have made it consistently clear that they are committed to full consultation with interested parties before any changes in the existing arrangements are made.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to amend the Lloyd's Act 1982 so that members of Lloyd's have a right to sue the committee of Lloyd's.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the commitments to restrict trade in toxic wastes made under the Basle convention will be allowable under the Uruguay round world trade accords.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom's ability to discharge its obligations under the Basle convention will not be affected by the results of the Uruguay round.

  Metric Conversion
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what timetable exists for the completion of metric conversion;

  (2) when the exercise on (a) metric conversion and (b) metric conversion with regard to distance measurement is expected to be completed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government intend to bring forward legislation to implement the units of measurement directive before the summer recess. This legislation will include dates for converting to metric where conversion is required. However, it will allow the continued use of the mile, yard, foot and inch for road traffic signs, distance and speed measurement as permitted by the directive.

  Post Office
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action will be taken in any change of status of the Post Office to protect the current facility for posting articles for the blind.

  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 it clear that, under any option, the Royal Mail will be required to continue to offer this valued service.

  Tour Operators
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the regulations of tour operator companies in order to protect the finances and holidays of their customers; and if he will make a statement.
  85
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: I have no such plans. Customer pre-payments for package holidays are already protected by the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992.

EMPLOYMENT

  Voluntary Unemployment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the London area are currently considered by the Government to be voluntarily unemployed; and by how much this figure has increased over the last 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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. Michael Forsyth
  No problems have been reported with either category in the past three months.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding the eligibility of disabled people to become members of industrial tribunals; what records are kept of the number of disabled people who are members of industrial tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We welcome applications for appointment from all sections of the community, including disabled people, and the information published by the Department on the appointment arrangements makes this clear. Records are not kept of the numbers of lay members who are disabled.

PRIME MINISTER

  Developing Nations
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the assistance that his Government provide to developing nations.

  The Prime Minister
  With the sixth largest aid programme, we make a substantial contribution to the international effort to promote sustainable economic and social development in developing countries.

  MI6 (Cleaners)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about cleaners working at MI6.

  The Prime Minister
  The contract which has been let for office cleaning services at the new security intelligence service headquarters at Vauxhall cross provides for a more flexible service at a substantial saving to public funds.
  86
  I regret that staff have had to be made redundant, but the procedures followed were fair and complied fully with the requirements of both domestic and European employment legislation. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations do not apply in this case.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria are used to assess how many special advisers are attached to each Government Department; what are the criteria of evaluation which are applied when determining appropriate grades and salaries; how these posts are advertised; what interviewing and staff selection procedures are applied in choosing the most suitable candidate for each post; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Special adviser appointments are made personally by Ministers, subject to my approval. There is normally a limit of one political adviser for each Cabinet Minister. There is no formal limit on the numbers of expert special advisers, which are subject to need. Salaries are negotiated individually in relation to the special adviser's previous earnings, and are confidential. Selection procedures are a matter for the appointing Minister.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was his estimated annual cost in 1992 –93 for work by his Office in preparation for Prime Minister's Question Time.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not feasible to separate fully the costs involved.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many written questions were answered by his Office in each of the last three years; and what was the average cost per question.

  The Prime Minister
  Since I became Prime Minister I have answered more than 2,500 written questions. It is not feasible to separate fully the costs involved.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 956, what is his estimate of the timing of the ending of the criminal investigation over Lockerbie.

  The Prime Minister
  The timing of the end of the criminal investigation would be a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but the investigation will naturally remain open while the arrest warrants for those accused of the bombing remain in force.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the validity of the alleged claim made in a trial in Beirut concerning the assassination of a Jordanian diplomat by Youssef Chaabane that he blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

  The Prime Minister
  We remain in contact with the Lebanese authorities on this matter. Our present understanding is that Chaabane mentioned the destruction of Pan Am 103 only in claiming that, in the face of
  87
  interrogation to which he had been subjected on other charges, he would have been willing to confess to anything, even the Lockerbie bombing.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Prime Minister, if further details are available about the job seeker's allowance announced in the Budget statement of 30 November by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The Prime Minister
  Full details of the Government's proposals for job seeker's allowance will be set out in a White Paper to be presented jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Security in the autumn. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the new allowance will be introduced in April 1996.

  Job seeker's allowance will be delivered from jobcentres of the Employment Service of the Employment Department.

  Employment Service staff will be responsible for advice and help on getting back to work and for the application of labour market tests such as availability for work. Financial aspects of the benefit, including calculation and payment, will be the responsibility of staff of the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security, located so far as possible in the same offices.

  These arrangements will provide a comprehensive approach to getting unemployed people back to work including a full range of advice on employment and training and on the range of benefits available to those in work. This will be a significant step towards one-stop delivery of services to people seeking work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Income Support
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many decisions, disallowances and warning letters were issued in respect of actively seeking employment since April 1990; how many income support and unemployment benefit claimants have (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully claimed income support under the hardship rules, showing those whose claim was in doubt due to(a) not actively seeking work, (b) refusing suitable employment and (c) availability for work; and if he will make a statement about the introduction of the job-seeker's allowance in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information which is available shows that, from September 1991 to April 1994, 44 adjudication officer decisions were made on actively seeking work. Information about the numbers of disallowances or warning letters for not actively seeking work and claims to income support under the hardship rules is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced plans to replace unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people with a new job-seeker's allowance in Great Britain in April 1996. The new benefit will be introduced in Northern Ireland according to the same timetable.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of job offers reported by the staff of the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years in categories(a)—(d) is as follows:

  Number

  (a) 1988

  2

  1991

  1

  1992

  1

  (b) 1986

  1

  1989

  2

  1991

  2

  1993

  1

  (c) Nil

  (d) Nil

  All these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current number of cattle aged 30 months or under with enzootic bovine leukosis.

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Enzootic bovine leukosis has never been recorded in Northern Ireland.

  Union Flag (Public Buildings)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether a flag pole has been provided at the college of further education in Armagh city; whether a Union flag has been supplied to these premises; whether the college board of governors has been given advice about the recognised days on which the Union flag is to be flown at public buildings; why the Union flag was not flown at these premises on the official birthday of Her Majesty the Queen; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether a flag pole has been provided at the library of the Southern area education board at Market house, English street, Armagh city; whether a Union flag has been supplied to these premises; whether advice has been given about the recognised days on which the Union flag is flown at public buildings; why the Union flag was not flown on the official birthday of Her Majesty the Queen at these premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  A flag-pole and Union flag have been provided at Armagh college of further education and at the library of the Southern area education board at Market house, English street, Armagh. The requirement to fly the Union flag, on prescribed dates, applies to central Government buildings only.

  Community Work Forces
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) at what locations in the Strangford constituency there are community work forces; within what district each of these work forces operates; how many trainees each of these work forces is authorised to employ; what is the estimated contribution of public funds in the present financial year to each of these community work forces; and if he will make a statement about the Respects of the community work force network in Strangford constituency;

  (2) if he will list the names and locations of each community work force in Northern Ireland, together with the number of trainees authorised for each of these work forces.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Responsibility for the subject matter in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 20 June 1994:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS Nos. 966 AND 967: 16 JUNE 1994
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your questions about Community Workforces in Northern Ireland and within your constituency of Strangford. I have taken your questions to refer to Community workshops which are involved in the delivery of the Youth Training Programme.
  I have attached a list of the names and addresses of all Community Workshops in Northern Ireland along with their current level of occupancy. The Agency does not set an upper limit in regard to the number of trainees. The limit is determined only by the numbers of trainees the workshop can recruit and its capacity to teach them in accordance with the requirements of the programme.
  There is one Community Workshop within your constituency:

  Name

  Location

  Current Occupancy

  North Down Training Organisation

  Balloo Avenue, Bangor

  72

  You also requested details of the estimated contribution of public funds in the present financial year. However, as North Down Training Organisation operates as an independent concern under a Contract of Service with the Training and Employment Agency, I am unable to disclose the financial information
  requested because I am advised that do so would be a breach of confidence.As regards future prospects, the Agency, subject to the necessary approvals, hopes to introduce an integrated training programme in 1995 to deliver both Youth and Adult training. It would be open to all interested training organisations to bid for contracts under the proposed new Jobskills programme.I hope that you find this helpful.

  YTP Community Workshops in Northern Ireland

  Community workshops Name address and telephone number

  Current occupancy

  BELFAST REGION

  Belfast Central Training Ltd.

  121 Donegall Street

  74

  Belfast, BT1 2FJ

  Telephone: 324973

  Chatham House Training & Development Agency

  Chatham House

  28–30 Library Street

  75

  Belfast, BT1 2JB

  Telephone: 238520

  Colinbrook Training Organisation

  Pembroke Loop Road

  Poleglass

  52

  Dunmurry, BT7 0QL

  Telephone: 625551/2

  90

  Community workshops Name address and telephone number

  Current occupancy

  Crumlin Road Opportunities Ltd.

  Ewarts Industrial Estate

  Crumlin Road

  58

  Belfast, BT14 7EA

  Telephone: 753798/755984

  East Side Training Ltd.

  Linenhall Works

  174 Castlereagh Road

  53

  Belfast, BT5 5GX

  Telephone: 450868

  Glenand Training Agency

  Kennedy Way Industrial Estate

  Blackstaff Road

  66

  Belfast, BT11 9DT

  Telephone: 301483

  Key-Tec Training Services Ltd.

  Brookfield Industrial Estate

  983 Crumlin Road

  52

  Belfast, BT14 7EA

  Telephone: 751293

  Limestone Youth Training Project

  Jennymount Industrial Estate

  North Derby Street

  22

  Belfast, BT15 3HN

  Telephone: 756658

  Loughview Training Services

  Old Church Road

  101

  Newtownabbey, BT36 7LU

  Telephone: 866576

  Quest ITEC

  Howard House

  Brunswick Street

  135

  Belfast, BT2 7GE

  Telephone: 238009

  Scala Community Workshop

  129 Springfield Road

  69

  Belfast, BT12 7AF

  Telephone: 246262/245520

  Shankill Community Projects

  Brown Square

  Paters Hill

  56

  Belfast, BT13 2GP

  Telephone: 329931

  Ulidia Training Services

  276–280 Newtownards Road

  79

  Belfast, BT4 1HE

  Telephone: 731030

  Workforce Training Services

  Peter Pan Complex

  90–120 Springfield Road

  130

  Belfast, BT12 7AJ

  Telephone: 247016

  SOUTH EAST REGION

  Clanrye Employment & Training Services

  The Abbey

  Abbey Yard

  3

  Newry, BT34 2EG

  Telephone: (0693) 67121

  North Down Training Organisation

  12 Balloo Avenue

  72

  Bangor, BT18 2QT

  Telephone: (0247) 270945

  Orchard Training Services Ltd.

  63A Park Road

  64

  Portadown BT62 1DS

  Telephone: (0762) 331573

  Southern Group Enterprises

  Unit 22 Greenbank Industrial Estate

  Warrenpoint Road

  2

  Newry, BT34 2PF

  Telephone: (0693) 66924/66925

  WESTERN REGION

  Cookstown Community Training Services Ltd.

  45A James Street

  38

  Cookstown, BT80 8AA

  Telephone: (06487) 61145

  91

  Community workshops Name address and telephone number

  Current occupancy

  CTS Ltd.

  51 Dungannon Road

  52

  Coatisland, BT71 4HP

  Telephone: (08687) 48512

  Derry Youth & Community Workshop

  6 Society Street

  63

  Londonderry, BT46 6PJ

  Telephone: (0504) 268891

  Erne Youth & Community Workshop Ltd.

  Tempo Road

  65

  Enniskillen, BT74 6HR

  Telephone: (0365) 26916

  Maydown ITEC

  c/o Maydown YTP

  Waterside

  32

  Londonderry

  Telephone: (0504) 311005

  Maydown Youth Training Project

  Ebrington Business Centre

  Ebrington Gardens

  71

  Waterside

  Londonderry, BT47 1AA

  Telephone: (0504) 311005

  Omagh Youth & Community Workshop

  1 Castle Street

  34

  Omagh, BT78 1DD

  Telephone: (0662) 246535

  Shantallow Training Services

  118–119 Duncreggan Road

  Pennybum Pass

  63

  Londonderry, BT48 0AB

  Telephone: (0504) 269810

  Strabane Training Services Ltd.

  Ballycolman Industrial Estate

  66

  Strabane, BT62 9AQ

  Telephone: (0504) 382435/382568

  NORTH EAST REGION

  Antrim Placement & Training Services

  Enkalon Business Centre

  25 Randalstown Road

  43

  Antrim, BT41 4LD

  Telephone: (08494) 60932

  Bann Area Training Services Ltd.

  1 Beresford Place

  130

  Coleraine, BT52 1HB

  Telephone: (0265) 52984/53764

  B C W Training Ltd.

  Unit 18

  Leyland Industrial Estate

  21

  Ballycastle, BT54 6EZ

  Telephone: (02657) 62902

  Seven Towers Training Services Ltd.

  2–4 Railway Street

  6

  Ballymena, BT42 2AB

  Telephone: (0256) 44003

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Home Bank (Dredging)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his consultations in relation to sand dredging from Home bank off the Norfolk coast.

  Mr. Jack
  I am aware of no such location. In relation to the National Rivers Authority's application to remove sand from the Race bank, discussions have taken place with 92
  local fishermen and their representatives. Our position was stated on 20 May in response to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), Official Report, col. 609.

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current number of cattle aged 30 months or under with enzootic bovine leukosis.

  Mr. Soames
  As at 15 June 1994 the number of cattle under 30 months of age which were confirmed as reacting positively to the test for enzootic bovine leukosis in England was three. All were from the same herd.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle born after July 1988 were reported by farmers to the MAFF veterinary officers as having BSE; and what percentage were accepted by them as possible BSE cases in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  Information about the age of cattle which are reported to the Ministry as suspect BSE cases, but which are not placed under movement restrictions after being examined by Ministry veterinary officers, is not held centrally. The information requested could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In 1992 and 1993, 2,756 and 8,393 cattle born after 18 July 1988 were placed under movement restrictions, and of these 1,574 and 6,337 were subsequently confirmed by laboratory examination as suffering from BSE. The figures for the two years are not directly comparable, that the number of cattle in the population which were born after 18 July 1988 was greater in 1993 than in 1992.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what EU countries other than the United Kingdom BSE has been found in cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  France, Denmark, Germany, Republic of Ireland, and Portugal have reported one or more cases of BSE.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of money was paid to farmers as compensation for cases of BSE in cattle in each year from 1988; and what amount has been paid so far in the current year.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Compensation £

  1988

  527,142

  1989

  2,826,788

  1990

  9,114,743

  1991

  16,329,348

  1992

  29,211,593

  1993

  38,054,040

  19941

  9,189,290

  Total

  105,252,944

  1As at 31 March 1994

  93
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of cattle accepted as possible BSE cases by MAFF veterinary officers were confirmed histologically to suffer from BSE in each year from 1988 to 1993 and so far in the current year.

  Mr. Soames
  Of those cattle reported to the Ministry as suspect BSE cases and subsequently placed under movement restrictions, the following percentages have been confirmed on post-mortem examination in each year since the disease was made notifiable:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1988

  91·9

  1989

  88·5

  1990

  85·2

  1991

  86·2

  1992

  85·0

  1993

  83·7

  11994

  81·2

  1The 1994 figure is up to 10 June and is affected by the seasonal variation in the diagnostic rate. The percentage of cases which are confirmed on laboratory examination decreases in the spring due to the higher incidence of other seasonal neurological disorders, including listeriosis and metabolic diseases, which cannot always be differentiated from BSE on clinical grounds.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which EU countries operate a system of whole herd slaughter for BSE; and what proposals she has to introduce it to Britain.

  Mr. Soames
  The following EU member states operate or intend to operate such a policy as far as this Ministry is aware:France, Denmark, Germany, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Netherlands (initial cases only), Spain (initial cases only).
  In some cases herd slaughter is encouraged rather than enforced, and may be industry-funded.

  There are no plans to introduce a herd slaughter policy in this country as such a measure is not scientifically justified. All the measures introduced in this country since BSE was identified have been endorsed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

  Beta-Agonists
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will make a statement on her policy towards imports of meat treated with beta-agonists;

  (2) if she will make a statement on her policy in respect of beta-agonists.

  Mr. Soames
  My policy in respect of beta-agonists remains unchanged from that set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 26 October 1993,Official Report, column 562–63.

  Surveillance remains on-going and all the samples of home-produced and imported meat taken in Great Britain during 1993 and to date in 1994, and tested for the presence of beta-agonists, have proved to be negative.
  94
  Summary results of statutory surveillance are published each year in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's annual report, and of non-statutory surveillance by the steering group on chemical aspects of food surveillance as periodic food surveillance papers. In addition, the results of both sampling programmes are published quarterly in the Medicines Act veterinary information service newsletter, published by the VMD. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions are given to security staff in her 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. Jack
  Security staff have responsibilities for protecting the security of their buildings and its occupants. They have written guidance on allowing the entry of authorised persons. If anyone was deemed to be causing an obstruction to entry or exit or blocking an emergency fire exit, appropriate action would be taken, with the assistance of the police if necessary. There have been no reported problems caused by those sleeping rough in doorways or by beggars.

  Calves (Exports)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long is provided for local veterinary inspectors to examine calves for export; what guidelines she has laid down for the number that can be adequately inspected in an hour; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry makes no stipulation on the time that such an examination should take. We uphold high veterinary standards in this country and our certifying veterinarians are expected to be rigorous in checking that the animal health conditions of the importing country are fully met before signing an export certificate. The time taken by a veterinary inspector for an examination also depends on the level of organisation of and degree of assistance provided by the exporter.

  Goosanders
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences have been granted for the killing of goosanders in each of the last two years; in what regions these licences have been granted; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Soames
  Since January 1992 seven licences have been issued for the killing of goosanders. In all cases they were issued to prevent fish predation. The details are as follows:
  95

  Number of licences

  County

  Region

  January-December 1992

  January-December 1993

  January-May 1994

  Cumbria

  Northern

  0

  2

  0

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  South Mercia

  0

  2

  0

  North Yorkshire

  North East

  0

  2

  0

  Lancashire

  Northern

  0

  1

  0

  Sea Defence
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which authorities are responsible for each aspect of flooding, sea defence and drainage; and what plans she has to revise these arrangements.

  Mr. Jack
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for flood and coastal defence policy in England. Under the relevant legislation, the authorities with operational powers are:the National Rivers Authority, which can undertake measures to reduce the risks of flooding from designated "main rivers" and the sea and which is required to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales.
  Internal Drainage Boards, which can carry out measures to alleviate flooding in specified districts with special drainage needs, other than on "main rivers";
  local authorities, which can carry out flood defence works outside drainage board districts on watercourses other than "main rivers", as well as works to protect the land against coastal erosion.
  It is envisaged that the proposed Environment Agency will assume the powers of the National Rivers Authority, but apart from this there are no plans to change these arrangements. Further information is given in the joint MAFF/Welsh Office publication "Strategy for Flood and Coastal Defence in England and Wales", which was published last October when copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  Yare Barrier, Norfolk
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether her Department will review the funding criteria of the National Rivers Authority following the decision by the National Rivers Authority not to support the proposed Yare barrier in Norfolk on cost grounds.

  Mr. Jack
  To attract grant aid such works have to be technically sound, environmentally acceptable and economically worth while. I understand that the NRA's Norfolk and Suffolk local flood defence committee has confirmed its intention to promote a comprehensive river bank strengthening scheme for Broadland, but has concluded at this stage that the additional benefits generated by a Yare barrier would not justify the additional costs involved, although the option will be kept under review. There is nothing in this particular decision which leads me to believe that a review of the funding criteria is necessary.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Consultants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 19 April,Official Report, column 492, what
  96
  the nature of the contracts with ACT Ltd. in 1990–91, 1992–93 and 1993–94 was; what was being requested and what was the value of the contracts.

  The Attorney-General
  The work undertaken by ACT Ltd. in the years in question related to support services for the Serious Fraud Office's central computer system as follows:

  Year

  Value £

  Description of Work

  1990–91

  32,796

  (1) Support for upgrading system

  (2) Supply of temporary system administrator

  1992–93

  17,907

  30 days system support

  1993–94

  1,621

  Specific assistance to in-house team

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since the instigation of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of defendants whose case was discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service in magistrates' courts since 1987 was as follows:

  Number

  1987–88

  108,900

  1988–89

  120,714

  1989–90

  140,313

  1990–91

  151,236

  1991–92

  174,411

  1992–93

  193,774

  1993–94

  168,707

  These figures include proceedings dropped at court as well as those discontinued by way of notice under section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The figures comprise all cases dealt with by the CPS areas, but do not include the specialised casework handled by the headquarters of the service.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were(a) received by the Crown Prosecution Service from the police, (b) completed in the magistrates court, (c) discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service before or at the magistrates court hearing, (d) committed to the Crown court by the magistrates court or (e) otherwise disposed in each Crown Prosecution Service region for the year April 1993 to April 1994.

  The Attorney-General
  The table shows the number of defendants' cases dealt with by the 13 areas of the Crown Prosecution Service during the year ending March 1994. The figures do not include the specialised casework undertaken by the headquarters of the service.

  The number received comprises all those forwarded to the CPS by the police during the year, and the number

  97
  finalised comprises all those completed during the year. Both totals include non-criminal proceedings, such as forfeiture proceedings under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and cases forwarded to the CPS by the police for pre-charge advice; the number of these is specified.

  Cases completed in magistrates' courts comprise all defendants whose cases proceeded to either trial or guilty plea.

  Magistrates' Courts Cases 1993–94

  CPS Area

  Received

  Finalised

  of which: Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Court

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other disposals

  Other proceedings

  North

  101,284

  101,576

  4,094

  68,212

  13,769

  7,246

  6,773

  1,476

  Yorkshire

  82,460

  80,857

  3,652

  52,925

  11,860

  7,844

  3,832

  750

  Mersey/Lancashire

  90,333

  89,546

  3,014

  62,982

  8,971

  8,815

  4,851

  913

  Humber

  73,500

  71,386

  7,268

  46,360

  7,988

  5,673

  2,226

  1,871

  North West

  126,665

  123,766

  3,388

  87,454

  11,681

  9,002

  6,177

  6,064

  East Midlands

  89,898

  88,417

  6,608

  58,080

  10,962

  6,097

  5,118

  1,552

  Wales

  103,183

  111,736

  6,298

  69,190

  11,119

  5,764

  17,111

  2,254

  Midlands

  115,623

  117,330

  5,443

  74,001

  13,503

  8,426

  13,755

  2,202

  Anglia

  114,784

  112,429

  9,468

  76,544

  9,831

  6,787

  7,735

  2,064

  Severn/Thames

  96,695

  97,602

  4,934

  65,642

  11,422

  4,875

  8,825

  1,904

  South West

  75,873

  75,002

  2,884

  52,581

  8,714

  5,003

  4,912

  908

  London

  276,913

  274,524

  9,892

  150,954

  36,208

  19,217

  53,968

  4,284

  South East

  112,085

  110,068

  5,203

  76,128

  12,679

  7,800

  7,404

  855

  Total Areas

  1,459,296

  1,454,239

  72,146

  941,053

  168,707

  102,549

  142,687

  27,097

  Notes:

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant cannot be found, and other cases where the prosecution cannot proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  Other proceedings comprise non-criminal proceedings, such as forfeiture hearings under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions to publish the revised code for Crown prosecutors.

  The Attorney-General
  The review of the code for Crown Prosecutors, which I announced in House on the 14 December 1993,Official Report, column 1049, is now complete. The revised code is set out in full in the annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service, which was laid before Parliament at 11 am today and then published. Copies of the code have been printed and are now available for distribution. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The fundamental principles of the code have not changed, but the new code is substantially shorter and has been rewritten in straightforward English. The requirement for a realistic prospect of conviction has been clarified and the public interest factors in favour of a prosecution have been brought out more clearly.

  I welcome the revised code and commend it to all prosecuting authorities.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and to publish the annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service for the year 1993–94.

  The Attorney-General
  The annual report for the Crown Prosecution Service was laid before Parliament at 11 am today and then published.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  98
  Discontinuances are inclusive of proceedings dropped in court as well as those which were the subject of a notice under section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  Cases committed comprise all those committed for trial in the Crown court during the period.

  Other disposals comprise the remaining completed cases: committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, defendants bound over to keep the peace without a trial having taken place, and cases in which the prosecution could not proceed, for example because the defendant had died or could not be traced.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General 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 group in the last three months.

  The Attorney-General
  No such problems have been experienced in the last three months. Security staff are required to ensure that access to departmental offices is unobstructed. No specific instructions have been given for dealing with those sleeping rough or beggars.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what previous diplomatic service the present United Kingdom high commissioner to Cyprus has had in(a) Greece and (b) Turkey.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The present British high commissioner to Cyprus, Mr. David Madden, has previously served as first secretary and head of chancery, Athens, from 1981–1984. He has not held a diplomatic post in Turkey.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have served in Cyprus as high commissioner since June
  99
  1974; and how many of these high commissioners had previously held diplomatic posts in (a) Greece and (b) Turkey.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There have been seven British high commissioners to Cyprus since June 1974, including the present incumbent. Two previously held diplomatic posts in Greece and one in Turkey.

  Italy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the position of the Italian Government concerning revision of its borders with Austria and the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Italian Government have made it clear that they have no plans to seek the revision of Italy's borders with any neighbouring state.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the use of forced labour in the construction of a railroad in southern Burma; and what representations he has made to the Government of Burma about this abuse of human rights.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are aware of the reported use of forced labour by the Burmese Government in the construction of a railway extension between Ye and Tavoy in southern Burma. We are working, within international forums, to bring pressure on the military regime in Burma to improve its human rights record and to end the use of forced labour.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has urged the Indonesian Government to investigate the reported killing of civilians by the security forces in Aceh between 1989 and 1991; and what was the response.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My predecessor, the Earl of Caithness, expressed our concern about the killings and human rights abuses in Aceh when he visited Jakarta in early May 1991; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the issue with the Indonesian Foreign Minister later the same month. On both occasions, the Indonesians took careful note of our views.

  Mr. Warwick Reid
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were each of the official positions in the Hong Kong Government of Mr. Warwick Reid up to 1991.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Mr. Warwick Reid was appointed by the Hong Kong Government as a Crown counsel in the prosecutions division of the Legal Department on 8 March 1975 and was promoted to senior Crown counsel in April 1977. He was promoted to deputy principal Crown counsel in April 1980. From April 1981 to January 1982, he was assistant to the Attorney-General. He returned to the prosecutions division in February 1982. He was promoted 100
  in March 1983 to principal Crown counsel. From then until his arrest in October 1989, he held the position of deputy Crown prosecutor in charge of the commercial crime unit of the prosecutions division. Mr. Reid was dismissed on 22 January 1990.

  Brazil
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government of Brazil fulfilled their promise of 29 July 1993 to the XI session of the working group on indigenous populations that the physical demarcation of the Awa Guaja reserve and the Krikati reserve would be accomplished in 1993.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Brazilian authorities have informed our embassy in Brasilia that Government anthropologists have identified and marked out the limits of the Awa Guaja and Krikati reserves. Their findings have now to be submitted for legal process.

  Genocide
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of accusations of genocide by one country in respect of another; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom is a party to the United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. It takes seriously all accusations of genocide by one country in respect of another.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British embassy in Santiago, Chile was advised that General Pinochet wished to visit Britain.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The British embassy in Santiago were not notified of the visit. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was advised by the Chilean embassy in London on 8 June.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings or hospitality was offered by Her Majesty's Government to General Pinochet during his recent visit to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This was a private visit. No meetings or hospitality were offered.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce initiatives or schemes designed to pass local authority housing stock to private sector interests; how many members of his Department are engaged in preparing policy papers on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  My Department already has a programme of large-scale voluntary transfers of council
  101
  housing to housing associations. To date, 31 local authorities have transferred 142,000 properties through LSVT. Subject to tenant support, 12 more will transfer about 50,000 properties by the end of 1994–95. I am keen to expand the programme to bring to metropolitan and inner-city areas the benefits of transfer which we have seen in shire districts. The Department is jointly funding a study with five local authorities—Camden, Enfield, Sheffield, Manchester and Middlesbrough—and the Housing Corporation, which aims to identify options for the future ownership and management of housing in urban areas. This is due to report in the autumn. A group of four staff work predominantly on LSVTs, and a wide range of others are involved where appropriate.

  Environmental Agencies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will introduce legislation to pave the way for the creation of the Environment Agency for England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Mr. Atkins
  It remains the Government's policy to introduce legislation to establish the environment agencies when parliamentary time allows.

  Integrated Regional Offices
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Department will be responsible for the new integrated regional offices.

  Sir George Young
  The Government offices for the regions are accountable to the Departments of the Environment, Employment, Trade and Industry and Transport, jointly or separately, as appropriate, for the programmes or functions that they deliver or oversee.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the officials appointed to co-ordinate the new integrated regional offices with contact addresses.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is as follows:

  Government office for the North East

  Regional Director:

  Pamela Denham

  Contact address:

  Stanegate House

  2 Groat Market

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  NE1 1YN

  Government office for the North West

  Regional Director:

  Marianne Neville Rolfe

  Contact address:

  2010 Sunley Tower

  Piccadilly Plaza

  Manchester

  M1 4BA

  Government office for Merseyside

  Regional Director:

  John Stoker

  Contact address:

  Room 404

  Graeme House

  Derby Square

  Liverpool

  L2 7SU

  Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside

  Regional Director:

  Jeremy Walker

  Contact address:

  7th Floor East Wing

  City House

  Leeds

  102

  LS1 4JD

  Government office for the West Midlands

  Regional Director:

  David Ritchie

  Contact address:

  77 Paradise Circus

  Queensway

  Birmingham

  B1 2DT

  Government office for the East Midlands

  Regional Director:

  Mark Lanyon

  Contact address:

  Level 5

  Cranbrook House

  Cranbrook Street

  Nottingham

  NG1 1EY

  Government office for the Eastern Region

  Regional Director:

  John Turner

  Contact address:

  Heron House

  49–53 Goldington Road

  Bedford

  MK40 3LL

  Government office for the South West

  Regional Director:

  Brian Leonard

  Contact address:

  4th Floor

  The Pithay

  Bristol

  BS1 2NQ

  Government office for the South East

  Regional Director:

  Gillian Ashmore

  Contact address:

  Charles House

  375 Kensington High Street

  London

  W14 8QH

  Government office for London

  Regional Director:

  Robin Young

  Contact address:

  Room P2/023

  2 Marsham Street

  London

  SW1P 3EB

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons for his Department's decision not to implement the recommendations of the Efficiency Unit's scrutiny of the management of the Government's civil estate on provision of advice to Government Departments on fire safety and fire precautions; and if he will explain why it is intended to stop the provision of such advice.

  Mr. Baldry
  No such decision has been taken. We envisage that, in line with the efficiency scrutiny's recommendation, written guidance will be promulgated via the advice unit of the proposed new property agency. The decision to withdraw some fire branch services will not stop Departments obtaining appropriate advice on fire protection for particular buildings or on staff training, whether by using in-house resources or available commercial services.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he plans to make to the petition handed to him by his Norwegian counterpart in Oslo on 14 June, from Norwegian citizens urging Her Majesty's Government to cut acid rain deposits over Scandinavia arising from discharges in the United Kingdom.
  103
  Mr. Atkins
  In Oslo on 14 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed the second United Nations Commission for Europe sulphur protocol, which commits the United Kingdom to reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide by 80 per cent. compared with 1980 levels by 2010. This will not only deal substantially with problems of acidification in the United Kingdom but will also bring about significant improvements for our European neighbours.

  While he was in Oslo, my right hon. Friend met representatives of the Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature, to receive their petition, and of Councillors Against Acid Rain. He explained the significant reductions in sulphur emissions which the United Kingdom has already achieved and the new obligations to achieve further reductions which we have accepted.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if she will list by county the current estimate of the red squirrel population; what were the comparable figures(a) five years and (b) 10 years ago; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Red squirrel population figures have never been compiled by county. The latest population estimates for Great Britain are: Scotland 121,000; England 30,000 and Wales 9,000. There are no comparable figures for five or 10 years ago.

  Support for the remaining populations of red squirrels include full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and measures to restrict the spread of grey squirrels. English Nature's species recovery programme, which aims to achieve long-term sustainable survival of endangered species, includes red squirrels.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Arthur Andersen, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannel Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) any other services in 1980 to 1983, 1984 to 1987, 1988 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what evidence his Department has as to whether sand and gravel extraction is damaging natural sea defences and increasing the vulnerability of the coastal areas to flooding;

  (2) how many extraction licences have been granted for areas off the Norfolk coast, and for each licence (a) to whom the licence has been issued, (b) the location of the site, (c) the licence fee and (d) the quantity permitted to be extracted.
  104
  Mr. Baldry
  We have no evidence to indicate that sand and gravel extraction is damaging natural sea defences and increasing the vulnerability of the coastal areas to flooding. Licences for marine dredging are issued by the Crown Estate Commissioners. Applications are referred by the Crown Estate to consultants for professional advice on whether the proposed dredging would have an adverse effect upon coastal protection. If the advice demonstrates unavoidable risk of coastal erosion, the application will be rejected without further consideration.

  I understand that the Crown Estate Commissioners have issued 15 licences for dredging off the Norfolk Coast as follows:

  Area

  Company

  Area 107

  East Coast Aggregates Ltd.

  Area 202

  ARC Marine Ltd.

  Area 212

  ARC Marine Ltd.

  Area 228

  Volker Dredging Ltd.

  Area 240

  Civil and Marine Ltd.

  Area 242

  ARC Marine Ltd.

  Area 251

  East Coast Aggregates Ltd.

  Area 254

  United Marine Dredging Ltd.

  Area 296

  United Marine Dredging Ltd.

  Area 319

  East Coast Aggregates Ltd.

  Area 328

  ARC Marine Ltd.

  Area 328

  Civil and Marine Ltd.

  Area 328

  Civil and Marine Ltd.

  Area 360

  South Coast Shipping Co. Ltd.

  Area 361

  ARC Marine Ltd.

  The total extraction allowed under these licences is 10·85 million tonnes. I will send the hon. Member information about the location of the sites. Information about licence fees is treated as commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Norfolk residents concerned that new building will not be possible in areas of Norfolk because of flooding risk.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received a number of representations about the designation of flood risk areas by North Norfolk district council in the consultation draft of the local plan.

  Development, Leigh-on-Sea
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will overrule the planning inspectorate and order an appeal held in public into the proposed development at Marine parade, Leigh-on-Sea, about which the right hon. Member for Southend, West has been in correspondence with him.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. I am satisfied that the planning merits of the proposal can be considered adequately on the basis of written representations and a site visit. The inspector will take the strength of local feeling about the proposals fully into account in reaching a decision.

  Packaging
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce provisions to establish legally enforceable targets for the avoidance, minimisation and recycling of packaging waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  We believe that the approach which underlies our producer responsibility initiative for
  105
  packaging waste will enable industry to devise the most cost-effective and flexible means of securing our environmental objectives, including the recovery of between 50 and 75 per cent. of all packaging waste by the year 2000. We are awaiting further advice from industry on how the plan which it has drawn up can best be implemented.

  We will consider legislating to meet our objectives if industry can demonstrate that a purely voluntary approach will not succeed or if it is necessary to fulfil our obligations under the proposed EC directive on packaging and packaging waste.

  Incineration
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the chemical composition of material which it is planned to burn in an industrial process is taken into account when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution considers whether to grant an authorisation for the burning of the material.

  Mr. Atkins
  The chemical composition of the material is taken into account when HMIP considers whether to grant an authorisation for the burning of the material.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that the burning of hazardous wastes will be subject to the same emission standards wherever it takes place.

  Mr. Atkins
  HMIP has confirmed that it will control the burning of hazardous wastes in processes subject to its control, in such a way as to ensure uniform protection for the environment.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances HMIP may authorise the burning of hazardous waste other than in an incinerator designed for the purpose.

  Mr. Atkins
  HMIP may authorise the burning of hazardous waste, other than in an incinerator designed for the purpose, provided that emissions from the burning will not adversely affect the environment.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution may authorise the burning of a substance whose chemical composition is unknown.

  Mr. Atkins
  HMIP will not authorise the burning of a substance whose chemical composition is unknown.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether hazardous wastes burnt in cement kilns are subject to the same emission standards as wastes burnt in an incinerator.

  Mr. Atkins
  Emission standards for cement kilns burning waste will be based on environmental protection and BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. Precautions will be taken to guard against increase in environmental impact, compared with the use of conventional fuels.

  Industrial Processes
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long a trial may continue before authorisation of an industrial process is either granted or withheld.
  106
  Mr. Atkins
  The justification for, and the details and length of any trial, are provided by the operator, and must be to the satisfaction of HMIP. Any trial must comply with the criteria laid down by HMIP and be of sufficient duration to provide adequate monitoring information, in order to enable HMIP fully to assess the environmental impact.

  Recycling
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage the markets for recycled products from waste packaging materials.

  Mr. Atkins
  Action to stimulate markets for recycled materials is a key element of the producer responsibility challenge to the packaging industries. If those industries are to achieve their target of recovering 58 per cent. of used packaging by the year 2000 in the most cost-effective way, they will need to ensure not only that used packaging is collected but that there are markets for the recycled material, and that buyer specifications do not unreasonably restrict these markets.

  Environment Land Management
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future administration of the countryside stewardship scheme and the hedgerow incentive scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  I congratulate the Countryside Commission on its development and administration of the countryside stewardship scheme and the hedgerow incentive scheme, which have broken new ground in environmental land management. I acknowledge the valuable support of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, English Nature and English Heritage in carrying forward the schemes with my Department. I have endorsed the commission's proposal to bring the schemes together so as to enable best use of staff time and to streamline their delivery to farmers and other landowners.

  The countryside stewardship scheme will complete its pilot phase on 31 March 1996. Thereafter and with her agreement, I intend to transfer responsibility for this scheme and the hedgerow incentive scheme from the Countryside Commission to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  The Government intends to legislate, when parliamentary time permits, to confer on the Minister the necessary powers to enable her to make payments under the hedgerow incentive scheme and those parts of countryside stewardship which are covered neither by the EC agri-environment regulation nor by the powers that the Minister already exercises under the farm and conservation grant scheme. The Government also intend such legislation to confer a statutory advisory role on the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Countryside Commission, English Nature and English Heritage in relation to the development of all of the Ministry of Agriculture's environmental land management schemes.

  The Government value the contribution which farmers, landowners and many local organisations have made to the development and implementation of the two schemes, and we shall continue to build on this partnership.

  The Government intend, in the light of the pilot phase, to consider the future role of countryside stewardship. We also intend to consider ways of better integrating and

  107
  focusing all environmental land management schemes. We shall consult publicly on any proposals to change significantly current arrangements for countryside steward-ship or other environmental land management schemes.

  The Government place a high value on the skills and experience of the staff currently running the countryside stewardship and hedgerow incentive schemes. The staff needed to run the schemes after the countryside stewardship pilot phase has ended will be invited to transfer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the inner cities research programme report "Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The inner cities research programme report "Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy" is being published today by HMSO. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report is a substantial and wide-ranging analysis, covering the policies and programmes of several Government Departments and agencies over the period 1979 –80 to 1990 –91. It concludes that, across the 57 urban priority areas there was, over that period, a relative improvement in their social and economic fortunes, and that the gap between these 57 areas and other areas narrowed in the 1980s, notwithstanding some deterioration in the core areas facing the most intractable problems. It further concludes that across the whole set of targeted places and in the smaller areas within some of the conurbations, public resources appear to have made an impact on improving inner-city areas.

  The report draws five policy conclusions about how the delivery of Government programmes might be further improved and about how local authorities and communities might be more effectively involved in regeneration. These recommendations have been addressed by the major reforms which the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in November 1993, and which were implemented in April 1994 after the report was completed.

  These reforms include the establishment of Government offices for the regions, bringing together the regional offices of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and the Department of Transport to make Government more responsive and accessible to local communities and employers; and the single regeneration budget, worth some £1 ·4 billion in 1994 –95, which combines 20 programmes from five Government Departments to support locally devised measures to encourage regeneration, economic development and industrial competitiveness.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what facilities, and at what cost, were borne by the Central Office of Information on the recent visit to Britain of General Pinochet.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Central Office of Information provided no facilities during the recent visit to Britain of General Pinochet.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the level of compliance of each Government Department with the requirements of the quota for the employment of disabled persons.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 9 May 1994,Official Report, column 63.

  I also refer the hon. Member to table 1 of "Independent 22", published by the Cabinet Office, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. This lists the numbers and percentages of civil servants registered as disabled in major Government Departments and agencies.

SCOTLAND

  Deer Culling
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the currently approved methods of deer culling; and what plans he has to approve further methods.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The only currently approved method of deer culling is by shooting, using an approved firearm as defined in sections 23(2) and 23A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, as amended, and the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985. I have no plans at present to approve any further methods.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Ian Lang
  There have been no incidents of anyone sleeping rough outside my Department's London office and no instructions have been issued. The number of reported incidents involving beggars in the immediate vicinity is nil.

  Air Routes
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what criteria he applies in determining which air routes to designate as public service obligation routes;

  (2) what financial support he offers to public service obligation air routes;

  (3) which air routes he has designated as public service obligation routes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Central Government support for air services is considered only where the services cross regional or islands council boundaries; cross water; are essential to the life of a remote community; and where there is no prospect of services becoming commercially viable.

  EU regulation 2408/92 requires public service obligations to be imposed on air services supported by public funds. A PSO has been imposed on the air service between Glasgow, Tiree and Barra. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provides financial support of £115,000 per annum for the service.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the purpose of the meeting about Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie, between George Esson, then chief constable of the Dumfries and Galloway police, and Janet Reno, Attorney-General of the United States; and what was the outcome.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 May,Official Report, column 164. The meeting was of a courtesy nature and had no specific outcome.

  Orthopaedics
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current waiting list and waiting time for each orthopaedic speciality in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 20 June 1994 ]: At 31 December 1993 there were 842 patients on in-patient and day case orthopaedic surgery waiting lists in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area. Half those orthopaedic surgery patients who were treated and discharged from hospitals in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area during the quarter ending 31 December 1993 had waited less than 47 days before being admitted.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  President Mengistu Haile Mariam
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy toward the request of the transitional Government of Ethiopia for the extradition of ex-President Mengistu Haile Mariam from Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This is a matter for the two Governments concerned.

TREASURY

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had about the introduction of a sliding scale of duty for small brewers producing less than 200 barrels per week.

  South Yorkshire staff in post

  Regional Executive Office/Towns

  1 June 1992 Total staff

  1 June 1993 Total staff

  1 June 1994 Total staff

  Alfreton

  79

  71

  69

  Barnsley

  216

  162

  161

  Boston

  87

  83

  75

  Bradford

  989

  884

  821

  Chesterfield

  126

  117

  112

  Derby

  304

  282

  274

  Dewsbury

  83

  76

  72

  Doncaster

  165

  148

  144

  Gainsborough

  46

  40

  38

  Grantham

  76

  70

  69

  Halifax

  124

  115

  118

  Huddersfield

  167

  151

  153

  Leeds

  768

  683

  662

  Lincoln

  144

  125

  125

  Louth

  43

  40

  37

  Mansfield

  85

  73

  68

  110
  Sir John Cope
  We have received representations from many small brewers and had meetings with their trade body, the Small Independent Brewers Association. There are no current plans to introduce sliding scales of excise duties on the beer produced by smaller brewers, partly because, under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the lowest rate available to any United Kingdom producer would also have to be made available to all producers outside the European Union.

  Tax Office Staff, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff there were at each tax office in South Yorkshire(a) at the latest date, (b) 12 months ago and (c) 24 months ago; and if he will make a statement on the causes of changes in the numbers employed at each office.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The numbers of staff in post at the relevant dates are shown in the table.

  This table compares the staff-in-post position for all offices—excluding the Valuation Office, which has agency status—within the geographical boundary of Inland Revenue South Yorkshire executive office. Because of the large number of locations involved, some summarising has been necessary. It has not been practicable to look at reasons behind the changes in numbers of staff on an office-by-office basis.

  During these two years, part of Inland Revenue London head office has been transferred to Nottingham. Three offices set up in Nottingham and Barnsley during 1991 –92 to deal with expected claims for repayment of composite rate tax have been closed—this work has now been concentrated into just five offices outside SYEO. Following the closures of these offices, PAYE work was moved from other offices in SYEO to Barnsley to provide work for otherwise surplus staff. Almost all trust work has been brought together into two large offices, one in Nottingham. SYEO has carried out an efficiency scrutiny of typing and secretarial services resulting in a reduction in the number of posts. The remaining posts have been reorganised into a separate service unit.

  Also over the two years, a number of procedural changes in tax office work, including for example the simplification of PAYE end of year work, have contributed to further changes in staff numbers.
  111

  Regional Executive Office/Towns

  1 June 1992 Total staff

  1 June 1993 Total staff

  1 June 1994 Total staff

  Melton Mowbray

  51

  46

  42

  Newark

  66

  56

  55

  Nottingham

  596

  527

  518

  Pontefract

  68

  59

  61

  Retford

  45

  40

  40

  Rotherham

  80

  75

  73

  Sheffield

  489

  767

  757

  Shipley

  190

  182

  164

  Spalding

  60

  53

  52

  Wakefield

  77

  77

  70

  Accounts Office Shipley

  1,138

  1,163

  1,064

  Other Executive Offices/Head Office

  631

  1,117

  1,260

  Grand Total

  6,993

  7,282

  7,154

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lands Tribunal
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the present salary of the president of the Lands Tribunal; and what it was(a) five and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The office of president of the Lands Tribunal in Northern Ireland is a group 5 post within the senior salary review body structure, with a salary of £82,641. Five years ago the salary was £53,400, while in 1984 it was £33,733.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  The information requested in respect of staff of grade 3 and above could not be collected in the time available. For staff below grade 3, there is no requirement for the Department to collect information on job offers made to staff. Records are not, therefore, kept and no information is available. No offers have been reported from staff who work in sections concerned with procurement or contracts.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  It is now the usual practice of the Lord Chancellor's Department, when issuing a public 112
  consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses may be made public unless they request confidential treatment. The Department will continue that practice.

  Small Claims Courts
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the amount of each increase in the small claims court limit and the date on which it came into effect for each year since 1973.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I list the small claims limits in the county courts since 1973 and the dates they came into effect:

  Date

  Limit £

  October 1973

  75

  October 1974

  100

  July 1978

  200

  October 1981

  500

  July 1991

  1,000

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the average sum awarded by small claims courts for each year since 1985.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not routinely gathered by my Department.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases in each year since 1991 have been referred out of the small claims court procedure to the county courts under the safeguards contained in order 19, rule 3 of the county court rules.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Solicitors' Firms (Franchises)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the names of all the solicitors' firms which have so far applied to the Legal Aid Board for a franchise.
  113
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The names of individual firms of solicitors which have applied to the Legal Aid Board for a franchise is a matter of confidence between those firms and the board.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he has determined a date on which he will publish the findings of his Department's fundamental review of its spending.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 May 1994,Official Report, column 329. The fundamental review is being conducted internally and its findings will not be published. Any resulting change in policy will, however, be announced in the usual way in due course.

  Class Actions
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress his Department has made on drawing up new rules for the bringing of class actions; and when he expects to publish them.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The findings of the Department's fundamental review of expenditure, which includes a review of multi-party actions, are scheduled to be presented to the Lord Chancellor later this month. Any action which the Lord Chancellor decides to take as a result of the review's conclusions will, however, be preceded by public consultation in the usual way.

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average cost per case of a plaintiff's disbursements for the provision of all witnesses and reports in personal injury claims where proceedings were commenced in county courts for each year since 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the £112·50 maximum for the payment of expert witnesses as set out in the consultation paper on small personal injury claims is the total sum available for the payment of all expert witnesses involved in a small personal injury case or the maximum allowable for the payment of each individual expert witness.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is proposed that the sum of £112.50 should be the maximum recoverable for the expenses of each individual expert witness. It must be borne in mind, however, that the actual figure allowed for each expert and the number of such experts deemed necessary remain in the discretion of the district judge.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the organisations responding to the consultation document on small personal injury claims.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A list of major organisations which responded to the consultation paper is given.114

  Action for Victims of Medical Accidents

  Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union

  Association of British Insurers

  Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  Automobile Association

  British Legal Association

  British Medical Association

  Bus and Coach Council

  Forum of Insurance Lawyers

  General Council of the Bar

  Institute of Consumer Affairs

  Institute of Legal Executives

  Institute of Professional Managers and Specialists

  Law Society

  Lloyd's of London

  Medical Defence Union

  Medical Protection Society

  Motor Accident Solicitors' Society

  Motor Insurers' Bureau

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  National Consumer Council

  National Union of Mineworkers

  Police Federation

  Royal Automobile Club

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  Trades Union Council

  Insurance Firms
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints his Department received concerning the conduct of lawyers acting on behalf of insurance firms in the settlement of claims for each year since 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Solicitors are members of an independent and self-regulating profession, and the Lord Chancellor is not responsible for their professional conduct. The Law Society has responsibility to ensure that solicitors observe proper standards, and in 1986 established the Solicitors Complaints Bureau to handle complaints against its members. My Department has no record of such complaints.

HEALTH

  Out-patient Waiting Times
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were seen as out-patients in 1991–92 and what was the average time between referral and being seen.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of all out-patient attendances in 1991–92 was 36·9 million. Of these 8,035,959 in 1991–92 were for a first appointment. No information is available centrally on time between referral and appointment.

  Substance Abuse (Children)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths of children in each year since 1979 from substance abuse and from use of controlled drugs, by drug.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of deaths associated with the abuse of volatile substances and the number of deaths from the use of controlled drugs is shown in the tables. Data for the latter are not readily available for years prior to 1989.
  115

  Number of Deaths of Children (aged under 20) associated with the Abuse of Volatile Substances—Great Britain1

  Number

  1980

  24

  1981

  33

  1982

  39

  1983

  58

  1984

  64

  1985

  88

  1986

  71

  1987

  79

  1988

  96

  1989

  71

  1990

  116

  1991

  77

  1These figures were supplied by St. George's Hospital Medical School.

  Number of deaths (whether an accident, suicide or undetermined) of Children (aged under 20) associated with controlled drugs, by drug—Great Britain 2

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Amphetamine

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Barbiturates

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Benzodiazepines

  7

  2

  3

  10

  Buprenorphine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cannabis

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Cocaine

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Codeine

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Dextromoramide

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Dextroproxyphene

  30

  13

  28

  19

  Diethylproprion

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Dihydrocodeine

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Dipipanone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Heroin

  3

  1

  2

  2

  LSD

  —

  —

  1

  2

  MDMA

  1

  —

  4

  0

  Meprobromate

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Methadone

  4

  6

  8

  20

  Methaqualone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Morphine

  0

  4

  1

  5

  Opiates

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Pentazocine

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Pethidine

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Phentermine

  —

  0

  0

  0

  All deaths associated with controlled drugs

  47

  30

  54

  51

  2This table shows the number of deaths where a controlled drug (listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) was mentioned in the records of deaths assigned to accidental and other poisoning by solid or liquid substances. Where two or more drugs are mentioned together the death is recorded against each drug but only once in the total.

  —Indicates not published.

  We are spending £5 million a year on campaigns to raise awareness of the dangers of drug and solvent misuse. This includes a £2·6 million national television and press campaign which ran from January to March 1994 to encourage and help parents to talk to their children about drugs and solvents. We have produced information leaflets to help parents with this, as well as leaflets with factual information for young people.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of deaths per year in England and Wales which are causally linked with emissions from diesel-powered road vehicles.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions are given to security staff in her 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. Sackville
  The Department has not issued formal instructions to security staff in London for dealing with those sleeping rough in the doorways or begging in the vicinity of departmental offices. These incidents are dealt with on an individual basis depending on the circumstances and with consideration for the situation of the person involved. No incidents of this nature have been reported by security staff in the last three months.

  Obstetric Cholestasis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what epidemiological studies funded by her Department have been undertaken into obstetric cholestasis.

  Mr. Sackville: None.

  Private Patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what value has been attributed by her Department to income from private patients in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Sackville
  Private patient activity is determined locally. No estimate of private patient income has been made centrally.

  Child Minders
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answers of 25 March,Official Report, column 683 and 25 April, Official Report, column 59, what conclusions she has reached on whether further clarification of her Department's guidance on behaviour and sanctions by child minders if minded children misbehave is required; and if she will make a statement on the role of physical punishment in the child care environment.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are currently consulting interested parties on this issue.

  Mentally Ill People
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the report on homicides prepared by the confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people to be completed; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Bowis
  The first report has been now completed but it has not yet been received by Ministers.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the remit of the inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people could be extended so as to include those who have been in active psychiatric care within the previous five years instead of within the previous year only;
  117
  (2) whether the present remit of the inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people includes those who should have received psychiatric care during the previous year but who discharged themselves from hospital or failed to keep out-patient appointments.

  Mr. Bowis
  The remit of the confidential inquiry is sufficiently wide to cover patients under the care of specialist psychiatric services who discharged themselves from hospital or failed to keep out-patient appointments within the year prior to their involvement in a homicide. As the inquiry relies on information received from clinical staff responsible for the care of the psychiatric patient prior to the homicide, it would be impracticable to extend its remit to cover a five-year period.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health if she will make a statement about the compatibility of the imposition of charges for attendance at local authority day centres by mentally ill people and the care programme approach.

  Mr. Bowis
  The introduction of the care programme approach from April 1991 did not affect the discretionary powers of local authorities to make reasonable charges for day centre attendance by mentally ill people. It is for individual local authorities to decide whether and to what extent to make such charges and to ensure that their

  £ million

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 estimated outturn

  Departmental administration

  Non-staffing costs

  77

  79

  100

  112

  133

  122

  VAT refunds on contracted-out services

  0

  -2

  -1

  -2

  -1

  -1

  NHS Estates Agency

  Non-staffing costs

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  5

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Non-staffing costs

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Youth Treatment Service

  Non-staffing costs

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Medicines Control Agency

  Non-staffing costs

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  0

  Total

  81

  80

  105

  118

  140

  139

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not add exactly due to rounding effects.

  2. The 1993–94 figures given are the estimates which were current at the time the Departmental Report was published.

  Infertility
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of district health authorities have a comprehensive contract for infertility services.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service executive does not collect information on contracts agreed between district health authorities and hospitals for individual treatments or services.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision is made for(a) infertility treatment and (b) infertility investigation in the North Nottinghamshire and Nottinghamshire health authorities;
  118
  arrangements for making charges are fully compatible with the principles of the care programme approach, including the requirement for the care plan to be agreed with the mentally ill person. Any charges must take into account the person's ability to pay and are subject to an appeals procedure.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of the inquiry into the murder of an occupational therapist at the Edith Morgan unit, Torbay, by a patient in that unit in 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  The members of the inquiry team are: Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission, Miss Helen Hally, director of nursing practice at Riverside mental health national health service trust, and Professor Elaine Murphy, professor of old age psychiatry at the United medical and dental school at Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will itemise the other expenditure in her Department's running costs shown in page 25 of table 12 in the departmental report 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  (2) what advice the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham health authorities have sought from her Department as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  For the information requested about infertility investigation and treatment in North Nottinghamshire and Nottinghamshire the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir David White, chairman of Nottinghamshire health authority, and Mr. A. Tolhurst, chairman of North Nottinghamshire health authority. I am not aware of requests for advice on this matter from either of the health authorities.

  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for subfertility and I refer the hon. Member to

  119
  the reply, that I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 18 May, Official Report, column 520.

  Rural Community Hospitals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and locations of rural community hospitals in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  Central returns of hospital activity data do not contain the classification "rural community hospital".

  Accident and Emergency Services, Barking and Havering
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of those who responded to consultation on proposals by Barking and Havering health authority for changes to accident and emergency services.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Barking and Havering health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. Bryan Littlewood, for details.

  Infant Mortality
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the figures for infant mortality by district health authority for each of the last two years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information can be found in table 1 of the DH3 Monitors 93/1 and 92/1 for the last two years for which statistics are available, published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by trust, the amount of capital investment planned for 1994–95, and the amount of capital investment, by trust, for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for 1993–94 will be available later in the year when the accounts of trusts are audited. Trusts develop plans for capital expenditure in the current and future years within the overall constraints of their external financing limit and any necessary approval from the national health service executive for major capital schemes. Disclosure of planned capital expenditure may in some circumstances be commercially sensitive and it is therefore for individual trusts to determine the extent to which plans are disclosed.

  Wythenshawe Hospital Development Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 April,Official Report, columns 474–75, what progress has been made on the revision of the Wythenshawe hospital development scheme.

  Mr. Sackville
  The South Manchester University national health service trust is continuing to develop proposals for the redevelopment of Wythenshawe hospital. This will have to await the outcome of a clinical review of 120
  hospital services in south Manchester. This is being conducted by Professor Sir Herbert Duthie, provost of Cardiff medical school, who will report back to the North West regional health authority as soon as possible.

TRANSPORT

  Road Construction
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department or agencies take when placing contracts or inviting bids for the construction of roads, in order to ensure value for money and competition.

  Mr. Key
  Since 1 April, responsibility for managing, maintaining and improving the national road network in England now lies with the Highways Agency. As the information requested by the hon. Member relates to the agency which is responsible, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 21 June 1994.
  You put down a Parliamentary Question for answer by the Secretary of State concerning the measures taken to ensure value for money and competition when inviting bids or placing contracts for road construction work.
  As your Question deals with operational matters for which the Highways Agency is now responsible, as promised by the Minister, Robert Key, I am replying.
  To ensure value for money, the Highways Agency relies principally on inviting competitive bids for work to be carried out in accordance with a detailed design and specification.
  We are required by EC Directives (now enacted in domestic legislation) to advertise all public works contracts with an estimated value in excess of ECU 5 million (currently about £3·7 million). The Agency goes further by voluntarily advertising all contracts with an estimated value in excess of £1 million. This is in order to seek out the widest possible market competition and to maximise competitive opportunities for the industry.
  Contracts are awarded either on the basis of the lowest price, or the most economically advantageous bid after taking into account other factors such as the time taken to complete the work, or the likely future maintenance costs of the form of construction chosen by individual bidders.
  The Agency is continually looking at ways of improving value for money and increasing numbers of contracts, mainly for new roads, are being invited on a "design and build" basis. This encourages contractors to draw on their particular skills and experience in putting forward innovative construction proposals which offer greater "buildability" and better value for money for the taxpayer.
  The Department of Transport is also exploring more radical ways of achieving better value for money for the taxpayer and has recently invited expressions of interest to design, build, finance and operate new roads.

  Road Construction Companies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the largest 10 contracts he or agencies of his Department have placed with contractors for the construction of roads, in each year from 1991–92, together with the value of those contracts in cash terms.

  Mr. Key
  Since 1 April, responsibility for managing maintaining and improving the national road network in England now lies with the Highways Agency. As the information requested by the hon. Member relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  121
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 21 June 1994:

  Highest 10 contracts awarded in 1991–92

  Scheme

  Winning tender

  Award price £

  Date of award

  M20 Junctions 5–8 improvement

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  68,804,939

  4 July 1991

  John Laing

  M5 Widening Junctions 6–8

  Construction Ltd.

  59,368,900

  6 June 1991

  Tarmac Construction

  M1-A1 Link, Contracts 2 and 3 East of Naseby

  Ltd.

  35,617,820

  19 November 1991

  Tarmac Construction

  A30 Okehampton-Launceston

  Ltd.

  26,809,215

  29 August 1991

  Norwest Holst

  A20 Courtwood-Dover, Contract 3

  Construction Ltd.

  21,684,567

  14 May 1991

  AF Budge

  A41 Kings Langley Bypass, Contract 3

  (Contractors) Ltd.

  19,967,881

  19 June 1991

  Amey Construction

  A41 Berkhamsted Bypass, Contract 4B

  Ltd

  18,139,479

  11 December 1991

  Tarmac Construction

  M1-A1 Link, Thrapston-Brampton, Contract 9

  Ltd.

  16,364,732

  9 October 1991

  Costain Civil

  A23 Warninglid Flyover to Sayers Common

  Engineering Ltd.

  15,685,563

  9 October 1991

  Birse Construction

  A20 Folkestone-Courtwood Contract 2 (Viaduct)

  Ltd.

  11,550,041

  5 December 1991

  Highest 10 contracts awarded in 1993–94

  Scheme

  Winning tenderer

  Award price £ million

  Date of award

  A13 Thames Avenue—Wennington

  Balfour Beatty Ltd

  71,273,666

  9 February 1994

  M65 Blackburn Southern Bypass, Contract 1

  Tarmac Construction Ltd

  65,861,695

  4 February 1994

  A1 Walshford—Dishforth, North of Wetherby

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd/Amec Civil Engineering joint venture

  53,795,508

  8 April 1993

  M25 Between Junction 7 (Merstham) and Junction 8 (Reigate)

  John Laing Construction Ltd

  45,979,928

  25 January 1994

  A4/A46 Batheaston—Swainswick Bypass

  Amey Construction Ltd

  44,953,293

  11 February 1994

  A249 Between Bobbing and North of Iwade, Kent

  Amec Civil Engineering Ltd

  35,721,035

  25 January 1994

  A417 Brockworth Bypass, East of Gloucester

  Wimpey Construction Ltd

  35,142,010

  2 December 1993

  M25 Widening Between Junctions 10 and 11

  John Mowlem Construction Ltd

  35,097,353

  23 December 1993

  A12 Hackney Wick to Redbridge Roundabout Contract 4

  Norwest Hoist Construction Ltd

  31,558,185

  27 July 1993

  A50 Blythe Bridge—Contract 1B

  Christiani/Kier joint venture

  28,414,397

  21 January 1994

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport 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. Norris
  Security staff are advised to deal with any incident in an appropriate manner and to draw attention to local welfare facilities if that may help. My Department has no record of any problems in the last three months.
  122 You put down a Parliamentary Question for answer by the Secretary of State for Transport asking him to list the 10 largest contracts by value for the construction of roads awarded in each year from 1991–92.As the information you asked for concerns operational matters for which the Highways Agency is now responsible, as promised by the Minister, Robert Key, I am replying to your Questions.The information requested is set out in the attached tables.

  Seat Belts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)Official Report, 25 February, column 464, if he has now received the report on the technical and cost implications of seat belts in minibuses and coaches; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I now have the report to hand and hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. Copies of the relevant papers will then be deposited in the Library.

  Marine Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to extend port state control inspections in the light of the Donaldson report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We believe that port state control can operate effectively only if co-ordinated on a regional basis. Lord Donaldson also recognised this in recommending that we build upon the success of the Paris memorandum of understanding by adopting a system of self-targeting and enhancing the deterrent effect of port state inspections. The Secretary of State made it clear in his statement of 17 May that we would pursue Lord Donaldson's recommendations with our European partners. He raised the issue at the Transport Council on 13 June and we intend to take every opportunity to develop these proposals further in discussion with our colleagues in the Paris MOU and the EU.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary in respect of defective Russian and Baltic ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Department of Transport and Foreign and Commonwealth officials have worked together in responding to the problems that have arisen in respect of ships from the Russian Federation and the Baltic states. Officials from both Departments have discussed the problems with diplomatic representatives of the states concerned emphasising the need for effective action in respect of defective ships flying their flags.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) Russian and (b) Baltic State ships the

  Staff in post

  Number of staff at grade

  Office

  4

  5

  6

  71

  SEO

  SURV

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Others2

  Spring Place

  1

  3

  9

  32

  2

  18

  20

  21·5

  27

  8

  13

  London District

  —

  —

  1

  7

  —

  10

  1

  1

  7

  1

  2

  South and South West District

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  15

  1

  2

  5

  2

  4·5

  North East and East District

  —

  —

  1

  9

  —

  15·5

  1

  2

  6

  —

  9·5

  North West and Wales District

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  12

  1

  2

  7

  3

  5

  West of Scotland and Northern Ireland District

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  15

  1

  1

  3

  3

  4

  East of Scotland District

  —

  —

  1

  6

  —

  11

  1

  1

  5·5

  2

  3

  1Includes Principal Surveyors.

  2Includes personal secretaries, typists, casuals, messengers.

  HEADQUARTERS

  Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton, Hants

  S015 1EG

  Tel: 0703 329100

  LONDON DISTRICT

  District Marine Office

  District Chief Surveyor

  Central Court, lb Knoll Rise, Orpington,

  Kent BR6 OJA

  Tel: 0689 890400

  District Sub-Office

  59 Deneside, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR30 2HL

  Tel: 0493 851421

  SOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DISTRICT

  District Marine Office

  District Chief Surveyor

  124
  Marine Safety Agency has detained in British ports since 1 April on account of (i) unseaworthiness or (ii) serious defects.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of Russian-registered and Baltic states-registered ships detained by the Marine Safety Agency as unsafe or for non-compliance with merchant shipping regulations between 1 April and 10 June 1994 is given in the table:

  Russian

  Baltic States

  Unsafe

  1

  Nil

  Non-compliance with merchant shipping regulations

  5

  1

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff there are in each grade at each Marine Safety Agency office; and what is the address of each office.

  Mr. Norris
  Robin Bradley, the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency will send a reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 17 March 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Transport about the number of staff there are in each grade at each marine safety agency office, and the address of each office.
  Please find attached a table showing the number of staff in post for Headquarters and each marine district by grade and a list of addresses for each office.

  Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton,

  Hants. 5015 lEG

  Tel: 0703 329329

  District Sub-Offices

  Imperial Buildings, Bar Road, Falmouth,

  Cornwall TR11 4NW

  Tel: 0326 312761

  Phoenix House, Notte Street, Plymouth,

  Devon PL1 2HF

  Tel: 0752 266211

  NORTH EAST AND EAST District

  District Marine Office

  District Chief Surveyor

  Government Buildings, Broadway West, Gosforth,

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE3 2JL

  Tel: 091 285 7171

  125

  District Sub-Offices

  Ground and 3rd Floors, 12–16 Woodlands Road,

  Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS 1 3BE

  Tel: 0642 246034

  Crosskill House, Mill Lane, Beverley,

  Humberside HU17 9JB

  Tel: 0482 866606

  NORTH WEST AND WEST DISTRICT

  District Marine Office

  District Chief Surveyor

  2nd Floor, Graeme House, Derby Square, Liverpool,

  Merseyside L2 75Q.

  Tel. 051 471 1142.

  District Sub-offices

  3rd Floor, Oxford House, The Hayes, Cardiff, South

  Glamorgan CF1 2TD.

  Tel: 0222 229556.

  Customs House, Clayton Street, Avonmouth, Bristol,

  Avon BS1 1DX.

  Tel. 0272 822931.

  Crown Buildings, Nantucket Avenue, Milford Haven, SA73 2DD.

  Tel. 0646 693272.

  WEST OF SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND DISTRICT

  District Marine Office

  Chief Surveyor

  6000 Academy Park, Gower Street, Glasgow GS1 1TR.

  Tel. 041 427 9400.

  District Sub-office

  Customs Home, Queens Square, Belfast BT1 3ET

  Tel. 0232 234466.

  EAST OF SCOTLAND DISTRICT

  District Marine Office

  District Surveyor,

  Blaikies Quay, Aberdeen AB9 2AZ.

  Tel. 0224 574122.

  District Sub-offices

  1 John's Place, Leith, Edinburgh EH6 7EL.

  Tel. 031 554 5488.

  The Port Administration Building, Selta Ness, Graven

  Mossbank, Shetland ZE2 9QR.

  Tel. 0806 242 090.

  REGISTER OF SHIPPING AND SEAMEN

  Unit 12. Cheviot Close, Parc Ty Glas, Llanishen, Cardiff

  CF4 5FU.

  Tel. 0222 747333.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those countries in which the air traffic control service has been privatised.

  Mr. Norris
  I know of none whose air traffic control service has been fully privatised in the sense that it is wholly or predominantly owned by shareholders or by organisations outside Government. But I understand that Switzerland's air traffic control service—SwissControl—is only partly owned by the Swiss Government. Over the past few years, greater commercialisation has been the trend throughout the world, and, for example, in Germany and New Zealand ATC provision has been removed from the machinery of Government and established in some form of corporate body.

  Coastal Shipping
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase use of coastal shipping.

  Mr. Norris
  The choice of transport mode for freight is rightly a commercial decision. However, in July 1991 my Department held a "Roads to Water" seminar to raise awareness of the potential of coastal shipping and inland water transport among freight users.

  Following this meeting, two studies were commissioned, one to determine current traffic patterns in the short sea and coastal sectors and to identify the potential for shifting freight from roads to water; the other to consider the interaction between the planning system and the provision and/or retention of waterside freight facilities.

  Executive summaries of both studies have been sent to the hon. Member: copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Transport Supplementary Grant, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the transport supplementary grant settlement for North Yorkshire in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  Transport supplementary grant for North Yorkshire in each of the last 10 years have been provided as follows:

  Transport Supplementary Grant (net)

  Year

  £ million

  1985–86

  3·482

  1986–87

  3·562

  1987–88

  3·552

  1988–89

  1·925

  1989–90

  2·653

  1990–91

  3·444

  1991–92

  6·157

  1992–93

  6·452

  1993–94

  9·645

  1994–95

  4·298

  Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 145, about the right of local residents to object to the granting of an operator's licence following deregulation, at what point in that process the right will be exercisable.

  Mr. Key
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill contains no provisions for changing the timing of local residents' exercise of their right to object to the grant of an operator's licence.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 28 February,Official Report, column 563, about goods vehicle operators, how he plans to ensure that members of the public know (a) the location and (b) the function of their local traffic office.

  Mr. Key
  The address and telephone number of the local traffic area office is given in British Telecom telephone directories under "Department of Transport". The address is also given in the statutory advertisements made by applicants for goods vehicle operator licences.
  127
  The function of the traffic area offices is set out in the "Traffic Area Network Annual Report" available from the Traffic Area Co-ordination Division, Department of Transport, Room P2/028, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB. A summary is also published in a "Code of Practice for the Traffic Area Offices", available from each traffic area office.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to market-test the processing of applications for goods and public service vehicle operator licensing; and how he intends to ensure that no unfair advantage is given to certain operators and that the rights of local residents are maintained.

  Mr. Key
  As part of the Government's "Competing for Quality" programme, we will be considering the feasibility of market-testing or contracting-out the routine processing of applications for operator licences. Contracting out would not affect the requirement for impartiality or the rights of local residents.

  Area Budgets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each traffic area office the budget for running costs this financial year and the budget for the previous financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The budget figures are as follows:

  Traffic area office

  Budget 1993–94 (£)

  Budget 1994–95 (£)

  North Eastern

  1,413,651

  1,277,630

  North Western

  1,579,452

  1,534,090

  West Midland

  1,179,320

  1,102,719

  Eastern

  1,453,827

  1,421,599

  South Wales

  731,113

  656,340

  Western

  1,245,515

  1,406,395

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  1,406,395

  1,369,381

  Scottish

  1,505,043

  1,150,732

  Total

  10,514,316

  9,668,418

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer on 22 February,Official Report, column 116, whether work on the future of the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency includes the future of the agency; and what considerations underlay the award to him of a bonus for this work.

  Mr. Key
  I have nothing to add to the answer given on 22 February.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 4, regarding the hiring of a temporary accountant for the Transport Research Laboratory, who was absent between 5 May 1993 and 27 August 1993, and why.

  Mr. Key
  During the period 5 May 1993 to 27 August 1993 an existing member of the Transport Research Laboratory staff studying for accountancy qualifications was absent on study leave. In the interim, a fully qualified 128
  accountant was hired to cover the period of absence and to assist in the preparation of the first set of commercial accounts for the Transport Research Laboratory. The Transport Research Laboratory did not have the requisite expertise to complete this work in-house.

  Trust Ports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give full details of all European regional development fund moneys paid to trust ports in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not immediately available. It is being gathered and I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for the payment of European regional development fund funds to(a) trust ports, (b) former trust ports now privatised and (c) trust ports eligible for compulsory privatisation under the Ports Act 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  Under the present rules, there are no special implications for trust or former trust ports. It is open to them to bid for ERDF funds in the same way as all ports. Their bids, as with all ERDF bids, would be assessed by the appropriate regional committee.

  Travel Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last financial year the total costs of travel and subsistence for each of the chief executives in his Department and his permanent under-secretary.

  Mr. Norris
  Executive agency chief executives incurred the following costs for travel and subsistence in the last financial year:

  £

  Driving Standards Agency

  4,384·47

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  8,286·00

  DVOIT

  3,563·67

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  3,288·67

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  4,833·00

  Transport Research Laboratory

  4,565·54

  The permanent under-secretary incurred costs of £6,113·05 for travel and subsistence in the last financial year.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether agency status for the traffic area offices has been postponed.

  Mr. Key
  Yes.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the traffic commissioner in the north-west traffic area office next year.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend will consider in due course what arrangements to make for a replacement.
  129
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the review undertaken of the grading of public inquiry clerks in the traffic area offices; whether his officials will discuss the review with the appropriate trade unions; and if he will place a copy of the review in the Library.

  Mr. Key
  The Department's internal review concluded that the main duties of the public inquiry clerk clearly fall within the guidelines for the current grading of the post as administrative officer. An element of the duties could be attributed to the executive officer grade but the percentage was insufficient to justify regrading the post.

  I would be happy for officials to discuss the results of the review with the Departmental trade unions. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the parliamentary constituencies covered by each traffic area office.

  Mr. Key
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Coastguard Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff there are in each grade at each Coastguard Agency office; and what is the address of each office.

  Mr. Norris
  The tables give details of all the coastguard regional offices, maritime rescue co-ordination centres and maritime rescue sub-centres.

  In addition, there are 90 sector offices—housing one, or, at the most, two, sector officers. These staff have been included in the relevant MRCC and MRSC figures.

  North and East Scotland Regional Office

  Staff Complement

  Marine House, Blaikies Quay,

  1xRegional Controller

  Aberdeen AB 1 2PB

  1xDeputy Regional Controller

  1xEO 1x1·5xAO

  0·5xTypist

  MARITIME RESCUE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE

  Marine House, Blaikies Quay,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Aberdeen AB1 2PB

  2xStation Officer

  8xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  15xWatch Officer

  Maritime Rescue Sub Centres

  Cromwell Road, Kirkwall, Orkney

  1xDistrict Controller

  KW15 1LN

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  8xWatch Officer

  The Knab, Knab Road, Lerwick,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Shetland ZEI OAX

  2xStation Officer

  2xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  8xWatch Officer

  Fifeness, Crail, Fife KY10 3xN

  1xDistrict Controller

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  8xWatch Officer

  130

  West of Scotland and Northern Ireland Regional Office

  Staff Complement

  Navy Building, Eldon Street,

  1xRegional Controller

  Renfrewshire PA16 7QY

  1xDeputy Regional Controller

  1xEO 1xl·5xAO

  0·5xTypist

  MARITIME RESCUE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE

  Navy Building, Eldon Street,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Renfrewshire PA16 7QY

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  10xWatch Officer

  Maritime Rescue Sub Centres

  Bregenz House, Quay Street, Bangor,

  1xDistrict Controller

  County Down BT20 5E

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  9xWatch Officer

  Boswell House, Argyll Square, Oban,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Argyllshire PA34 4BD

  2xStation Officer

  3xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  8xWatch Officer

  Battery Point, Stornoway, Isle of

  1xDistrict Controller

  Lewis PA87 2RT

  2xStation Officer

  3xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  8xWatch Officer

  South West Regional Office

  Staff Complement

  Imperial Building, Bar Road,

  1xRegional Controller

  Falmouth, Cornwall TR11 4NW

  1xDeputy Regional Controller

  1xEO 1·5xAO

  0·5xAA 0·5xTypist

  0·5xMessenger

  MARITIME RESCUE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE

  Pendennis Point, Castle Drive,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Falmouth, Cornwall TR11 4WZ

  3xStation Officer

  5xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  12xWatch Officer

  Maritime Rescue Sub Centres

  Kings Quay, Brixham,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Devon TQ5 9TW

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  10xWatch Officer

  Customs House Quay, Weymouth,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Dorset DT4 8BE

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  10xWatch Officer

  Western Regional Office

  Staff Complement

  164–166 Overland Road, Mumbles,

  1xRegional Controller

  Swansea SA3 4EU

  1xDeputy Regional Controller

  1xEO 1xl·5xAO

  0·5xAA

  MARITIME RESCUE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE

  Tutt Head, Mumbles, Swansea SA3

  1xDistrict Controller

  4EX

  2xStation Officer

  7xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  l4xWatch Officer

  131

  Staff Complement

  Maritime Rescue Sub Centres

  Gorsewood Drive, Hakin, Milford

  1xDistrict Controller

  Haven SA73 3ER

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  9xWatch Officer

  Prince of Wales Road, Holyhead,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Anglesey, Gwynedd LL65 1ET

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  8xWatch Officer

  Hall Road West, Crosby, Liverpool

  1xDistrict Controller

  L23 8SY

  2xStation Officer

  5xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  10xWatch Officer

  Eastern Regional Office

  Staff Complement

  Fifth Floor, Havenbridge House,

  1xRegional Controller

  Great Yarmouth NR30 1HZ

  1xDeputy Regional Controller

  1xEO 1x1·5xAO

  0·5xTypist

  MARITIME RESCUE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE

  Fourth Floor, Havenbridge House,

  1xDistrict Controller

  Great Yarmouth NR30 1HZ

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  5xSenior Watch Officer

  10xWatch Officer

  Maritime Rescue Sub Centres

  Lime Kiln Lane, Bridlington, North

  1xDistrict Controller

  Humberside YO15 2LX

  2xStation Officer

  5xSector Officer

  5xSenior Watch Officer

  9xWatch Officer

  Priory Grounds, North Shields, Tyne

  1xDistrict Controller

  and Wear NE30 4DA

  2xStation Officer

  4xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  9xWatch Officer

  South Eastern Regional Office

  Staff Complement

  Langdon Battery, Swingate, Dover

  1xRegional Controller

  CT15 5NA

  1xDeputy Regional Controller

  1xEO 1·5xAO

  1xTypist

  MARITIME RESCUE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE

  Langdon Battery, Swingate, Dover

  1xDistrict Controller

  CT15 5NA

  6xStation Officer

  3xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  17xWatch Officer

  Maritime Rescue Sub Centres

  East Terrace, Walton-on-Naze, Essex

  1xDistrict Controller

  CO14 8PY

  2xStation Officer

  5xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  9xWatch Officer

  Whytecroft House, 44A Marine

  1xDistrict Controller

  Parade West, Lee on Solent,

  2xStation Officer

  Hampshire PO13 9WR

  6xSector Officer

  4xSenior Watch Officer

  14xWatch Officer

  132

  Training Centre

  Staff Complement

  Steamer Point, Highcliffe,

  1xInspector

  Christchurch, Dorset BH23 4JQ

  1xDistrict Controller

  5xStation Officer

  1xSector Officer

  1xEO 1xAA

  0·5xTypist

  Headquarters

  Spring Place, 105, Commercial Road,

  1xChief Executive (G4)

  Southampton SO15 1EG

  4xDirectors (1xG5, 3xG6)

  3xInspector

  4xDistrict Controller

  2xSector Officer

  6xG7

  3xSEO

  1xSSO

  8xHEO

  13xEO

  12xAO

  5.5xAA

  3xSecretary

  1xSupport Manager 3

  6xManager

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff at grade 7 and above were employed in each executive agency in his Department in each year since 1989 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Norris
  The information, which is expressed as the number of posts, is as follows:

  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was established in 1990 and the figures are:

  Number

  1990–91

  60·5

  1991–92

  57·5

  1992–93

  43·0

  1993–94

  38·5

  Current

  34·5

  The Drivers, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology Centre was established as an Agency in 1992 and privatised on 17 December 1993. The figures are:

  Number

  1992–93

  13·7

  1993–94

  12·0

  The Driving Standards Agency was established in 1990 and the figures are:

  Number

  1990–91

  11

  1991–92

  12

  1992–93

  12

  1993–94

  11

  Current

  12

  The Vehicle Components Agency was established in 1990 and the figures are:
  133

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  6

  1991–92

  6

  1992–93

  6

  1993–94

  7

  Current

  7

  The Vehicle Inspectorate was established in 1989 but figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 could only be made available at disproportionate cost. The subsequent figures are:

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  31

  1992–93

  29

  1993–94

  28

  Current

  27

  The Transport Research Laboratory was established in 1992 and the figures are:

  Year

  Number

  1992–93

  111·4

  1993–94

  104·8

  Current

  104·8

  The Highways Agency, the Coastguard Agency and the Marine Safety Agency were all established on 1 April 1994 and the current figures are 347, 17 and 70 respectively.

  Bull Bars
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research he has undertaken into the(a) extent of bull bar attachments to on-road vehicles, (b) their use and (c) any danger they pose to pedestrians;

  (2) if he will ban the use of bull bars on on-road vehicles; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his assessment of the danger of bull bars attached to on-road vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  No research has been undertaken into the extent of the fitment and use of bull bars to road vehicles. However, estimates suggest that about 2 per cent. of new vehicles are being fitted with them.

  Impact tests using an instrumented child-size headform on a bull bar have shown that the severity of an impact on a bull bar appears significantly more severe than on a flexible bonnet. We have therefore taken steps to identify accidents where a pedestrian has been struck by a vehicle fitted with a bull bar with a view to determining whether bull bars are causing increased injuries. We do not expect to see results from this exercise before the end of 1994. It would not be sensible to legislate before considering those results.

  Staff Surplus, Eastcote
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult with trade unions over the staff surplus situation at Eastcote.

  Mr. Norris
  My officials are in touch with the relevant trade unions and will be meeting representatives shortly to discuss the staffing position at Eastcote.

  Port Facilities
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve port facilities.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's policies towards the commercial ports have created the conditions which enable ports to take full advantage of commercial opportunities and improve their service to the consumer and user. It is for each port to decide what improvement in its port facilities is necessary.

  Airlines Information Manual
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the travel information manual used by British and international airlines.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The travel information manual is published monthly in the Netherlands by a consortium of airlines. I am arranging for a recent edition to be placed in the Library.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fires have occurred on(a) British Rail and (b) Network SouthEast in each month since 1991 and each year since April 1984; and how many of these occurred (i) on rolling stock, (ii) at stations, (iii) on tracks in tunnels, (iv) on open tracks, (v) on escalators, (vi) on lifts and (vii) in other locations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate maintains records of railway accidents and casualties. Its records do not differentiate between railway regions.

  Railway fire statistics other than fires on trains have only been collated since 1989 and a monthly breakdown is not possible.

  Details of railway fires are given in chapter 5 of the "Annual Report on Railway Safety in Great Britain" for each year. Copies are available in the House Library.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give(a) the total number of passenger fatalities, (b) the total number of serious injuries to passengers and (c) the total number of minor injuries to passengers on (i) British Rail and (ii) Network SouthEast for each month since 1991 and each year since 1984, giving for each of the categories the number which occurred in (1) train accidents, (2) accidents through the movement of railway vehicles, (3) accidents on railway premises and (4) trespassers and suicide.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate maintains records of railway accidents and casualties. Its records do not readily differentiate between railway operators, or regions. Statistics are provided on a yearly cycle and it is not possible to give a breakdown by month.

  The table gives the available information.
  135

  Passenger Accidents 1984–1992–93

  Train accidents

  Movement accidents

  Non movement accidents

  Year

  Fatals

  Serious injuries

  Minor injuries

  Fatals

  Serious injuries

  Minor injuries

  Fatals

  Serious injuries

  Minor injuries

  1984

  18

  28

  358

  21

  52

  2,348

  0

  35

  3,438

  1985

  0

  31

  230

  31

  42

  2,341

  2

  51

  3,467

  1986

  8

  44

  298

  23

  70

  2,273

  1

  55

  3,522

  1987

  3

  13

  297

  36

  80

  2,609

  29

  84

  3,566

  1988

  34

  75

  540

  34

  102

  2,619

  1

  132

  3,903

  1989

  6

  39

  272

  25

  97

  2,601

  2

  132

  4,297

  1990

  0

  13

  144

  37

  107

  2,551

  2

  104

  3,543

  1991–921

  2

  18

  289

  53

  73

  2,181

  3

  101

  3,318

  1992–93

  0

  3

  63

  26

  79

  2,335

  2

  156

  3,727

  1From 1991 statistics have been collated and produced in financial years (April—March).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many notifiable train accidents have occurred on(a) British Rail and (b) Network SouthEast in each month since 1991 and in each year since 1984; and how many of these were the result of (i) collisions with buffer stops, (ii) derailments of passenger trains, (iii) derailments of non-passenger trains, (iv) running into obstructions, (v) fires on trains and (vi) other accidents.

  Train accidents 1984–1992–93

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  Year

  Total number of train accidents1

  Buffer stop collisions

  Passenger train derailment

  Non passenger train derailment

  Running into obstructions

  Fires on trains

  Other accidents including other collisions

  1984

  1,359

  55

  33

  197

  471

  168

  435

  1985

  1,240

  60

  30

  199

  440

  191

  320

  1986

  1,171

  55

  34

  158

  451

  174

  299

  1987

  1,164

  53

  20

  172

  390

  191

  338

  1988

  1,258

  58

  16

  187

  457

  221

  319

  1989

  1,368

  62

  23

  154

  481

  271

  377

  1990

  1,230

  41

  23

  154

  458

  228

  326

  1991–922

  918

  28

  13

  119

  328

  213

  217

  1992–93

  1,092

  23

  11

  164

  520

  187

  187

  1The total number of train accidents is made up of Columns B to G.

  2From 1991 statistics have been collated and produced in financial years (April—March).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the total number of(a) staff and contractor fatalities, (b) serious injuries to staff and contractors and (c) minor injuries to staff and contractors on (i) British Rail and (ii) Network SouthEast for each month since 1991 and each year since 1984, giving for each of the categories the number which occurred in (1) train accidents, (2) accidents through the movement of railway vehicles (3) accidents on railway premises and (4) trespassers and suicide.

  Staff and contractors accidents 1984–1992–93

  Train accidents

  Movement accidents

  Non movement accidents

  Year

  Fatals

  Serious injuries

  Minor injuries

  Fatals

  Serious injuries

  Minor injuries

  Fatals

  Serious injuries

  Minor injuries

  1984

  6

  8

  60

  14

  15

  58

  5

  104

  2,426

  1985

  0

  9

  79

  16

  37

  59

  9

  120

  2,413

  1986

  5

  23

  114

  8

  25

  55

  3

  127

  2,564

  1987

  1

  5

  60

  11

  34

  50

  4

  199

  2,562

  1988

  2

  6

  62

  11

  36

  49

  3

  231

  2,911

  1989

  6

  18

  53

  8

  28

  35

  4

  231

  2,770

  1990

  1

  6

  67

  19

  48

  68

  2

  252

  2,916

  1991–19921

  2

  6

  59

  9

  39

  65

  6

  233

  3,102

  1992–1993

  1

  5

  69

  5

  34

  106

  5

  245

  3,173

  1Since 1991 statistics have been collated and produced in financial years (April—March).

  136
  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate maintains records of railway accidents and casualties. Its records do not differentiate between railway regions. Statistics are provided on a yearly cycle and it is not possible to give a breakdown by month.

  Train accident statistics have been broken down into separate railway operators only since 1988. The table therefore lists all train operator accidents until 1988 and British Rail-only accidents from then on.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate maintains records of railway accidents and casualties. Its records do not differentiate between railway operators' and contractors' staff, nor do they readily differentiate between railway operators. Statistics are provided on a yearly cycle and it is not possible to give a breakdown by month.

  The table gives all the available information.
  137

  Trespassers and suicides1

  Year

  Killed

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  1984

  339

  79

  49

  1985

  318

  90

  38

  1986

  325

  93

  27

  1987

  317

  82

  19

  1988

  334

  85

  44

  1989

  293

  72

  20

  1990

  285

  96

  27

  1991–92

  242

  69

  23

  1992–93

  244

  72

  17

  1Does not distinguish between employee/contractor or member of the public.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific steps he will take to ensure that in the event of the privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services—NATS—any non-air traffic control regulatory powers remaining with the Civil Aviation Authority do not present a conflict of interest between the CAA's need to reduce costs to itself through contracted-in air traffic services from NATS, and its continuing regulatory responsibilities regarding equipment, procedures and airspace design.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: The detailed regulatory arrangements for NATS, in the event of privatisation, are currently under consideration. The privatised body would be subject to both safety and economic regulation and we will endeavour to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the two. The prime purpose of air traffic control is to ensure the safe and expeditious movement of aircraft—this will not change in the event of privatisation.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to separate air traffic control service provision and regulation by giving consideration to the desirability of transferring the Civil Aviation Authority's air traffic services regulatory function, at present within the remit of the safety regulation group's air traffic services standards department, to the Department of Transport or the Health and Safety Executive or to another independent organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: Our proposal to privatise the national air traffic services is intended, inter alia, to separate air traffic control service provision from the Civil Aviation Authority's regulatory functions. We have no plans to transfer the safety regulation of air traffic services from the Civil Aviation Authority to any other body.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to the maximum number of shares to be held by any single organisation or airline in a privatised National Air Traffic Services.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: I shall be considering this issue in the light of the public consultation currently taking place.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account was taken in preparing his consultation paper on the privatisation of the National Air 138
  Traffic Services of any international experience in the privatisation of air traffic control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: As far as I am aware, there are no fully privatised air traffic control systems in the usual sense of the word. But over the past few years, greater commercialisation has been the trend throughout the world, and ATC provision has been removed from the machinery of Government and established in some form of corporate body, for example in Portugal, Germany and New Zealand. The decision to go to consultation on the proposal to privatise the National Air Traffic Services was taken in the light of this knowledge, and the proposal itself is a logical extension of the trend towards commercialisation.

  Ml (Delays)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of delays on the M1 during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Key
  As this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, the chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Greville Janner, dated 20 June 1994:
  You recently put down a Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of delays on the MI during the past 12 months. As this falls within the Highways Agency's area of responsibility, I have been asked to reply to your question.
  We do not have a precise figure for the cost of delays on the MI. There has been no pressing need to obtain one since maintenance works are an essential and continuing task and driven by the commitment to keep the network in a reasonable state of repair. However, a rough estimate of delay costs for the past 12 months is £70M, which represents just over 10 per cent. of the figure for the motorway network as a whole.
  In recent years, delay cost figures have increasingly reflected the growing use of incentive (lane rental) contracts which are completed approximately 30 per cent. faster than conventional ones and therefore have a significant effect on reducing disruption. The even greater use of lane rental now (it is currently used for every scheme unless there are technical reasons why it cannot be) is expected to have yet further influence on minimising delays. We know that since the introduction of lane rental in 1984, the saving to road users has been in excess of £120M.
  While we do not routinely measure delays at roadworks, we do use a system called 'QUADRO' (QUeues And Delays at ROad works) which estimates the cost of delays and accidents at individual scheme sites. This is used extensively to optimise traffic management arrangements at roadworks.
  Considerable effort is made to keep delays on the network to a minimum. Apart from lane rental, some of the measures that have been taken include combining essential maintenance work with motorway widening schemes, together with the greater use of night-time and weekend working, mobile lane closures, narrow lanes and tidal flow systems. And we are constantly reviewing the scope for adding further initiatives to the list.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support and unemployment benefit claimants have(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully claimed income support under the hardship rules for each region, for Great Britain as a whole and for each

  139
  quarter since April 1990, showing those whose claim was in doubt due to their (i) not actively seeking work, (ii) refusing suitable employment and (iii) availability for work.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Clare Short, dated 20 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for details of payments made by way of Income Support under the hardship rules.
  I have attached information which relates to the period from June 1993. Information prior to this date is already available in the Library (Official Report Vol. 196 Col. 634: Vol. 199 Col. 81: Vol. 208 Cols. 239–240 and Vol. 229 Cols. 1017–1018).
  The number of customers who have successfully or unsuccessfully applied for a hardship payment because they have refused suitable employment are included in the number of customers whose claim is in doubt because of their availability for employment. I regret it is not possible to break this figure down.
  The information provided has been obtained from the Benefits Agency Management Information Statistics. The figures are based on the Benefits Agency's Territorial structure, which has been in force since 1991.
  This information will, in future, be placed on a quarterly basis in the Library. I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Territory

  June 1993

  Sept. 1993

  Dec. 1993

  March 1994

  Actively seeking work—hardship applications

  Scotland and Northern

  A

  21

  52

  10

  113

  R

  84

  18

  16

  30

  Wales and Central

  A

  47

  69

  86

  97

  R

  37

  78

  96

  149

  Southern

  A

  78

  122

  55

  62

  R

  40

  155

  47

  79

  National totals

  A

  146

  243

  151

  272

  R

  161

  155

  159

  258

  Territory

  June 1993

  Sept. 1993

  Dec. 1993

  March 1994

  Availability for work—hardship applications

  Scotland and Northern

  A

  86

  193

  76

  97

  R

  92

  82

  82

  32

  Wales and Central

  A

  93

  124

  136

  197

  R

  73

  79

  95

  113

  Southern

  A

  440

  485

  533

  340

  R

  600

  711

  667

  602

  National totals

  A

  619

  802

  745

  643

  R

  765

  872

  844

  747

  A=Awards.

  R=Refusal.

  Benefits Office, Lewisham and Brixton
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce play facilities in Lewisham and Brixton district benefit office.

  Mr. Burt
  The provision of play facilities within benefit offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  140
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what plans there are to introduce play facilities in Lewisham and Brixton Offices.
  The Benefits Agency is committed to improving the facilities for customers who visit our offices; public areas of offices are being upgraded as funds allow. Managers have the freedom to decide how best to improve facilities for their customers within the available resources.
  In the last three years four of the five locations in South Circular District, including Lewisham and Brixton, have been refurbished to provide better facilities for customers. The improvements have taken account of customers' preferences by providing increased privacy, more comfortable seating, carpets, improved facilities for the disabled, a mother and baby room and a television.
  A project team has been set up to look at further ways to make improvements including, where space permits, providing designated play areas. There are a number of issues to consider but management hope that within the next twelve to eighteen months they will be able to provide play facilities.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Social Fund
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what checks are made to ensure that claimants, who are signing on as unemployed, do not overpay their(a) crisis loans or (b) social fund loans.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what checks are made to ensure that unemployed customers do not overpay their loans from the Social Fund (SF).
  I should explain that there are two categories of checks which are made to avoid unemployed customers overpaying their loans; these are automated and clerical.
  The automated checks are made via the Social Fund Computer System (SFCS), which replaced microcomputer equipment nearing the end of its potential life and is now fully operational. There are a range of in-built features in SFCS to prevent the over recovery of loans. At every stage of the recovery process case controls ensure that the correct recovery procedure is adhered to. When a date is entered for the commencement of deductions, a date for the cessation of those deductions is automatically set. If this is not done, daily reminders are generated.
  In addition to these automated checks there are also locally prescribed clerical checks to keep the system up to date and prevent incorrect levels of recovery. The recovery procedure confirms that the system is operating efficiently and compares the records held on the benefit sections with those on the system. Any discrepancy would be rectified as a result of this procedure.
  If, in spite of these procedures an overpayment is made, a refund will be made or, where there is another loan to be repaid, the amount overpaid will be offset against this loan.
  I am aware that in some Districts there have been problems where unemployed customers have had deductions made by the Employment Services (ES) and, despite the Benefits Agency being notified by the ES that deductions have ceased, they have continued resulting in an overpayment. The chances of this happening in future will be greatly reduced by a major change to the system, planned for April 1995, which is to automate the interface between SFCS and the Income Support Computer System.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details of the procedure by
  141
  which the social fund budget is allocated to each district; whether such procedure takes into account the demographic constitution of the area; how such procedure affects the allocation; and how a significant number of refugees affects the budget allocation for an area.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Robert Wareing, dated 20 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for information concerning the procedures by which the Social Fund budget is allocated to individual Benefits Agency Districts.
  There are three main factors which are taken into account in deciding annual allocations to Districts. These are:
  the previous year's budget for the particular District:
  the value of awards made by individual Districts in the previous year, plus an estimated value for any application refused on priority grounds; and
  the District's share of the national income Support caseload, weighted by client group.
  The combination of these three factors help to ensure that budgets reflect the individual circumstances of each District. Ministers decided that for 1994–95 all District budgets for grants and loans should be increased by 2% and this increase added to the underlying baseline budgets set previously by reference to the factors mentioned above.
  District Managers are asked to plan their budgets for the year ahead, and are encouraged to consider the possibility of unforeseen expenditure, such as an increase in applications from particular groups of customers. Aside from these local contingency arrangements, there are also national procedures to help Districts facing excessive budgetary pressures which could not have been anticipated by Managers' earlier planning.
  Since the Fund was introduced in 1988, these national contingency procedures have been used to provide additional help to Districts on a number of occasions.
  The most recent example of this was extra funding made available to the North Wales Coast District to help victims of flooding. Additional allocations have also been made to assist with a local increase in applications caused by, for example, an influx of refugees from other countries to individual Districts. Such allocations are based upon information provided by Districts.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what provision exists so that applicants for the disability living allowance who have had their application rejected are informed of their right to appeal;

  (2) what steps are taken to ensure the appropriate competence of adjudication officers who assess claimants for the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) asking about (i) information given to customers on the right to appeal, and (ii) the steps taken to ensure the appropriate level of competence of Adjudication Officers.
  I should first of all explain that when notification of the decision of an Adjudication Officer is sent out to a customer, an
  142
  information sheet accompanies it. Amongst other information, reference to a right of review is made, in the event of disallowance of an initial claim to DLA. Similarly, following an unsuccesful review of a contested decision on a claim customers are advised of their entitlement to an appeal. I have enclosed for your attention copies of the pertinent narratives detailing the information given to customers.
  Adjudication officers are independent of the Department and make decisions based on evidence and the law. Monitoring is carried out by the Central Adjudication Service (CAS) on behalf of the Chief Adjudication Officer. Accuracy figures are routinely collected and published and Adjudication Officers are given ongoing support and training to ensure that decision making is informed and consistent.
  In addition to the monitoring performed by CAS the Disability Living Allowance Unit (DLAU) has an Adjudication Checking and Advice Team (ACAT) which also acts as a monitor. Customer complaints, difficulties and suggestions together with staff suggestions, the results of monitoring and other quality initiatives to lift service are fed into training as a matter of course.
  The DLAU are in the process of reviewing the role of ACAT. The team is to be increased in size and its remit extended to address issues raised both internally and externally.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received on the subject of beggars in the last three months.

  Mr. Burt
  Statistics are not kept on the numbers of letters concerning beggars.

  Incomes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current take-up rate of income support by those potentially eligible to claim in the 55 to 65-year age group for(a) men and (b) women.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Estimates of the take-up of income support are available for pensioners and non-pensioner family types and can be found in "Income Related Benefits —Estimates of Take-up in 1990 and 1991" published earlier this year, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the projected average income for single pensioners(a) male and (b) female between 1994 and 2000; and what estimate he has made of average income for full-time employment in the same time period.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available.

  Availability-for-work Rules
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list changes made in the availability-for-work rules for each year since 1979; and how many claimants were so affected.

  Mr. Burt
  There has been no major change since 1979 to the long-standing basic condition that all those claiming benefits for unemployment must be immediately available for work. Various concessions to the availability rules and changes in the groups who are exempt from satisfying this condition have been made. These, excluding minor and textual changes, are as follows:
  143

  Availability-for-work Rules

    Changes to the availability for work rules in unemployment benefit legislation
    1982
    A person undertaking duties in an emergency deemed to be available, (SI 1982–96).
    A person attending workcamps deemed to be available for a maximum of 14 days, (51 1982–96).
    A person engaged in providing a service deemed to be available if ready to accept employment or attend an interview at not less than 24 hours notice, (SI 1982–96).
    1988
    Availability may be deemed in the period between a doubt arising on availability and a decision by the adjudication officer in cases where Unemployment Benefit is already in payment, (SI 1988/689).
    1989
    Onus of proof placed on the claimant to show he has reasonable prospects of obtaining employment given his stated restrictions on his availability, (SI 1989/1324).
    1993
    A person providing a service as a "volunteer" deemed to be available if ready to accept employment or attend an interview at not less than 48 hours notice, (SI 1993/1754).

    Changes to exemptions from the requirement to be available for employment as a condition of entitlement to Supplementary Benefit/Income Support
    1980
    Start of regulated scheme, (previously Supplementary Benefits Commission had wide powers and issued written guidance to local officers), (SI 1980/1586).
    1981
    Men over 60 but below pension age who would otherwise be entitled to the long-term rate of normal requirements exempted, (SI 1981/1526.
    1982
    People who worked part-time by reason of some disease or disablement were exempted, (SI 1982/907).
    A person remanded in custody or committed in custody for trial or to be sentenced exempted, (SI 1982/907).
    The exemption for those in specified circumstances in relevant education (for example where the claimant had the care of a dependent child or where there was no parent and nobody acting in the place of a parent) was extended to 19 year olds in non advanced education, (SI 1982/907).
    1983
    All men over 60 exempted, (SI 1983/463).
    Those caring for a member of the assessment unit who was temporarily sick with no alternative means of care exempted, (SI 1983/1000).
    1987
    An exemption extended to those in relevant education living away from parents or a guardian who were unable to support him financially, (SI 1987/358).
    1988
    Introduction of Income Support, (SI 1987/1967).
    Removal of discretion to exempt those whose circumstances were "analogous" to those prescribed as being exempt, (SI 1987/1967).
    A member of a couple looking after children while the other partner is temporarily abroad exempted, (SI 1988/1228).
    1990
    Students within the definition of "deaf' for educational grant purposes exempt, (SI 1990/1657).
    Exemption extended to people accompanying children abroad for medical treatment, (SI 1990/547).
    1991
    A carer became exempt in the eight weeks after ceasing to meet the exemption criteria (e.g. after the death of the person for whom they were caring), (SI 1991/1559).
    1991
    Exemption extended to those living in residential care and nursing homes engaged in some employment, (SI 1991/1559).

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of severe disablement allowance receive an increase of benefit for(a) an adult dependant and (b) child dependants; and what is the average number of children per claimant.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.

  Number

  Number of Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) beneficiaries receiving an adult dependency increase

  4,000

  Number of SDA beneficiaries receiving a child dependency increase (CDI)

  2,000

  Average number of children per SDA beneficiary receiving one or more CDIs

  1·6

  Source: 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain as at 4 April 1992, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average amount of housing benefit payable to people in full-time work;

  (2) what is the average amount of council tax benefit payable to people in full-time work.

  Mr. Hague
  In Great Britain, in May 1992, the latest date for which information is available, the average weekly amount of housing benefit for cases without income support, where there was earned income, was £25·02. Information for council tax benefit is not available.
  Data source:The May 1992 Housing Benefit Management Information System annual one per cent. sample of cases.Notes:

  1. Claimants in receipt of Income Support cannot be in full time work, so have been excluded.

  2. Information on the number of hours worked is not collected, the information therefore includes any case where either a claimant and/or partner receives earnings.

  3. The information refers to benefit units, these may be a single person or a couple.

  4. As the information is from a sample taken at a specific point it cannot be taken to represent the whole year.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average amount of council tax benefit payable to people who also receive(a) unemployment benefit, (b) invalidity benefit and (c) severe disablement allowance;

  (2) what is the average amount of housing benefit payable to people who also receive (i) unemployment benefit, (ii) invalidity benefit and (iii) severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Hague
  In Great Britain, in May 1992, the latest date for which information is available, the average amount of housing benefit payable to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance was £34·25, £25·43 and £32·18 respectively. Information for council tax benefit is not available.
  Data Source:The Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample and the Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry of May 1992.Notes:

  1. The information refers to benefit units, these may be a single

  145
  person or a couple.

  2. Cases selected include those where either the claimant or the partner were in receipt of any of the benefits.

  3. Some cases may fall into more than one category; eg a claimant may receive Unemployment Benefit and the partner Invalidity Benefit.

  4. The information excludes all cases where Housing Benefit entitlement is less than 50 pence per week.

  5. As the information is from a sample taken at a specific point it cannot be taken to represent the whole year.

  6. The information for Unemployment Benefit uses a different analysis from that published in Social Security Statistics.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people now receive severe disablement allowance; and how many receive age allowances(a) at the higher rate, (b) at the middle rate and (c) at the lower rate.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 4 April 1992, the latest year for which actual figures are available, there were 302,0001 recipients of severe disablement allowance. The numbers entitled to the higher, middle and lower rate age allowances were 204,0001, 52,0001 and 45,0001 respectively. We estimate that as at April 1993 there were 313,0002 recipients of severe disablement allowance.
  Sources:1One per cent. sample of claimants for Great Britain rounded to the nearest thousand.2Social Security Departmental Report published in March 1994.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema (PD D12) by Area Directorate

  Area

  Claims received

  Disallowed on employment grounds

  Disallowed on medical grounds

  Assessed at 14 per cent. or over disabled

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  South

  Anglia

  24

  4

  4

  3

  Chilterns

  22

  5

  3

  0

  South East

  446

  28

  299

  31

  West Country

  146

  8

  41

  4

  Wales and Central England

  East Midlands

  5,292

  103

  3,722

  444

  Greater Manchester

  312

  13

  216

  27

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  2,160

  110

  1,350

  119

  Merseyside

  472

  21

  324

  34

  Midlands South West

  623

  26

  440

  47

  Wales

  8,614

  525

  5,362

  1,134

  West Mercia

  3,516

  174

  2,239

  316

  Scotland and North

  East Scotland

  2,354

  78

  1,831

  84

  Glasgow

  232

  12

  92

  8

  North and West Yorkshire

  2,498

  80

  1,738

  327

  North, Central and West Scotland

  1,862

  79

  1,471

  49

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,261

  139

  4,304

  655

  Tyne Tees

  6,873

  133

  5,510

  514

  Grand Total

  41,707

  1,538

  28,946

  3,796

  (a) Claims disallowed where the customer had not worked underground in a coal mine for a period of at least 20 years.

  (b) Claims disallowed on medical advice include—customers with insufficient lung function loss; those where category 1 pneumoconiosis has not been diagnosed, and those where chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema has not been diagnosed.

  (c) Claims assessed at 14 per cent. or more will result in an award of benefit.

  Footnote: Not all claims received would have been decided by 12 June 1994.

  Based on a 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.

  State Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has for the number of(a) men and (b) women reaching retirement age in (i) 2000, (ii) 2005, (iii) 2010 and (iv) 2020 who will not qualify for a full basic state pension.

  Mr. Hague
  The data held are insufficient to allow reliable estimates to be made in the form requested.

  At present, approximately 90 per cent. of men reaching state pension age have underlying entitlement to a full category A basic retirement pension based on their own contributions. This proportion is not expected to alter significantly in the future. The equivalent position for women is that approximately 20 per cent. currently have underlying entitlement to a full category A retirement pension. By 2020, this proportion is expected to increase to between half and two thirds.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been received since 13 September 1993 for industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many claims were successful; how many claimants were refused benefit because of failing(a) the breathing capacity test and (b) the category 1 pneumoconiosis test; and if he will break down the figures by social security district.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the information by Benefits Agency area directorate as at 12 June 1994—not all the claims received would have been decided by that date:

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the compensation recovery unit will take money away from asbestosis victims who have successfully pursued their claims in the civil courts;

  (2) in what circumstances (a) the mining industry and (b) other industries are liable to compensation recovery unit deductions where victims of industrial disease have successfully made claims for compensation;

  (3) what are the circumstances in which terminally ill people face recovery of court awards from the compensation recovery unit; and what diseases are covered by the rules.

  Mr. Scott
  Under the provisions of the compensation recovery scheme, an amount equivalent to the value of relevant benefits paid in consequence of asbestosis or other disease, accident or injury should be deducted if the compensation award exceeds £2,500.

  The scheme applies to all types of industry and the provisions make no distinction between claims made in the civil courts and out-of-court settlements, nor between types of disease.

  Compensation claims from people who are terminally ill may also be affected, but the legislation prescribes certain exempt cases, including payments made under the terms of the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme operated by agreement between British Coal and the mining unions.

  D. Gale
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action has been taken to ensure that the decisions of the Independent Tribunal Service with reference to the appeal of D. Gale (NR158681C) are communicated promptly to the local offices.

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, his honour Judge Thorpe. He will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the cost of the one per cent. addition currently paid to the holders of appropriate personal pensions aged 30 years or over in a full year.

  Mr. Hague
  The cost was estimated to be around £165 million for a full year in the financial memorandum accompanying the Social Security Act 1993, which introduced this measure. There is as yet no evidence to suggest that this estimate needs to be revised.

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds applied for severe hardship payments; and how many were granted for each quarter since 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table. More than one application may be made by the same individual until a job or youth training place is secured.
  148

  Applications for severe hardship payments

  Total number of applications

  Successful

  September 1988 to November 1988

  1,688

  1,139

  December 1988 to February 1989

  2,370

  1,465

  March 1989 to May 1989

  4,506

  2,963

  June 1989 to August 1989

  5,362

  3,556

  September 1989 to November 1989

  4,278

  2,877

  December 1989 to February 1990

  5,448

  3,721

  March 1990 to May 1990

  6,827

  4,663

  June 1990 to August 1990

  7,470

  5,326

  September 1990 to November 1990

  7,023

  5,240

  December 1990 to February 1991

  8,722

  6,574

  March 1991 to May 1991

  12,478

  9,665

  June 1991 to August 1991

  15,112

  12,210

  September 1991 to November 1991

  16,478

  13,231

  December 1991 to February 1992

  19,697

  16,537

  March 1992 to May 1992

  24,197

  19,959

  June 1992 to August 1992

  28,114

  23,085

  September 1992 to November 1992

  26,966

  21,551

  December 1992 to February 1993

  31,135

  25,715

  March 1993 to May 1993

  37,351

  31,700

  June 1993 to August 1993

  37,256

  32,415

  September 1993 to November 1993

  31,491

  27,557

  December 1993 to February 1994

  34,397

  30,395

  Source: Severe Hardship Claims Unit database.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of(a) men and (b) women currently earning less than the lower earnings limit; and, of these, how many are covered by the home responsibilities protection scheme.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that 0·9 million men and 2·3 million women earn less than the lower earnings limit in any week. The number of these covered by the home responsibilities protection scheme is not known but those who satisfy the normal conditions for caring have access to the scheme.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Young People)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many young people under the age of 18 years are currently serving in Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 1 July 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 3,334 young people under the age of 18 serving in the armed forces.

  "Front Line First"
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications of his "Front Line First" policy for(a) 24 Air Mobile Brigade and (b) the Army garrison at Colchester.

  Mr. Hanley
  As we have said previously, we hope to make an announcement about the broad outcome of the "Front Line First" studies before the summer recess.

  My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that as part of the additional front-line manpower for the Army announced in December last year we intend to make available an additional battery of 83 men for the 24 Airmobile Brigade Artillery regiment.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence exports.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to report that 1993 was another record year, with British defence equipment manufacturers winning export orders worth £6,600 million. This maintains the United Kingdom's position as the world's second largest supplier of defence equipment.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence what estimate he has made of the contribution of defence industries to British exports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  1993 was another record year for British defence equipment manufacturers who won export orders worth £6,600 million. This represents 5·45 per cent. of total British exports in 1993.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his French counterpart in respect of the deployment of military forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have regular discussions with my French counterpart on a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Trident
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the most up-to-date estimates of the capital cost of completing the Trident missile programme and maintaining it thereafter.

  Mr. Aitken
  At the end of December 1993, some £7 billion had been spent on the Trident programme out of a total of some £9.9 billion, with future estimated capital expenditure expressed at current economic conditions. Operating costs over the lifetime of Trident are expected to amount to some £6 billion on the same basis. The latter figure includes the costs of manpower, submarine refits, transport, stores, an appropriate element of the costs of the Clyde submarine base and the atomic weapons establishment and the eventual decommissioning of the submarines.

  Hercules (Replacement)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the Hercules.

  Mr. Aitken
  We plan to replace or refurbish about half the Hercules fleet on a rolling basis by the end of the century. The balance of the Hercules fleet will be considered later, alongside the possible replacement of other RAF transport aircraft.

  Peace Dividend
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to the extent of to which the peace dividend has now been exhausted.

  Mr. Hanley
  "Peace dividend" is not a term that my Department uses, because peace itself is a dividend from a150
  continuous investment of national and international resources. In the face of continuing uncertainty in the strategic setting, the Government's security and defence policies aim both to meet existing and future challenges in the most effective way possible, and to make a suitable contribution to peace and stability worldwide, with the purpose of maintaining the freedom and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories and its ability to pursue legitimate interests at home and abroad. The proportion of national resources which will be required to meet these goals cannot be predicted absolutely. On present plans, defence expenditure is expected to be about 2·9 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1996–97.

  Defence Costs Study
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what closures of Ministry of Defence sites in the midlands the defence costs study is considering.

  Mr. Aitken
  A number of recommendations have emerged from the defence costs study for the rationalisation of various defence sites throughout the country. These are still under consideration by Ministers. Until final decisions are taken it would be premature for me to comment on the detail of the options under consideration.

  Procurement
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to conduct a review of his Department's procurement plans.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's procurement plans are kept under review to ensure that they will continue to sustain cost-effectively the military capabilities that our policies require.

  Contractorisation
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the contractorisation programme in the armed services.

  Mr. Aitken
  Following the issue in 1991 of the Government's White Paper, "Competing for Quality", we have a programme to pursue market-testing opportunities worth £1·2 billion in the four years from April 1992 across the whole range of defence activities. The aim of the programme is to test the efficiency of in-house services and functions against competition from industry, thereby maximising value for money for the defence budget and the taxpayer. The recent defence costs study will inevitably have a significant impact on the scale of our future "Competing for Quality" programme, and decisions on the contents of the programme will be taken in the light of the outcome of the study.

  Hydrographical Surveys
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of hydrographic surveys is undertaken by the Royal Navy's marine surveying section.

  Mr. Hanley
  About two thirds of the civil programme of nautical charting hydrographic surveys in national waters is carried out by Royal Navy personnel embarked in
  151
  ships of the Hydrographic Surveying Squadron or in chartered vessels. The Navy has only limited involvement in hydrographic surveys outside national waters.

  Contracts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of United Kingdom defence contracts have been awarded to United Kingdom companies in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Aitken
  United Kingdom-based companies have been awarded some 90 per cent., by value, of the direct contracts placed by my Department in the last 12 months.

  Ten Tors Competition
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the manning levels of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army in the 10 tors competition held on Saturday 14 May on Dartmoor.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 74 Regular Army personnel and 289 members of the Territorial Army took part in the 10 tors competition on 14 May.

  Merchant Vessels
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant vessels are currently available to the United Kingdom for defence purposes.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) earlier today.

  Territorial Army
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of formed Territorial Army units to the Falklands or other overseas theatres.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 19 April at column 508 our intention to deploy a Territorial Army platoon in support of the Regular Army in the Falkland Islands from July to November this year, and a Territorial Army company as part of the Falkland Islands garrison from March to July next year. We shall consider further

  Permanent United Kingdom-based civilian staff—full-time equivalent numbers by grade equivalence

  Total administration group

  Scientists/engineers

  Other staff

  Total

  9,660·0

  3,237·5

  4,333·0

  2,089·5

  Non-industrial Total

  8,235·5

  3,237·5

  4,333·0

  665·0

  Grade 1

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  Grade 2

  2·0

  1·0

  1·0

  0·0

  Grade 3

  12·0

  6·0

  6·0

  0·0

  Grade 4

  8·0

  4·0

  4·0

  0·0

  Grade 5

  80·0

  36·0

  38·0

  6·0

  Grade 6

  181·5

  55·0

  125·5

  1·0

  Grade 7

  672·0

  134·0

  516·0

  22·0

  SEO and equivalent

  1,563·5

  287·0

  1,242·5

  34·0

  HEO and equivalent

  2,099·0

  467·0

  1,553·0

  79·0

  EO and equivalent

  1,667·0

  745·5

  803·5

  118·0

  AO and equivalent

  1,330·5

  1,110·5

  42·5

  177·5

  AA and equivalent

  615·0

  391·5

  0·0

  223·5

  Other—

  industrials on temporary promotion

  4·0

  —

  —

  4·0

  152
  developments in the light of this trial. The 40 TA personnel deploying next month are drawn from across the Province, and come from 4/5 Royal Irish Rangers and 152 Ambulance Regiment RLC.

  Defence Procurement Executive
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the list kept by the Defence Procurement Executive of approved persons or companies in the United Kingdom to whom surplus military equipment may be disposed.

  Mr. Aitken
  More than 4,000 companies and individuals encompassing more than 250 commodity types are currently registered on the Directorate of Sales (Disposals) trade lists. The information is commercial in confidence and can be released only with permission of the tenderers concerned.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries to which surplus military equipment has been disposed by the Defence Procurement Executive in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could not be provided without disproportionate effort. However, overseas sales of surplus military equipment by the Ministry of Defence are subject to the same defence and foreign policy considerations as all other exports of defence equipment.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used for the disposal of surplus military equipment by the Defence Procurement Executive.

  Mr. Aitken
  Surplus military equipment is sold by the Directorate of Sales (Disposals) to the best financial advantage of the Ministry of Defence, in compliance with Government policies and control procedures.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons and at what grades or ranks work in the Defence Procurement Executive.

  Mr. Aitken
  The available information, relating to staff working in Chief of Defence Procurement's budget area at 1 April 1994, is as follows:
  153

  Total administration group

  Scientists/engineers

  Other staff

  Industrial total

  1,424·5

  —

  —

  1,424·5

  Apprentices

  173·0

  —

  —

  173·0

  Basic craftsmen

  22·0

  —

  —

  22·0

  Senior craftsmen

  608·5

  —

  —

  608·5

  Industrial Technician

  45·0

  —

  —

  45·0

  Fire Service

  47·0

  —

  —

  47·0

  Other Non-craft

  529·0

  —

  —

  529·0

  United Kingdom regular service personnel

  Total

  1,224

  —

  —

  —

  Officers

  840

  —

  —

  —

  Other ranks

  384

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Air Force
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he expects the level of manpower in the Royal Air Force to be in 1999.

  Mr. Hanley
  Detailed manpower requirements in five years' time will depend on a number of factors, including changing commitments, developments in technology and the progress of management initiatives such as market testing. The Royal Air Force estimates, however, that once restructuring following the "Options for Change" review has been completed, its broad requirement for manpower will be 64,500, which assumes 4,500 in initial training. The precise number in initial training will depend upon recruiting and outflow at the time.

  These figures reflect decisions already taken. They do not take account of any changes in manpower which may arise as a result of the defence costs study.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals his Department has to fit flight data recorders or cockpit voice recorders to Chinook helicopters; and what would be the costs involved in purchasing and fitting flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorder equipment.

  Mr. Aitken
  A programme to fit a health and usage monitoring system which incorporates an accident data recorder and a cockpit voice recorder is planned to start in 1997. We expect to issue, next year, an invitation to tender for the supply of this equipment, at which time industry will be asked to provide costed proposals.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals his Department has to fit ground proximity warning systems to Chinook helicopters:; and what would be the cost of fitting and purchasing such equipment.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are no current proposals or costings available to equip Chinook with a ground proximity warning system. All RAF Chinooks are, however, fitted with radar altimeters.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings were held by Ministers, serving officers and officials with General Pinochet during his recent visit to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  154
  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Officers (Cooks)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)Official Report, column 534, what is the annual cost for each service of providing cooks for serving officers.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit Brussels to meet his NATO counterparts in order to discuss future peacekeeping operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence plans to visit Brussels to speak to his NATO counterparts at the Defence Planning Committee meeting in December. The agenda for that meeting has not yet been decided.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under which section of the Official Secrets Act 1989 he withholds data on energy efficiency within his responsibility.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not my Department's policy to withhold data on energy efficiency. Because of the major organisational changes in the Department in recent years, however, it was not possible to provide full sets of figures in time for the first two editions of the Department of the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance". The 1994 edition will, however, have details for each year of the current Government campaign, for each of the three services, and we hope to be able to give complete data in the subsequent edition.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Hanley
  No specific instructions are issued to security staff in my Department's London buildings for
  155
  dealing with those sleeping rough and beggars, but in the light of the continuing terrorist threat it is our policy to ensure that perimeters of buildings are kept clear at all times. Records are not maintained of specific incidents, but it is the policy of my Department's security staff to seek the assistance of the police where there is a problem.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 306, what was the conclusion of the discussions on the 1980s United States plans to update their offensive chemical capability; and what were the factors behind reaching this conclusion.

  Mr. Hanley
  Throughout the discussions in question, the United Kingdom placed the highest priority on the negotiation of a verifiable and comprehensive worldwide ban on chemical weapons. However, faced with the Soviet Union's formidable offensive capability in chemical warfare and its persistent refusal to accept adequate verification measures to permit such a ban, the United Kingdom supported the USA's moves to modernise its limited retaliatory chemical capability. This modernisation was adopted by NATO as a force goal but was subsequently cancelled by the United States in 1991. As was stated at the time, this underlined to the Soviet Union the benefits of an early agreement on a negotiated ban.

  This ban is now in sight in the form of the chemical weapons convention which opened for signature in January 1993.

  Suez
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the campaign, gallantry or other medals available to ex-service people who served during the Suez emergency in Egypt.

  Mr. Hanley
  One day's service in the Suez emergency in Egypt between 31 October 1956 and 22 December 1956 qualified for the award of the clasp "Near East" to the Naval General Service Medal or the General Service Medal 1918 Army and RAF. Between the above dates, naval personnel serving in ships engaged in operations off the Egyptian coast, and aircrew who completed one sortie over the operational land area in Egypt, also qualified for the clasp "Near East".

  Service personnel who served during that emergency could also be considered for awards in respect of gallant and distinguished services. A list of those personnel granted awards was published in the London Gazette supplement of 13 June 1957.

WALES

  Church Repairs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has been taken to fulfil his departmental commitment to discuss with Church authorities in Wales the need for repair grants arising from damage caused by atmospheric polluters.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Cadw has held discussions with Church authorities in Wales about support for general repairs to cathedrals. In my reply of 16 March to the hon.156
  Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), Official Report, column 698, I announced that over the next three financial years £675,000 will be set aside towards the restoration costs faced by Welsh cathedrals. This is additional to and separate from existing support for repairs to historic religious buildings, which totalled £557,331 in 1993–94.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the number of salaried dentists employed in each family health services authority area on 24 March, together with the number of community dentists employed within the same areas;

  (2) what was the number of (a) general dental practitioners practising, (b) general dental practitioners' practices, (c) community dental practitioners and (d) salaried dental practitioners for each family health services authority area for each year since 1984; and if he will also explain these figures per 1,000 of the population resident in each FHSA area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information relating to general dental practitioners and community dental staff is given in the table. Information relating to community dental staff is collected annually as at 30 September. Therefore, no information relating to 24 March is available centrally.

  The table also gives the number of salaried dentists in post at 30 September 1993 and 30 April 1994 respectively. No salaried dentists were employed prior to 1993. The table includes one dentist, in Powys, who was not in post on 24 March 1994.

  No information is held centrally on the number of general dental practitioners' practices.

  Family Health Service Authority Area Clwyd

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  84

  21·2

  1985

  87

  21·9

  1986

  87

  21·8

  1987

  97

  24·1

  1988

  99

  24·4

  1989

  108

  26·4

  1990

  111

  27·1

  1991

  105

  25·4

  1992

  102

  24·6

  1993

  114

  27·5

  1994

  119

  28.7

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  13·8

  3·5

  1985

  13·1

  3·3

  1986

  13·3

  3·3

  1987

  12·9

  3·2

  1988

  13·4

  3·3

  1989

  10·9

  2·7

  1990

  12·2

  3·0

  1991

  11·8

  2·9

  1992

  10·6

  2·6

  1993

  10·4

  2·5

  Salaried dental practitioners4

  1993

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  157

  Family Health Service Authority Area Dyfed

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  77

  23·1

  1985

  80

  24·0

  1986

  83

  24·7

  1987

  89

  26·2

  1988

  91

  264

  1989

  96

  27·6

  1990

  98

  28·1

  1991

  101

  28·9

  1992

  105

  29·9

  1993

  104

  29·6

  1994

  104

  29·6

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  15·4

  4·6

  1985

  14·6

  4·4

  1986

  15·3

  4·5

  1987

  13·6

  4·0

  1988

  16·2

  4·7

  1989

  14·2

  4·1

  1990

  14·2

  4·1

  1991

  13·7

  3·9

  1992

  12·5

  3·6

  1993

  12·6

  3·6

  Salaried dental practitioners

  1993

  1

  0·3

  1994

  1

  0·3

  Family Health Service Authority Area Gwent

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  107

  24·4

  1985

  109

  24·8

  1986

  107

  24·2

  1987

  114

  25·8

  1988

  116

  26·1

  1989

  123

  27·6

  1990

  125

  28·0

  1991

  139

  31·0

  1992

  135

  30·0

  1993

  135

  30·0

  1994

  142

  31·6

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  20·0

  4·6

  1985

  19·0

  4·3

  1986

  18·2

  4·1

  1987

  20·7

  4·7

  1988

  18·3

  4·1

  1989

  16·4

  3·7

  1990

  16·3

  3·6

  1991

  15·7

  3·5

  1992

  15·5

  3·4

  1993

  14·1

  3·1

  Salaried dental practitioners4

  1993

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  Family Health Service Authority Area Gwynedd

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  62

  26·7

  1985

  65

  27·9

  1986

  65

  27·8

  1987

  66

  28·1

  1988

  63

  26·5

  1989

  66

  27·6

  158

  Number

  1Rate

  1990

  69

  28·8

  1991

  65

  27·2

  1992

  66

  27·5

  1993

  67

  27·9

  1994

  66

  27·5

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  13·8

  5·9

  1985

  13·1

  5·6

  1986

  12·6

  5·4

  1987

  10·2

  4·3

  1988

  9·6

  4·0

  1989

  8·9

  3·7

  1990

  9·1

  3·8

  1991

  8·8

  3·7

  1992

  9·5

  4·0

  1993

  8·3

  3·5

  Salaried dental practitioners4

  1993

  1

  0·4

  1994

  2

  0·8

  Family Health Service Authority Area Mid Glamorgan

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  118

  22·1

  1985

  119

  22·3

  1986

  121

  22·6

  1987

  130

  24·3

  1988

  131

  24·4

  1989

  135

  25·1

  1990

  134

  24·8

  1991

  123

  22·7

  1992

  133

  24·5

  1993

  126

  23·2

  1994

  122

  22·5

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  18·7

  3·5

  1985

  17·7

  3·3

  1986

  17·7

  3·3

  1987

  19·5

  3·6

  1988

  20·9

  3·9

  1989

  18·9

  3·5

  1990

  18·9

  3·5

  1991

  18·3

  3·4

  1992

  16·9

  3·1

  1993

  9·0

  1·7

  Salaried dental practitioners3

  1993

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  Family Health Service Authority Area Powys

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  25

  22·6

  1985

  30

  27·0

  1986

  32

  28·5

  1987

  34

  30·1

  1988

  35

  30·6

  1989

  34

  29·2

  1990

  34

  29·1

  1991

  36

  30·4

  1992

  35

  29·4

  1993

  34

  28·5

  1994

  32

  26·8

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  8·3

  7·5

  1985

  7·9

  7·1

  159

  Number

  1Rate

  1986

  8·0

  7·1

  1987

  7·9

  7·0

  1988

  7·0

  6·1

  1989

  6·2

  5·3

  1990

  7·0

  6·0

  1991

  7·0

  5·9

  1992

  7·0

  5·9

  1993

  5·0

  4·2

  Salaried dental practitioners4

  1993

  —

  —

  1994

  1

  0·8

  Family Health Service Authority Area South Glamorgan

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  125

  31·7

  1985

  129

  32·7

  1986

  125

  31·6

  1987

  127

  31·9

  1988

  130

  32·3

  1989

  132

  32·8

  1990

  131

  32·3

  1991

  129

  31·6

  1992

  127

  30·9

  1993

  133

  32·4

  1994

  135

  32·9

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  15·5

  3·9

  1985

  14·7

  3·7

  1986

  13·8

  3·5

  1987

  9·8

  2·5

  1988

  16·7

  4·2

  1989

  16·8

  4·2

  1990

  16·2

  4·0

  1991

  15·4

  3·8

  1992

  16·2

  3·9

  1993

  15·5

  3·8

  Salaried dental practitioners4

  1993

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  Family Health Service Authority Area West Glamorgan

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  116

  31·6

  1985

  123

  33·5

  1986

  120

  32·7

  1987

  123

  33·5

  1988

  133

  36·1

  1989

  133

  36·1

  1990

  135

  36·5

  1991

  134

  36·1

  1992

  128

  34·5

  1993

  130

  35·0

  1994

  138

  37·2

  Community dental practitioners2

  1984

  13·7

  3·7

  1985

  13·0

  3·5

  1986

  11·8

  3·2

  1987

  11·8

  3·2

  1988

  11·8

  3·2

  1989

  11·5

  3·1

  1990

  12·3

  3·3

  1991

  11·9

  3·2

  1992

  11·8

  3·2

  1993

  11·8

  3·2

  160

  Number

  1Rate

  Salaried dental practitioners4

  1993

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  Family Health Service Authority Area Wales

  Number

  1Rate

  General dental practitioners2

  1984

  714

  25·4

  1985

  742

  26·4

  1986

  740

  26·2

  1987

  780

  27·5

  1988

  798

  28·8

  1989

  827

  28·8

  1990

  837

  29·1

  1991

  832

  28·8

  1992

  831

  28·7

  1993

  843

  29·1

  1994

  858

  29·6

  Community dental practitioners3

  1984

  119·3

  4·3

  1985

  113·1

  4·0

  1986

  110·7

  3·9

  1987

  106·4

  3·8

  1988

  113·9

  4·0

  1989

  103·8

  3·6

  1990

  106·2

  3·7

  1991

  102·6

  3·5

  1992

  100·0

  3·5

  1993

  86·6

  3·0

  Salaried dental practitioners4

  1993

  2

  0·1

  1994

  4

  0·1

  1Per 100,000 resident population.

  2General Dental Practitioners (head count) treating NHS patients at 30 September except for 1994 when figures are at 30 April.

  3Staff in the community dental service (whole-time equivalents) at 30 September.

  4Staff in post (head count) at 30 September 1993 and 30 April 1994.

  Medical and Surgical Negligence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds his Department has available for statutory or non-statutory contingent liabilities for claims of medical or surgical negligence when liability may be split between two NHS hospital trusts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The excess costs above £30,000 of successful claims arising from clinical negligence are met from a pool, administered by the Welsh Office, which has a present provision of £3,000,000.

  Where liability is split between NHS trusts, it is a matter for local determination how the first £30,000 of such a claim is met.

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff are employed by the Royal Commission on ancient and historical monuments (Wales); and what is their average annual salary.
  161
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments (Wales) has 34·5 full-time equivalent staff in post. Their average annual salary is £23,555.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance that he issues to GP fundholding practices on the insurance cover that they should carry for claims of negligence made for the placing of inappropriate contracts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no intention to issue guidance to GP fundholders on the insurance cover that they should carry. All general practitioners are responsible for making their own arrangements to cover insurance risks.

  A-level Results
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on A-level results achieved in(a) Welsh colleges and (b) Welsh secondary school sixth forms in 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on A-level pass rates is not immediately available by type of institution, but it will be possible to provide it before the end of the year.

  As soon as the data are to hand, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales asked for grant-maintained status in(a) 1993 and (b)
  162
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Seven schools applied for grant-maintained status in 1993. There have been no applications in 1994 to date.

  Cwmcarn Grant-maintained School
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when Cwmcarn grant-maintained school applied to establish a sixth form; and what was the result of this application.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have not received an application from the school to establish a sixth form. I understand, however, that the school is currently consulting on proposals for a change of character as required by section 96 of the Education Act 1993.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received on the number of employees in each NHS trust who would lose their jobs following the implementation of the current pay award.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is impossible to say to what extent any speculative figures for job losses in the trusts are directly attributable to the cost of pay awards.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had regarding the payment of salary to the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency by any other method other than pay-as-you-earn.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Test Ban Treaty Proposal
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty"s Government:
Whether they are aiming to exclude safety tests from the provisions of the proposed comprehensive test ban treaty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are committed to playing an active and constructive part in the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban. We will look for a verifiable and effective prohibition of all nuclear tests, with the aim of making a contribution to our international non-proliferation objectives.
Previously, a minimal programme of nuclear testing has been an important part of proving the safety and reliability of our nuclear warheads. We now aim to develop and use alternative technologies.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does it mean that we have withdrawn our demand that safety tests should be excluded from the treaty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we never made a demand that safety tests should be excluded from the treaty. But the whole question of tests on an exceptional basis to confirm the safety of the nuclear stockpile will need to be addressed in the negotiations. We have said that under a CTB we will develop non-testing methods further to guarantee confidence in safety and reliability. However, we expect the issue of safety or confidence tests to be looked at very closely during the coming weeks.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, do the Government intend to insist on those nations which are thought to be developing nuclear weapons —for instance, North Korea—signing a comprehensive test ban treaty before it comes into force? Does she agree that that will delay the establishment of a world-wide verification regime to detect clandestine tests? Is not now the highest priority to push ahead with the signing and implementation of the treaty rather than ending up with delays of that kind?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall not repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. It is important to understand that the situation in respect of North Korea is very different from the overall situation. As I said in my Answer, we are working for successful negotiations. We are looking for quick progress, which I know is what the noble Baroness wants, but we shall not sacrifice quality for speed.
170
The essential objective of the comprehensive test ban treaty is one which strengthens the non-proliferation regime. Therefore, we are looking for an extension of that regime and we shall seek the widest possible adherence. However, we shall let nothing stand in the way of making the right kind of progress. I know that the noble Baroness will be glad to hear that.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Alleged Remarks
2.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty"s Government:
When Mr. Neil Hamilton MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, went to Rio de Janeiro "to help British industry to export weapons of mass destruction" (House of Commons Standing Committee, 24th February 1994; col. 199), to which countries did he expect such exports to be made.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs were taken out of context as part of a bantering exchange with the Opposition.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does that not show that yet again Ministers ought not to indulge in banter or they might be seriously misunderstood?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all that it demonstrates is that the noble Lord does not have a great sense of humour.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do have a sense of humour—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peston: And I am willing to engage in a further bantering exchange with the Minister. My Lords, I am intrigued. Will the Minister now tell us the context of the remarks so that we can fully appreciate the joke?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, who I know has a well-developed sense of humour, will recognise that when jokes are explained often they fall flat. However, if the noble Lord reads col. 199 and the preceding pages he will understand the context in which the remark was made.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that long experience tells me that the people who are really without a sense of humour are those who accuse others of not having it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that may well be true. However, I, among many others, would not have brought this Question before the House.

Disabled People: Work Quota Scheme
2.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty"s Government:
Whether they will make the quota scheme for the employment of disabled people workable by reforming its system of registration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we recognise that the quota scheme may not be the most effective instrument for improving the work position of disabled people. That is why we have announced that we wish to consult on proposals to prevent unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people in the field of employment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. While the quota system is better than nothing, how can a 3 per cent. quota be enforced, as intended in the 1944 Act, when less than 2 per cent. of the working population are registered for the purposes of the scheme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to one of the major deficiencies of the quota scheme—the fact that, although there are sufficient numbers of registered and registrable disabled people to qualify for the quota, those who are registered certainly do not come up to the 3 per cent. I do not believe that reducing the quota would necessarily solve the problem. Certainly it would make life easier for employers, but it would not help disabled people to get back into work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider representations on this issue from organisa-tions representing ex-servicemen and women and, in particular, the Royal British Legion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that we have announced that we shall go out to consultation on proposals to prevent unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people. Certainly the Government and I have considerable respect for the views of the Royal British Legion and we shall certainly take note of any views that it puts to us.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, rather than a quota system or something better than a quota system, the best way in which to help disabled people is to ensure that those who are able, as we see it —although every one of us in a sense has some disability—have an appreciation of the difficulties of disabled people so that disabled and able-bodied people can feel at ease with one another? Surely that is the best way in which to help one another, rather than having a quota system or anything like it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the best possible assistance which disabled people can receive is for an employer to take a positive attitude towards looking at the abilities of an individual rather than his disabilities. My noble friend is right to draw attention to weaknesses of the
172
quota scheme in that area. That is why we have given a commitment to consult on proposals to prevent unjustifiable discrimination.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, while the employment of disabled people is important, they must be trained first? I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the changes that the Government have made to the funding of the four residential colleges for the training of the disabled, which has put their future in doubt. Is the noble Lord aware that the visit that he has promised to pay to one of those colleges in the near future will be greatly welcomed? After that visit we hope that the Government will revert to their previous method of funding those colleges.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that those colleges perform an extremely valuable role. I am very much looking forward to visiting the college to which the noble Lord referred. That visit is to take place either next month or later this month; I cannot remember the exact date. Obviously we shall keep under review all our proposals for the funding and training of disabled people in whatever is the most appropriate manner.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems of the quota system is that disabled people are often very reluctant to identify themselves as disabled and for that reason do not register? Will he bear that in mind in any future proposals that the Government may have, particularly if we are thinking, as I hope we are, in terms of comprehensive legislation dealing with discrimination against the disabled?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to another weakness of the quota system. Obviously it is a matter for an individual as to whether or not he registers. It is a personal decision. Many disabled people do not wish to be part of a scheme which means that they are getting a job because they are disabled. They wish to get a job on their own merits rather than through a quota system. That is one aspect at which we shall look in the review and consultation process which was announced some weeks ago.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for many years it was the practice of government, whichever party was in power, to pay the cost of any special equipment required by a company in order to employ disabled people? Is it true that the Government have now stopped those grants and that employers are expected to pay for any special equipment required? If that is true, is the Minister aware that a number of employers are now insisting that the disabled should pay for that specialised equipment before they can obtain the employment? What help is that for disabled people seeking employment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is not true. We have improved and relaunched all the various schemes providing assistance to employers under a new scheme called Access to Work which has been welcomed generally by all in the disabled field and by employers.

173
For the first year, under that scheme we shall pay the full costs and we shall not be asking for a contribution from employers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is my noble friend aware that fortunately the Government changed their mind so that the situation is no longer as was stated by the noble Lord and we are back where we were, which is satisfactory? Will the Government continue to study urgently ways in which to improve the quota scheme, taking into account the contributions made from all sides of this House in a debate which I initiated on 13th April?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the fact that we listened to representations on Access to Work and therefore were able to bring it forward in a form which I believe everybody has welcomed.
As regards the second point made by my noble friend relating to the quota scheme, we shall keep the position under review, but I must stress that most people recognise that the quota system has considerable weaknesses.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for returning to this matter. The Minister was kind enough to say that for the first year the Government will meet the costs. What will happen after the first year? A year is a very short period of time in the life of a disabled person.
Lord Henley: My Lords, representations were made by the All-Party Group on Disability when we originally proposed an employer contribution. The All-Party Group on Disability suggested that we could at least try it for one year without an employer contribution. We have given a commitment so to do and the scheme came in on 6th June without an employer contribution. However, we announced that, at the end of the year, we would review how the scheme was progressing to see whether it was possible to leave more money in by means of asking for a contribution from employers. I can certainly give an assurance that we shall make no changes until after the review has been completed. Certainly, there will be no employer contribution for the first year, plus however long it takes to conduct that review.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister tell us to what extent government departments are complying with the quota requirements? The time was when they were certainly not so doing.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is impossible to do so!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not have the exact figures in front of me. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that my own department—that is, the Department of Employment—is in fact complying with the quota. Because of the numbers of registered disabled people, I am afraid that it is impossible for all organisations, whether they be public or private, to
174
comply with the quota. However, I can give an assurance that of the order of 20 per cent. of all firms subject to quota in fact meet it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like to question the Minister a little further on the scheme that he mentioned whereby the Government meet the costs for the first year. Can the Minister say whether those costs include the capital costs incurred as a result of adaptations to meet the needs of disabled people? Further, does it mean that local authorities are reimbursed for those first-year costs? If so, is the reimbursement to local authorities employing disabled people within their standard spending assessments or in addition to them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, all employers, be they in the private or public sector, local authorities or whatever, can apply for help from Access to Work both as regards capital requirements and running costs. But in both cases that applies up to a certain limit over a. period of five years.

Fire Safety Legislation: Deregulation
2.52 p.m.
The Lord Harris of Greenwich The Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty"s Government:
When they propose to publish the report of the scrutiny team set up to find ways of revising fire safety legislation and enforcement and that of the construction industry deregulation task force.
LordStrathclyde: My Lords, the recommendations of all the deregulation task forces were published on 19th January 1994 and their working papers were made available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 30th March. Ministers are now considering the report by the review team and the question of its publication, and expect to come shortly to a decision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware of the serious concern among many senior fire officers about what the Government are doing on the matter? Is he also aware that, so far as concerns the construction industry task force, there were no consultations with the fire service? Is he further aware of the statement made by his honourable friend, Mr. Wardle, in a Written Answer in the House of Commons on 26th May (at col. 279 of Hansard) in which he said that there were no "formal consultations" between his officials and the construction industry task force on fire legislation and enforcement? Can that possibly be a satisfactory way to proceed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is an entirely satisfactory way of proceeding according to our objective, which was to obtain from industry groups what their concerns were with fire regulations. Once we had received that information, we decided that the review team should check it out. If any proposals are to be brought before Parliament, then that is the stage at which full consultation should take place; and it will.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by the Minister's Answer. Is what he refers to as the "review team" the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, refers to as the "scrutiny team"; or, alternatively, are they two different bodies? More generally, the Minister is aware that we are about to start the Committee stage of the deregulation Bill. If within that process, as is highly likely, we shall be discussing fire safety regulation and enforcement, will we have the full set of documents about which we have been talking before we come to deal with the matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall be coming to a view on the publication of the report very soon.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is not the answer to my question. The Minister has already told the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that Ministers will be coming to a decision. However, if I and other noble Lords want to discuss the matter within the deregulation Bill, can we be assured that we shall see all the relevant documentation which the Government have to hand?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am trying to be helpful, but I cannot confirm that we shall have the report. However, it is not in fact relevant to the deregulation Bill. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, if a proposal is brought to Parliament under the provisions of the Bill full consultation will ensue. That is the aspect of the matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is particularly concerned.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, although we note the point that the Minister has made—namely, that Ministers are considering in what form the report should be published—it is essential that the House should have such information before we proceed to debate the Bill. Is the Minister aware that one of the suggestions that has been made is that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is to be repealed? Is that true?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to go further than the commitments that I have made. As I said, Ministers have yet to make a final decision about the report's publication and the date on which that will be done. However, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister believe that governors and managers should also be consulted?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure what business managers should be consulted about—
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Governors of schools.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not quite sure what governors of schools should be consulted on in the matter. However, as I made plain, and as the deregulation Bill will demonstrate, before a proposal is made to Parliament the Minister must ensure that he has consulted all relevant groups. It is a matter for the special procedure of both Houses to decide whether those groups have been properly consulted.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, can my noble friend possibly explain why it is that in British hotels, because of fire doors, the task of trying to get from reception to one's bedroom is rather like a trip down the locks of the Grand Union Canal? Could it be that the fire regulations in that context are overdue for review?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is precisely such questions which the review team was asked to consider. The team has now reported, and Ministers are still deciding whether to publish the report.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, why can we not have the publication? What is the mystery? Why should Parliament not be given full detailed information which is in the possession of Ministers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again there is not very much more that I can say. But I fully understand the noble Lord's point. As I said, Ministers have not yet made a decision. That is why I cannot answer the noble Lord. However, when the decision is made I shall inform him.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend behind me asked the question about schools because they have always been omitted from the fire regulations. Is it not high time that they were brought within the scope of the regulations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I believe that that question strays somewhat beyond the question on the Order Paper, which refers to a review of fire regulations. If schools are currently excluded from the fire regulations, clearly it is not an area that the review board would have looked at in any great detail.
Lord Monks well: My Lords, surely our discussion raises the whole problem of the way that the Government are conducting the review on fire regulations. When an industrialist comes forward with proposals for deregulation, that is only one aspect of the problem. In the process of their consideration of the regulations, would it not be right for the Government to consult formally with a number of other bodies? I have in mind especially the workers involved in certain industries through their trade unions and consumers of the industries. In that context, and bearing in mind the question raised earlier about schools, would not the sort of regulations that will protect their children be of some concern to parents?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks from a level of such ignorance that I am really amazed at the way that he posed his question. Very soon we shall begin the Committee stage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. No doubt we shall hear more fully from him at that time.

Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Bill
3 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Chiropractors Bill
3.1 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
The chiropractic profession in this country stands on the threshold of achieving the prize on which it has focused its energies in recent years. It has long sought the professional recognition which I believe it so richly deserves, and is almost at the point where it will see its hopes become a reality.
The growing recognition of the efficacy of manipulative treatments was marked by the setting up of the working party on osteopathy through the inspiration of Mr. Robert Maxwell of the King"s Fund. Once this initial breakthrough had been achieved, I had the privilege to introduce a Bill to regulate osteopathy into your Lordships" House. It unfortunately fell because of the general election; but subsequently Mr. Malcolm Moss introduced a Bill to the same end in another place, resulting eventually in the passage of the Osteopaths Act 1993. That Act has been rightly seen as the forerunner of the Bill before your Lordships today. I think it is appropriate on this occasion to take a moment to mark the invaluable contributions made by those individuals and organisations towards bringing the Chiropractors Bill before your Lordships" House today.
In 1992 the King's Fund set up a second working party, this time to report on chiropractic. As with the osteopaths, the working party was chaired by Sir Thomas Bingham, now Master of the Rolls, who incidentally will receive a well-deserved honorary degree in Oxford at encaenia tomorrow. The committee was ably served as secretary by Mr. Norman Illingworth. The report of that working party directly paved the way for the Chiropractors Bill; and the chiropractic and indeed osteopathic professions would, I am sure, wish me to mark their recognition of the fundamental role that the two King"s Fund working parties have played. I should also like to express my own thanks in particular to Mr. David Lidington for so successfully steering the Bill through its earlier stages in another place, and to Mr. Sackville and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as the responsible Ministers, for their invaluable assistance.
Finally, recognition is due to the sterling work of the Chiropractic Registration Steering Group, who have constituted the vanguard of the profession, and especially the three representatives from chiropractic associations in the UK, Ms Shelagh James-Hudson, Mr. Norman Coulson and Mr. Ian Hutchinson, who have worked so tirelessly on behalf of chiropractic and their fellow chiropractors. To date the Chiropractors Bill has completed all its parliamentary stages without amendment. I believe that this is a clear sign that not only have we got the principles right, but also that we
178
have achieved an efficient, effective and dependable model for regulation of a profession complementary to medicine. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Walton of Detchant.)
Lord Rea: My Lords, I rise simply to say that this Bill is very much welcomed by these Benches, and I hope that it will serve as a model for other disciplines of complementary medicine, or professions allied to medicine, when they move towards self-regulation and registration.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Colwyn kindly explained that it was impossible for me to be present although I had been able to be involved in the much earlier processes of this Bill. Now it is for me to express his regrets that he cannot be here for Third Reading. As the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Rea, have said, it is most satisfactory that the Bill has reached this stage.
I have been asked to thank, on behalf of the chiropractic profession, some of those who have helped both the Chiropractic Registration Steering Group and the passage of this Bill. Thanks are therefore due to my noble friend Lord Kindersley for his early support and help, as well as to Robert Maxwell, the secretary of the King's Fund, and indeed to all the members of the King's Fund working party including its chairman, Sir Thomas Bingham, and secretary, Norman Illingworth, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already referred.
The Bill before us is closely modelled on that working party's recommendations. I also add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, to the Minister responsible in another place, Thomas Sackville, and to the officials in their department who provided quite invaluable advice and assistance throughout. I think it is now widely recognised that David Lidington"s name will go down in chiropractic history in this country for his efforts on behalf of the profession, but equally congratulations and thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for his tremendous work throughout, both as a valuable member of the King"s Fund working party and for taking this Bill through your Lordships" House in spite, I understand, of some considerable personal difficulties. Essentially, it is a question of thanking all those who have assisted in the passage of this important Bill which has given chiropractors an extra reason to celebrate their centenary next year. This Third Reading has my full support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I, too, should like to offer my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on his entirely successful piloting of this Bill through all its stages in your Lordships" House. As my noble friend has said, he has been a member of both of the King"s Fund working parties and he has been at the heart of the action from the very beginning. Today is a significant day in the history of chiropractic in the UK. We are closing one chapter but many more will follow—the

179
setting up of the General Chiropractic Council, the opening of the register, the running of the statutory scheme and so on.
The passage of the Bill has been a very public event —rather like playing on the centre court at Wimbledon. What follows will be more like the matches which take place on the outside courts. There will be just as much energy, effort and determination, but not so close to the public eye. It will take time for the initial members of the new general council to be identified and for the council itself to be established. The profession will also need to identify and gain resources for the council and make plans for the smooth transition from a voluntary to a statutory registration scheme. In the meantime, it will be important for the profession not to weaken its resolve but to continue to work and grow closer together. I congratulate all those who have been involved with all the events that have brought us and the profession to today's high point, and I send my best wishes for the future to all chiropractors and to their patients.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and above all to the Minister, for their generous support and for their kind comments about the contribution that I have made to the debates leading up to this stage in relation to the Chiropractors Bill. I am confident that this profession is now one wholly deserving of statutory regulation which will serve the caring professions in this country well in the years to come. I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.8 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.]
Schedule 9[Minor Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers: I beg to move that the proceedings of yesterday in respect of Amendments Nos. 171BA to 171F be vacated.
Last night the Committee got itself into something of a procedural confusion over Amendment No. 171BA with the result that the Minutes of Proceedings record that the Question on the amendment was not decided. Since it is not procedurally possible when considering a Bill to leave a Question undecided and then to proceed to consider further amendments, I am advised that these proceedings should be vacated. If my Motion is agreed to, the Committee will then proceed to consider
180
Amendments Nos. 171BA to 171F again, including Amendment No. 171BB which stands in my name. The ninth Marshalled List has been issued on that basis.
Moved, That the proceedings of yesterday in respect of Amendments Nos. 171BA to 171F be vacated.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: I rise not only in relation to this somewhat technical procedural Motion about last night's muddle but also to say to the Committee one or two things about the state of this Bill. I say at the outset that I do not do so in any spirit of banter, so that Ministers are aware of that.
As I understand the position, at about a quarter-to three this morning the Committee was counted out. It was counted out after a request had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that further consideration of the Bill should be adjourned.
On 20th May my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip wrote to the Government Chief Whip in these terms:
"My colleagues have asked me to tell you that, in their view, it is not in the best interests of the House—nor is it acceptable—to plan a timetable whereby the business goes beyond 11.00 pm as it frequently does at this time of year. We are therefore asking you to note that if the business goes beyond 11.00 pm, then Labour Peers and the official Opposition"—
my noble friend said with great constraint—
"will take a dim view of this".
Our view of the matter has got dimmer and dimmer as the weeks have passed.
On 8th June, the morning after another debacle on this Bill, my noble friend wrote to the Government Chief Whip saying:
"Unless the House faces up to the realities, we will continue to debate important issues at a wholly inappropriate time and this should not be tolerated. The Government must find more time in which to debate, sensibly, important matters".
Yesterday, in proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we spent a large part of the day debating matters sexual. For some reason the Government decided that that should be part of the Bill. I am not sure how or why it should be, but there it is. We then moved on to tobacco advertising, which apparently continued until about a quarter-past midnight last night. Following the debate on tobacco advertising, we then moved on to other important matters on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill until the Committee was understandably counted out at a quarter-to three this morning. This is no way for us to conduct our business.
I am fortified in that view not only by what has happened on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill but also by the fact that we are about to embark on the Committee stages of two other lengthy and very important Bills—the deregulation Bill, which is an enormous document and is bound to require detailed examination, and the Scottish local government Bill. If I was looking at the range of legislative measures coming before this Chamber and was asked to pick out one which would take up more time than the others it would probably be the Scottish local government Bill. The ramifications of that legislative minefield would be fairly high on the list. Therefore, we shall find ourselves in positions of extreme and increasing difficulty between now and the end of the Session.

181
We suggested to the Government that discussions should take place through the usual channels to see whether this problem could be dealt with. We suggested that perhaps Fridays should be utilised, recognising that if the Government want their business they will have to face up to the difficulties of using Fridays for legislation and therefore for voting.
Whatever we do about the problem, I am quite convinced—and I hope that the Committee is with me on this—that it is not right that we should debate issues of this importance at the hours and in the way that we have discussed them on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
I am not sure whether that means that I am in favour of what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said. I probably am in favour because at least it would clear up one procedural muddle in relation to this Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I very much agree with everything that has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. I too should like to say a few words about what happened last night. I apologise to those who have come here this afternoon assuming that they would be discussing the Coal Industry Bill at this time.
Well after midnight a number of us warned the Government, through the usual channels, that we were opposed to yet another late night Sitting on this Bill because major issues relating to the criminal law and the liberty of the subject were involved. We were told that the Government intended to proceed with the Bill however late we sat. They did so, despite the fact that they did not bother to keep a quorum in the Chamber. Eventually, about 12 hours ago, a Division was called and 14 Members of this Chamber went into the government Lobby, less than half the number necessary to maintain a quorum. As a result the Sitting was adjourned.
When complaints have been made about the manner in which this huge Bill has been handled in this House, we have been told by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that if we all spoke a little less there would not be a problem.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am not sure that those who say, "Hear, hear", were necessarily present last evening when some of us were attending to our parliamentary duties and they were not.
We are a revising Chamber. We have a duty to scrutinise in detail government legislation. A number of us, on all sides of the Chamber, take that responsibility extremely seriously. I believe that no one scrutinising our proceedings on this Bill can possibly argue that there has been deliberate time wasting. Quite the reverse. On many important issues, if anything, there has been inadequate debate taking place between a handful of people in a deserted Chamber.
The problem with this Bill has been not only its length—more than 150 clauses—but its Long Title, which comprises approximately 450 words. In the 20 years that I have been a Member of this House I have never seen a government Bill with a Long Title approaching that length, covering such an immensely
182
wide range of issues. It seems to me that almost any amendment on any issue falls within the Long Title of this Bill. That was not a decision of this Chamber, it was a decision made by Ministers. I believe that that is why the problem has arisen.
I hope that the Government will learn from this experience. First, there should be genuine consultation between the usual channels on matters of this type. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already referred to that. Secondly, it is quite wrong to ask the House to sit into the early hours of the morning discussing matters of this degree of gravity.
I well remember when I was in the Home Office the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, complaining that the House was sitting far too long when considering a Bill dealing with criminal justice issues. As a result of that pressure from the noble and learned Lord—before 11p.m.—the Government decided to suspend proceedings on the Bill on that occasion.
I very much hope that the Government will be far more sensible in relation to matters of this degree of importance which they bring before the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber are keen to see our proceedings conducted in good order and at a reasonable hour. That goes as much for my noble friends and myself as for Members on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches and those on all sides of your Lordships" Chamber.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers explained last night in response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the arrangements for discussing the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill were agreed through the usual channels. When it appeared that some time would be required to debate the amendments relating to the age of consent, it was again agreed through the usual channels to provide an extra day for that series of debates and for the amendments thereafter. As noble Lords know, the Committee utilised the opportunity yesterday to the full with a range of debates on questions of sex and sexual offences which I gather extended to some eight hours in all, followed by debates on the Armed Forces, tobacco advertising, and so on. Clearly in such circumstances any lengthy debates early on in the day will disadvantage those with later amendments.
Of course there is always tension between noble Lords who wish to debate important issues and their recognition of the ability of the Government to achieve their business. Those are matters which the usual channels constantly attempt to resolve. In a broader setting, those are also matters relevant to the consideration of the group on the sittings of the House which I have established.
I can assure the Chamber that I have heard and will consider further the points raised today. I hope that the Chamber will, for its part, recognise that yesterday's proceedings were somewhat exceptional both in their form and content. In the circumstances perhaps the best

183
course now is to consider the remaining amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill printed on the Marshalled List.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor Amendments]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 171BA:
Page 159, line 45, leave out paragraph 35.
The noble Lord said: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to our proceedings because he and I will have the opportunity of going over the arguments yet again, endeavouring, no doubt, to persuade one another of their quality.
The amendment deals with the question of curfew orders. As I said in the early hours of this morning, this part of the schedule which I seek to amend relates to a power given to the Secretary of State to introduce curfew orders when, as the schedule provides,
"arrangements for monitoring the offender's whereabouts are available in the area".
As I indicated last night, that refers to electronic tagging.
As I explained, when we discussed exactly the same issue during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, I did not oppose the idea in principle on the first occasion that the matter was raised. I took the view that those of us who argued that too many people were kept in custody should not oppose any idea put forward by the Government to avoid people being held unnecessarily in custody, so long as it had been carefully considered. However, as I explained to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the more I considered the issue, the more sceptical I became.
The last Home Office experiment which dealt with the question of remand prisoners involved three courts: Tower Bridge, Tyneside and Nottingham. The Home Office hoped that there would be 150 tags. In fact there were only a third of that figure. Precisely 49 individuals were involved, one being tagged twice. Of those individuals, 29 either breached their home arrest conditions or were charged with further offences. In all there were 217 violations—more than four for every person tagged—and 159 equipment failures, or more than three for every person tagged.
In the debate in 1991, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was leading for the Opposition on Home Office issues. He gave a summary of what had happened in a number of the cases. In Tyneside a defendant was about to be tagged but escaped by jumping out of the dock before the anklet could be fitted to him. Another absconded to the South East of England losing his tag on the way. In London, two young men from Scotland were tagged, with a condition of residence applied. They went on the run and gave a television interview while doing so. Another man with 17 previous convictions was tagged. According to probation officers, he had 28 violations before he was brought back to the courts. The Committee can judge for itself the attitude of the police in having to deal with issues of that kind.
In the light of that experience, the Home Office evaluation report—I quoted from it in the early hours of this morning; the Chamber is rather fuller now than it was then—uses remarkably restrained language to describe the situation. It states:
"Magistrates and judges did not seem to have much confidence in the applicability of electronic monitoring as an alternative to a remand in custody and commented on the difficulties of finding suitable candidates for it. They were willing to countenance a trial with a limited timespan, but if monitoring were to be introduced on any national basis then much greater confidence in the system on the part of both of these groups would be vital".
In the light of that statement, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told us that the situation had been transformed. He assured us that manufacturers had dramatically improved the quality of their tagging devices. That is not altogether surprising because some lucrative contracts are involved with regard to those devices. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated last night that there had been dramatic improvement. As I recall, he indicated that the new generation of tagging devices would not fail if they were submerged in water when an offender wearing one of the devices got into a bath. That does not seem to me to give us a great deal of reassurance about the quality of the devices.
On the basis of the abject failure of that experimental system, I still find it extremely difficult to understand why the Government are now proceeding to include the provision in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord was asked by my noble friend Lord Tordoff to give some clearer indication of the improvement in these devices. He was unable to do so. He indicated that he would write to my noble friend. If the Government wish to gain the assent of Parliament to this part of the Bill, they really have to do a great deal better than that. Significant sums of public money have already been spent on the idea. So far the experiment has been a failure. This afternoon we want some indication as to why the Government believe that it is right to proceed further in that direction. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: In view of the earlier strictures on the length of time that we ought to devote to matters in the Bill, I shall not wrap up what I have to say. I merely say that the description which the noble Lord has given exactly fits the expectation of the Home Office when the idea of tagging was first advanced 10 years ago. In that case, the Committee will wish to be reassured on two matters by my noble and learned friend: first, that dramatic advances not only are achievable but have been achieved; and, secondly, that, it being a permissive power, it will not be brought into effect until such advances have been achieved.
3.30 p.m
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to ask my noble and learned friend two questions. First, I believe that the system started in America. I visit that country every year and I understand from the people whom I see there that it has not proved very successful. Is that so? Secondly, how is it decided which men should be tagged? I have dealt with two men who gave their mother"s address as where they would be but they never went there. They

185
slept in the streets, moving on every so often, and they felt that they could never be found. What is the system for deciding which man should go where and for arranging that he stays where he says he will?
Baroness David: My name is on the amendment and I wish briefly to support it. The enormous costs of the earlier project are alarming. The trials cost £700,000 for 50 people, £14,000 per monitored defendant. That may decrease, but even so it is a large sum, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say something about it. A further point is that the families of those who are tagged find it difficult, and that should be brought into consideration.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry):As the Committee has heard, some of us were privileged to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he raised the matter in the early hours of this morning. More Members of the Committee have been able to hear him this afternoon and, unfortunately, the Committee will also have to hear me on the matter. Nonetheless, if I may return to what I said early this morning, the position is that under the existing Criminal Justice Act 1991 provision is made—and Parliament made the provision after due debate—for the use of curfew orders as a form of sentence. The position is that that form of sentence is already provided for in the statute. However, as the noble Lord graphically illustrated, when the matter was tried on a previous occasion certain problems arose. First, on that occasion the context was of bail rather than use of the system as a sentence. More particularly, there were problems relating to the technology.
Because of the awareness that there were problems and that problems may yet be experienced in the system's use, the Government have thought it right that the provision for such a sentence should not be introduced on a blanket scale throughout England and Wales for one group. It is rather that due provision should be made to allow the system to be tested on an area basis. Paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 makes that provision:
"A court shall not make a curfew order unless the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for monitoring the offender's whereabouts are available in the area".
In other words, it will be necessary for the appropriate machinery to be set up in an area before a court has the power to make that kind of curfew order.
As I said last night, it is envisaged that the system should be tried out initially in three different areas, chosen for their characteristics, in order that the test in the selected areas should be representative, so far as possible, of the kind of conditions which will be encountered throughout the country. For example, Manchester is one of the areas which has been chosen as a city with a high density of population and, in particular, it has architectural characteristics since it has a large number of high-rise buildings. The next place which has been chosen is Reading, again because it has a high density of population. But on this occasion, in contrast with Manchester, on the whole it has low-rise buildings. In that area there is a certain amount of radio interference and it was therefore thought proper to test the system there. Finally, the other area chosen was
186
Norfolk because it is a rural area and, as many Members of the Committee will know, Norfolk is flat. That characteristic seemed to be suitable for the test. It is thought that experiments carried out in those areas will provide a suitable test for the system.
Since it was last tried out, there has been a considerable development in technology. The system has been tried in America, where I am informed that 200,000 offenders have been tagged and the technology has been found to work. It has also been used in Canada, Australia and Singapore. That means that there is now considerable experience with the technology and it has been developed by companies in response to the fact that there has been a demand for it in various countries.
I cannot give the exact technical details of the way the system has been improved. However, I understand that, for example, since 1989 the signal strength has been improved, as has the aerial construction on the device. That has resulted in keeping radio interference to a minimum. In the devices the radio transmitters have been reduced in both size and weight since the previous experiment. Also the technology has been advanced in such a way that it is now much more difficult for people to tamper with the devices without being detected. For example, it will now be more apparent when any attempt is made to get into the device or to remove the radio transmitter from the person"s wrist or ankle, or when any attempt is made to duplicate or copy the radio signals, or when there is any loss of power. In all those ways, as I understand it, the system has been greatly improved. For that reason, the Government believe that it is correct to envisage using the system now.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asks on whom the device will be used. Of course, that is not a matter for the Government but for the courts. It is a sentence at the disposal of and available to the courts. Precisely on whom they will use it is a matter for them and not a matter which the Government can or would seek to dictate.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he had no objection in principle to the legislation. The Committee may think likewise that, if the system can be used as a sentence, particularly on people who might otherwise be kept in custody, surely it is a useful addition to the armoury at the disposal of and available to the courts. Obviously, the cost per unit, the use of the system, and so on, will depend upon exactly how much use the courts make of it. It is correct to say that little use was made on the previous occasion. But that was when the technology was not successful and when it was also within the range of disposals in connection with bail. We are now moving on to a different system and applying it in a different context; namely, that of sentence.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that we had to remember the effect on families. But many families would prefer to have the member of the family at home with them with the transmitter attached rather than having that person away in custody. One has to think of the matter in that context. I believe that, having in the past approved the existence of this provision in the Criminal Justice Act, Members of the Committee will think that this particular provision in paragraph 35 of

187
Schedule 9 is indeed a suitable way forward and a suitable way to take the first step in this particular matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble and learned Lord has indicated correctly—and indeed has repeated —the point that I made at the beginning of this brief debate. I indicated in 1991 that I had not been opposed in principle to the idea of some form of evaluation experiment. That is true. But subsequently I formed the view that the experiment had been a failure. I reminded the Committee only a few moments ago of what the Home Office's own evaluation report had said about this project. We are talking about public expenditure for each of the "tagees", if we may so describe them, of between £10,000 and £14,000 a time. What the experiment indicated was that the process had not worked.
The noble and learned Lord said that that applied only to people on bail. That is true. But if it failed—as demonstrably it did so far as those on bail were concerned—why are we now invited to extend it without any clear evidence that it has worked?
The problem with this whole idea has been that it was the view of a particular junior Minister then in the Home Office that this was an excellent way forward. I have no idea of the motivation of the Government in putting forward this proposal at the moment. All I can say is that all the evidence so far has demonstrated that tagging has not worked. It has, as the noble and learned Lord said, been introduced in the United States. But in many of the jurisdictions where it has been so introduced it has been applied to offenders who in the British situation would not even remotely have been held in custody. The Florida case which I cited last evening was just such a case. I looked at the criminal antecedent of those who had been charged in Florida. I find it almost inconceivable that more than 5 per cent. would even remotely have been held in custody in this country. I can see no case whatever for proceeding further with this idea without far more information being made available. That being so, I invite the Committee to come to a conclusion on this matter.
3.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 171BA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 169.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Addington, L.

Chapple, L.

Airedale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Annan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Banks, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Barnett, L.

Desai, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Faithfull, B.

Carter, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

188

Gallacher, L.

Nathan, L.

Geraint, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Parry, L.

Glenamara, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scanlon, L.

Howell, L.

Seear, B.

Hughes, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kennet, L.

Stallard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Tenby, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wigoder, L.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Addison, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Effingham, E.

Ailsa, M.

Elibank, L.

Aldington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elton, L.

Alport, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Annaly, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Arran, E.

Finsberg, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Flather, B.

Astor, V.

Forester, L.

Balfour, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Barber, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gainford, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gisborough, L.

Blatch, B.

Goschen, V.

Blyth, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Gray, L.

Borthwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gridley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint Maryleborne, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Burton, L.

Harlech, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Harrowby, E.

Cadman, L.

Harvington, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayter, L.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cayzer, L.

Holderness, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hood, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hooper, B.

Chesham, L.

Hothfield, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Howe, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Courtown, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Cranborne, V.

Knutsford, V.

Crathorne, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cross, V.

Liverpool, E

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lytton, E.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

189

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Renton, L.

Manchester, D.

Renwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Marsh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Sandford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Savile, L.

Mersey, V.

Seccombe, B.

Middleton, L.

Sharples, B.

Milverton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monson, L.

Slim, V.

Mottistone, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Munster, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strange, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Newall, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Northbourne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Swansea, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Orkney, E.

Teviot, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Peel, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ullswater, V.[Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Polwarth, L.

Vivian, L.

Pym, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Sea1.]

Quinton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynford, L.

Rees, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 171BB:
Page 161, line 50, at end insert:
("Discretionary life prisoners
—(1) In section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (duty to release discretionary life prisoners after they have served the relevant part of their sentence and the Parole Board has directed their release)—
(a) in subsection (6), for the words after "sentence" there shall be substituted the following words—
—
(a)account shall be taken of any corresponding relevant period; but
(b) no account shall be taken of any time during which the prisoner was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison act 1952 ("the 1952 Act")."; and
(b) after that subsection, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) In subsection (6) (a) above, "corresponding relevant period" means the period corresponding to the period by which a determinate sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender would fall to be reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (reduction of sentences to take account of police detention or remands in custody).".
(2) In paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 12 to that Act (application of early release provisions of the Act to existing life prisoners), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph, preceded by the word "and"—
"(c) in section 34 of this Act, paragraph (a) of subsection (6) and subsection (6A) were omitted.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment allows remand time to be taken into account when calculating the relevant part of a discretionary life
190
sentence. Remand time counts towards determinate sentences and in practice was always taken into account in calculating tariffs in discretionary life sentence cases before the introduction of the new statutory arrange-ments governing those sentences in 1992.
The statutory arrangements which were introduced at that time failed to include provision for that established practice to continue. It is desirable that it should continue and this amendment puts the matter right by providing for it to continue. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 171BC not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 171C to 17IE had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171F:
Page 162, line 42, leave out paragraph 44.
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the power introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for the courts to bind over parents to ensure that their children comply with community sentences. The paragraph in Schedule 9 that this amendment seeks to delete states that:
"Where the court has passed on the relevant minor a community sentence (within the meaning of section 6 above) it may include in the recognisance a provision that the minor's parent or guardian ensure that the minor complies with the requirements of that sentence".
That is a variation on the power which was introduced under the 1991 Bill. In fact, the power was not used until November 1992. Therefore there has been neatly two years' experience of the provision in action. The Magistrates' Association, which was opposed to the provision in the first place, has been keeping records of the use of the power. It is still profoundly dissatisfied with the provision.
In practice, in the past year about 800 binding over orders were issued by magistrates' courts but they were issued by a small minority of courts. Most magistrates' courts decided not to use the power at all, for reasons with which I agree and shall set out in a moment. Therefore a small minority of magistrates' courts use the power quite extensively and, as the records show, use the binding over provision very heavily against single parents.
I suggest that this provision is harmful rather than helpful in the control of young offenders. The evidence since 1992 has confirmed it. The same objections apply to the presently proposed version as applied to the originally proposed version. There are three reasons for rejecting the paragraph.
First, a binding order could unfairly punish parents who genuinely but unsuccessfully try to improve their children's behaviour. Parents are often at their wits' end to know how to control their children and prevent them from offending. Financial penalties will hardly encourage them to do that. It is difficult to see any evidence that financial penalties have in fact helped them to do better.
Secondly, when parents are penalised for something which the child has done, it is bound to raise tension between the parents and the children. There must be resentment on the part of the parents and a feeling,

191
perhaps of guilt in some cases, on the child's part. Certainly there is a diminution in the relationship between the parents and the children. That must put the children concerned at risk.
The third reason is financial. The binding over orders are for up to £1,000. Many of them will be against families which are struggling to survive financially. Therefore the sufferers will be not just the parent who is forced under the binding over order but, for example, the other children in the family. The whole economic health of the family will suffer. That economic health is one of the components in preventing child crime.
Above all, what is most important is that binding over the parents to secure the compliance of the child with a community order distorts the message of responsibility which a sentence of that kind is intended to give. It is particularly unhelpful that it should be thought that children can discharge their responsibilities by the fact that that responsibility has been taken over by the parents.
To continue and amend a provision which has proved to be unsatisfactory is the wrong way forward in dealing with juvenile offenders. Surely the right way, as has been successfully tried, is supervised activity programmes which have been extended and in recent years quite properly funded by central government. They take children away from crime by involving them in constructive programmes rather than introducing this unnecessary and divisive method of control —the binding over of parents in sums of money to try to ensure that the children complete their community orders. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as one who has had to deal with children on whom community orders have been made. It is difficult to categorise human situations. But one may be dealing with children who come from homes where a bad relationship exists between the child and the parents. It may be said that that is the fault of the parents; nevertheless, the relationship is a bad one and could be made worse if the parents have to pay out £1,000 on their child's misdemeanours. There are then the parents who really care for their children. Unfortunately, the children have taken up with the wrong set and, much to the parents' distress and dismay, they find themselves unable to control the children. There are also the extremely unhappy families—I am sure many Members of the Committee will have read John Masefield's poem, "The Widow in the bye street", whose child was in deep trouble and she could not help or control the child due to her circumstances.
Those of us dealing with these children—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton will support me in this —understand that part of the community service order is to try to help not only the child but also the parents. In many cases it is possible to effect a reconciliation. Support and help over a long period are given to the parents as well as the children in the hope that ultimately one will reunite them in a positive and helpful relationship. But, if the parents are to be fined, I can
192
assure the Committee that there will be no possibility of building a good healthy relationship between the parents and the children. I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Members of the Committee will no doubt agree that it is desirable that community sentences should be as effective as possible. Clearly the Committee will want, where possible, children to be made the subject of such sentences. It is important that any such sentence should be effective. As many Members of the Committee will know, the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place undertook a substantial inquiry last year into juvenile offenders. In its report it urged the Government to look at what further steps could be taken to strengthen the duties which can be placed upon the parents of juvenile offenders. That committee comprised Members from all sides of the House in the other place including Members of the Opposition. This matter therefore is one way of responding to that perceived need.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave the Committee certain figures in relation to binding-over orders. The latest figures from the Home Office indicate that in 1993 there were around 2,000 cases. I accept that on any view that is still a small percentage—4 per cent.—of the cases in the youth court. I accept that binding over is being used selectively. I should have thought that that is what Members of the Committee would expect and would think desirable. But the whole point of binding over in this case is to reinforce the effectiveness of a community service sentence. It is not in any sense intended to distort the effect of a community sentence; it is merely to reinforce it. After all, the duty which remains is the duty of the minor to comply with the requirements of the sentence. That is made quite clear in the provision which the Committee is considering. All it does is provide an encouragement, a stimulus to the parents to ensure, so far as they can, that the minor complies with the requirements of the sentence.
It is desirable that children comply with the requirement of sentences. I am sure that the Committee agrees with that. Therefore anything that can be done to increase the likelihood that the child will comply is surely desirable. It will not be necessary in all cases and nobody is suggesting that. But if the court thinks that in a specific case the binding over of the parent may be an effective way to help to ensure that the minor complies with the community sentence, then that seems to the Government to be a power which the court should have open to it. That is not to say that it will be used in all cases. There is no question of it being compulsory; it is merely a power which will be available to the courts. We believe that giving the court that power, which it can use with discrimination in appropriate cases, is a useful measure.
There is no question of creating undesirable tension between the parents and the children. Any tension that exists may be a constructive tension if it leads to the children complying with the sentences. Of course the financial circumstances of the parents will be something that the court will take into account in considering whether to bind over and, if so, in what amount. The

193
whole circumstances of any failure of the child to comply with the sentence will be considered by the court in examining the whole question of binding over.
It appears to the Government to be a useful measure; one which reinforces the community sentence and one which we commend to the Committee.
Lord Elton: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he will allow me to make an observation and ask a question. My noble friend Lady Faithfull pointed out that families differ greatly; my noble and learned friend pointed out that courts will be sensitive to the differences, and that is what we all hope. However, they can only be sensitive if they are seized of the state of the families at the moment.
My noble and learned friend may be aware that at the beginning of these procedures we discussed a group of amendments which included one which was not moved last night because we had already spoken to it concerning pre-sentence reports. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will take on board that anxieties about the way in which courts respond to the very sensitive issues which he is now considering will be coloured by the likelihood that the pre-sentence reports will be up-to-date in what may be quite fast-moving situations.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the procedure was used disproportionately in the case of single parents. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help the Committee as to whether that is so. If it is, how far is it so, and is it because such children are more likely to offend, or does it have anything to do with the composition of attendance at the centres?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: In response to my noble friend Lord Elton, it will always be important that courts should proceed on the basis of what they regard as the proper and most up-to-date information that they need for any particular disposal.
As regards the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I do not have the statistics to indicate whether the figures of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are reflected in those of the Home Office. I do not know whether we have any analysis of the figures on that basis, and therefore I am not able to respond further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the key to the reply of the Lord Advocate is the word "selective". If the power was used selectively but equally across the country in all magistrates' courts we might be less antagonistic to it. If it meant that magistrates agreed to the possibility of using this power but were doing so with great discretion in 4 per cent. of cases, as he said, I do not believe that there would be any objection. However, my understanding, based upon what the Magistrates' Association has said, is that that is not the case and that power is being used extensively and not so selectively by a relatively small number of magistrates' courts. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has any information on that point to help the Committee. It is apparent from his facial gestures that he does not have such information.
Because the Magistrates' Association is not satisfied with this situation, because it appears that a very large
194
number of magistrates do not feel that this is an appropriate power and because it may be being used excessively by a small number of magistrates' courts, we are still not satisfied. However, it is not a matter on which I wish to test the opinion of the Committee. I will consult and consider whether to come back to the point at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 171G:
Page 162, line 48, at end insert:
("Confiscation orders in terrorist-related activities cases: variation of sentences
In Section 48 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (postponed confiscation orders etc.), after subsection (3B) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3C) Where the court has sentenced the defendant under subsection (2) or (3) above during the specified period it may, after the end of that period, vary the sentence by imposing a fine or making any such order as is mentioned in subsection (5) (b) or (c) below so long as it does so within a period corresponding to that allowed by Section 49(2) or (3) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (time allowed for varying a sentence) but beginning with the end of the specified period.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This matter has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 171GA:
Page 163, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert:
(".—(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In Section 2(1) (offences to which the Act applies), after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"(f) any conspiracy to commit any of those offences;
(g) any incitement of another to commit any of those offences.".
(3) In Section 6 (interpretation)—
(a)after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) For the purposes of this Act, where it is alleged or there is an accusation that an offence of conspiracy or incitement of another to commit an offence mentioned in Section 2(1) (a) to (d) has been committed, the person against whom the substantive offence is alleged to have been intended to be committed shall be regarded as the person against whom the conspiracy or incitement is alleged to have been committed.
In this subsection, "the substantive offence" means the offence to which the alleged conspiracy or incitement related."; and
(b) in subsection (3), after the words "references in" there shall be inserted the words "subsection (2A) and in".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This matter has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 171H to 172ZF:
Page 163, line 17, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases
In Section 2 of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (bail for persons released from custody under habeas corpus while awaiting trial), after the words "brought as aforesaid shall" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").
Page 163, line 28, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 56(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (powers of courts remitting young offenders to youth court), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
Page 163, line 28, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide or rape cases.
In Section 37(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (power of High Court to grant bail on case stated or application for certiorari)—

(a) in paragraph (b), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,"; and

(b)in paragraph (d), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").

Page 164, line 6, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 4(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (power of High Court to grant bail to persons appealing to the House of Lords), after the words "Divisional Court shall" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").
Page 165, line 30, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 8(2) (a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (powers of Court of Appeal on retrial), after the words "custody or" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
Page 165, line 30, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 11(5) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (powers of Court of Appeal on quashing interim hospital order), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
Page 165, line 30, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 16(3) (b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (powers of Court of Appeal on allowing an appeal against a finding that a person is under a disability), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
Page 165, line 32, after ("19") insert ("(1)")
Page 165, line 34, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 36 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (power of Court of Appeal to grant bail on appeal by defendant), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 171H to 172ZF are all consequential upon Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. Accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 172A:
Page 166, line 28, at end insert:
("Payment of damages by Police Authority for Northern Ireland.
In Section 14(5) of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (payment by Police Authority of damages awarded against persons serving with the Royal Ulster Constabulary), for the words "Section 19" there shall be substituted the words "Section 133 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 172A has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 172B to 173ZA:
Page 168, line 8, at end insert:
("Bait: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 29(4) (b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (person under 18 remitted to youth court for trial), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
Page 168, line 8, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases
In Section 37(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (committal to Crown Court for sentence), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
Page 168, line 12, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide or rape cases.
In Section 113(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (power of magistrates' court to grant bail on appeal to Crown Court or by way of case stated), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
Page 169, line 17, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.
In Section 51(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (power of court to remit or release on bail detained person), after the words "above or" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 172B to 173ZA all relate to the matter of bail and to Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. I beg to move those amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 169, line 17, at end insert:
("Video recordings,
—(1) The Video Recordings Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In Section 13, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."
>(3) For Section 15 there shall be substituted the following section—
"Time limit for prosecutions.
15.—(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be brought after the expiry of the period of three years beginning with the date of the commission of the offence or one year beginning with the date of its discovery by the prosecutor, whichever is earlier.
(2)In Scotland, the reference in subsection (1) above to the date of discovery by the prosecutor shall be construed as a reference to the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Lord Advocate to warrant proceedings came to his knowledge.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

(a) a certificate signed by the Lord Advocate or on his behalf and stating the date on which evidence came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that fact;

(b) a certificate purporting to be signed as mentioned in paragraph (a) above shall be presumed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved; and

(c) a prosecution shall be deemed to be brought on the date on which a warrant to apprehend or to cite the accused is granted provided that the warrant is executed without undue delay.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This matter has already been debated. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 175A:
Page 171, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) In Article 5(2), after sub-paragraph (a), for the word "and" there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(aa) a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under Article 5 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (application for dismissal of charge where a case of fraud has been transferred from a magistrates' court to the Crown Court under Article 3 of that Order; and")
Page 171, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) In Article 5, after paragraph 3, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(3A) This Article applies in relation to officers of customs and excise as it applies in relation to constables." ")
Page 171, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) In Article 6(2), after sub-paragraph (a), for the word "and" there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(aa) a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under Article 5 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (application for dismissal of charge where a case of fraud has been transferred from a magistrates' court to the Crown Court under Article 3 of that Order; and")
Page 171, line 21, at end insert:
("() In Article 6, after paragraph 2, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(2A) This Article applies in relation to officers of customs and excise as it applies in relation to constables." ")
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 175B and 175C not moved. ]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 175CA and 175CB:
Page 174, line 26, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases
In Section 40(3) (b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (committal for sentence of offender convicted of offence during currency of original sentence), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").
Page 174, line 35, at end insert:
("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases
In Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (procedure on notice of transfer in certain cases involving children), in paragraph 2(1), after the word "1976" where it occurs first there shall be inserted the words ", Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move these amendments, which have already been debated.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 175D:
Page 175, line 20, at end insert:

("1925c.86.

Criminal Justice Act

Section 13(3).

1925

Section 49(2).").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 175D I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 175E to 175K. These amendments repeal the existing statutes and result from the new transfer for trial procedures in Clause 40 and Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 175DA to 175DB not moved. ]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 175E and 175F:
Page 175, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 7. In Section 36(1), the definition of "committal proceedings".")

Page 175, line 44, at end insert:

("1968 c. 19.

Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 1, the words from "or to any" to "before the original trial".")

The noble Earl said: Both these amendments were taken with Amendment No. 175D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 175FA:
Page 176, line 5, at end insert:

("1969c. 63

Police Act 1969

Sections 1 and 3, 6 and 7

1970 c. 9 (N.I.).

Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

Sections 19 and 20.")

The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154BB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 175G to 175K:
Page 176, line 5, at end insert:

("1972c.71.

Criminal Justice Act 1972

In Section 46(1), the following words—

"Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";

"which respectively allow";

"committal proceedings and in other";

"and Section 106 of the said Act of 1980";

"which punish the making or'; "102 or";

", as the case may be". Section 46(2).")

Page 176, line 27, column 3, at end insert:

("In Section 97(1), the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or".")

Page 177, line 5, at end insert:

("1987C.38.

Criminal Justice Act 1987

In Schedule 2, paragraphs 10 and 11.").

Page 177, line 7, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 32A(10).")

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 175G to 175K were spoken to with Amendment No. 175D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 175L:
Page 177, line 10, column 3, at end insert ("Section 52(2).")
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with the earlier amendment, Amendment No. 170DA, on child witnesses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 177, line 46, at end insert:
("1993 c. 24. Video Recordings Act 1993. Section 3.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 142C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178 to 178ZA not moved.]
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 149 to 151 agreed to.
Clause 152 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 178ZB not moved. ]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 178ZC:
Page 121, line 18, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("the authority making the order")
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment relating to the arrangements in Clause 152 for bringing the provisions of the Bill into force once it achieves Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 178ZCA:
Page 121, line 23, at end insert ("(Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 142C. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the side headings are not part of the Bill, is it usual for them to be inserted in amendments? I see that there are a number of examples of this.
Earl Ferrers: I think that the answer is yes. They have to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178ZCB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]
[Amendments Nos. 178ZCC to 178ZE not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 178ZEA:
Page 121, line 24, after ("147,") insert ("(Touting for hire car services),").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 169ZE. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 178ZEB:
Page 121, line 24, after ("151") insert (", paragraph (Discretionary life prisoners) of Schedule 9")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 171BB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178ZF and 178A not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 178B:
Page 121, line 39, after ("78(3) to (5)") insert ("(Video recordings: increase in penalties), (Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be held.)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 142C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 121, line 39, after ("133,") insert ("138,")
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which is required to put it beyond doubt that Clause 138 applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 179A not moved. ]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 179AA:
Page 121, line 40, after ("144,") insert ("(Access to computer material by constables and other enforcement officers)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 166A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 179B:
Page 122, line 5, after ("(7),") insert ("82,")
The noble Earl said: Clause 82 relates solely to Scotland. This amendment simply ensures that that is reflected in the extent provisions in Clause 152.I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for investigating the extent provisions. Clause 152 is quite the most complicated I have ever read in my whole life. I am grateful that, as a result of this amendment, Clause 83 now extends to Scotland. Perhaps I may take the liberty of asking my noble friend whether, when and if the Bill becomes an Act, a simplified explanation can be given to those persons in parts of the United Kingdom other than England and Wales as to exactly which clauses extend to Scotland and which do not.
I should like to point out that another amendment is very necessary. On page 121, line 40, there is reference to Clause 142(2), (3) and (6). I think that the phrase "and (6)" needs to be left out of the Bill because subsection (14) on page 122 clearly states that Clause 142(6) extends to Northern Ireland only. Those are the kind of points that this extremely complicated clause needs to explain, and explain to the ordinary layman who has to obey the law at the end of the day.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think my noble friend should worry too much if he finds that this is the most complicated measure he has ever seen in his life. Periodically, we all come up against that kind of problem. I agree with him that the parliamentary language used in the Bill is not readily absorbable by, as he put it, the ordinary layman. I take note of what he has said. My noble friend referred to the fact that Clause 142(6) extends to Northern Ireland only and wondered whether that is correctly written in the Bill and whether it should be something different. I have no reason to believe that my noble friend is right but I shall certainly ensure that the position in the Bill is correct. I shall consider what my noble friend has said over these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 180, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 180A.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 180:
Line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of long title and insert ("amend and strengthen the law relating to criminal justice and public order.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment substitutes the words,
"amend and strengthen the law relating to criminal justice and public order",
to replace the Long Title, about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, had such fun earlier in the

201
day, which runs on for more than a page. It seems to me that its only merit is that it is likely to get into the Guinness Book of Records.
The amendment, in the form that I venture to lay before the Committee, is in the style which formerly obtained—a short Long Title—which gave the general objective of the measure. That gave courts a great advantage of construction when they came to consider disputed interpretations of the provision and frequently (quite often at any rate) it was conclusive. When I wrote to the noble Earl about this I gave him the reference to the leading textbook where the cases are collected.
The change in practice came to my notice in a measure that the noble Earl will remember—the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991. That was in the new form with a very long Long Title for a very short measure. An amendment was made at a very late stage to the schedule of minor and consequential provisions. That having been done, the Long Title, which in its modern form has to mention all the components of the measure in question, was in turn solemnly amended.
That was so inconvenient and absurd that I ventured to draw the matter to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who has a general supervision over the statute book. He did not refer me to his advisory committee —the precursor of the present one—but offered to speak to the parliamentary draftsman. I had an interview with Sir Henry de Waal who was then the chief parliamentary draftsman. He agreed that the former style was useful and the present style served no useful purpose at all, not even as a catalogue of the contents which are set out in the table of clauses which become the table of sections. They are printed with each successive stage of a Bill in each House and also in the paperback edition of the Act. They also appear in the index of the hardback edition so that they are entirely redundant. The Long Title in its present form is entirely redundant.
As I said, the chief parliamentary counsel agreed that the former style was useful; the present style was useless and obviously expensive. But he said that parliamentary counsel could do nothing because they were required to draft in that way by the Public Bill officers. Accordingly, I trotted off to the Public Bill Office who agreed with everything parliamentary counsel had said, but said that they themselves could do nothing because they were compelled to enjoin that style of drafting by the Procedure Committees of both Houses. Accordingly, I then put in a memorandum to our Procedure Committee. The Committee will not be surprised that I was then referred back to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on statute law reform which was exactly where I started. The Committee may remember the Second Circle of Dante's Inferno where the lovers, still clasped in each other's arms, are swirled round in a whirlwind. That is how I felt—perhaps a whirlpool sucking me down, would be more appropriate.
In drafting the amendment in the old style, it struck me that it was almost impossible to find some generic term that would cover every single clause in this enormous ragbag of a Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. But that can be taken care of—and is taken care of
202
—in the traditional way by using the word "amend". As regards "strengthen", I went to the speech of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary when he declared the purpose of the Bill. It seemed to me that the word "strengthen" was right. If the noble Earl is favourable to this amendment it may be that he will wish to consider the actual terms of the Title with his officials and with the draftsman. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: In principle I entirely support the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am sure that the Committee is grateful to him for raising this matter in the way that he has. I hope that he will forgive me if I remain profoundly critical of his drafting. His proposed wording that the object of the Bill is to,
"amend and strengthen the law relating to criminal justice"
omits to refer to the fact that many noble Lords believe that a number of provisions in this Bill will in fact substantially weaken the law relating to criminal justice. I have particularly in mind the clauses relating to the right of silence and to corroboration which in my view, and that of many others, will inevitably lead to more innocent people being convicted and to more miscarriages of justice.
In those circumstances I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the first conjunction in his proposed form of Title should be replaced by the disjunctive and that the Bill can be more accurately described as a Bill to "amend and weaken the law relating to criminal justice".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I always pay great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, says, but I confess that I shall be very surprised if the Government come up with a solution for a Bill to amend and weaken the law relating to criminal justice and public order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Unusually, I find myself out of sympathy with this amendment. The purpose of a precise Long Title is to discourage people from hanging amendments on different subjects on the Bill as though it were a Christmas tree. It has not worked this time—perhaps the Long Title is not precise enough —but a Long Title of the kind which the noble and learned Lord proposes would make it even easier.
In your Lordships' House there is not a procedural sanction against amending the Long Title, but amendment is discouraged. Amendment would mean that ultimately all Bills could cover all subjects. I hope that the Government will not give way on this issue.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not want the Government to give way and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, does. So I suppose that whatever the Government do someone will say that it is wrong.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He is trying to make the Long Title simpler. He took us

203
in a fascinating circuitous travel around the various departments and commissions to which he was directed in his search for brevity only to land up where he started. That sometimes happens to all of us, but I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord should have had that experience. However, whatever whirlpool he landed in, it did not suck the noble and learned Lord down because he has been in as good a form as ever after the experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, watches these matters carefully. He has taken every opportunity to blame the Government for the long Long Title and to say how stupid the Government are to have such a Long Title. I was therefore surprised that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested a Short Title, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for once in his life remained fixed in his seat. I should have thought that he would warm to the noble and learned Lord—
A Noble Lord: Don't encourage him!
Earl Ferrers: No, I shall not encourage him. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, never needs any encouragement. I was merely remarking on another remarkable example of the noble Lord's behaviour. The noble Lord was taken aback by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who mischievously considers that the Bill does not strengthen the law on criminal justice. That is an absurdity. The noble Lord knows that and I shall not comment any more on it.
I shall simply say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The views of parliamentary counsel have been sought and I have been advised that, despite the noble and learned Lord's impeccable reputation on matters constitutional, his amendment is technically defective because it would not encompass all the many and various clauses of the Bill. I shall take the matter away, however, and do my best to ensure that a simpler Long Title is produced either on Report or at Third Reading to cover the noble and learned Lord's anxieties, although it may not be quite as brief as the noble and learned Lord requires. But if I produce such a shorter Long Title, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will approve of it. I hope also that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will approve of it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will realise that this Bill, like all government Bills, does nothing other than strengthen the law. It does not weaken it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sorry that I have created an occasion whereby the noble Earl has reproached me for being silent on this matter. In fact, I spoke on the subject of the Long Title an hour-and-a-half ago, and even on this occasion it did not seem appropriate to make a second speech on the same subject within the period of an hour-and-a-half. That is why I remained silent.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and gratefully accept his overture. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. I am surprised that the noble Earl said that, in its present form, the
204
amendment does not cover all the provisions of the Bill. I should have thought that the word "amend" covers everything that is not covered by the word "strengthen".
As for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, trying to turn the noble Earl against me—most ignobly —his point was that the present form of the Long Title is calculated to inhibit freedom of amendment and debate. He may well be right that that is the objective, but it is absolutely unnecessary. So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, we get on very well with the guidance of the Public Bill Office and the Leader of the House as to what falls fairly within the compass of a measure. So far as the other place is concerned, the point is even stronger because there the Speaker has the power of selection of amendments and will not choose any amendment, even one appearing on the Order Paper, which is not within the general compass of the Bill.
There is only one other thing to be said in relation to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which is that I am reverting to a former style which worked perfectly well, as far as I know, without any procedural difficulties.
It would be ungenerous not to respond to the noble Earl and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 180A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 181 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Coal Industry Bill
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Coal Industry Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 7 [Exploitation rights: general]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) On the restructuring date, all of the Corporation's interests—

(a)in unworked coal and coal mines, including its interests in any coal that, notwithstanding having been worked at some time, is so attached to or incorporated in any coal mine or other land as to be, in law, a part of it;

(b)in land which is owned by the Corporation and used for the purposes of coal-mining operations on the date of Royal Assent; and

(c)in land which is occupied on the date of Royal Assent for the purposes of coal-mining operations undertaken at any time but not owned by the Corporation;

shall, subject to such interests and rights as the Secretary of State may create in favour of others under section 12 below, vest without further assurance in the Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout the debates in this House we have been told a number of things about the way in which British Coal's liabilities

205
will be treated in the future. We have been told, on the one hand, at the last stage on 13th June, at col. 1481 of Hansard, that:
"any pollution or negligence created by British Coal will… vest in the Coal Authority";
and, on the other hand, that:
"the whole question of contamination is fraught with difficulty. That has nothing to do with the Bill".—[Official Report, 13/6/94; col. 1457.]
I do not believe that either statement is correct, but I do believe, and accept, that liabilities go with ownership. The new owners of the coal assets will be responsible for those problems that properly pass with the assets. The Bill ensures that coal and coal mines (which covers everything past, present and future underground) pass to the Coal Authority.
The Minister assured us at the previous stage that no liabilities will cause a problem after privatisation because the Coal Authority will, without fail, ensure that everything that needs to be done by the new companies is done because the authority will vet their suitability, financial strength and competence. I take some comfort and reassurance from that. The authority should get it right more often than not, but there will certainly be problems; hard cases make bad laws, and they will affect many third parties, the innocent bystanders.
So this amendment to Clause 7(3) gets to the heart of the matter. The clause is about transferring ownership and is the only definite provision for the transfer of assets "without further assurance" to the Coal Authority. In addition to the coal and coal mines, it transfers two further types of property associated with coal mining operations. In neither case does the transfer prevent the Secretary of State making other arrange-ments because the amendment provides for the authority to become the owner subject to the rights or interests that the Secretary of State may have created under a restructuring scheme. The amendment ensures that the following property is transferred to the authority to ensure that, through ownership, it has responsibility for the liabilities. The first category comprises those properties which are currently used for coal mining operations. The second category covers those lands associated with coal mining operations where British Coal does not own the land, but rents it. There is a clear need to ensure that all the obligations to the owner should be fulfilled as fully as possible. The accumulated pollution and contamination is likely to be considerable.
The amendment merely seeks to ensure that the Government, the authority and British Coal take the proper and responsible approach to such property to ensure that no innocent party suffers loss. I beg to move.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to seek clarification. The Minister will remember that the amendments tabled last week by my noble friend Lord Morris, which were defeated by four votes, sought to clarify the position on environmental liability for discharges of minewater from abandoned mines. The amendment to Clause 7, for example, made it clear that actual and potential civil liabilities would be transferred
206
from British Coal to the authority. The Minister suggested that the amendment was not necessary because these liabilities would pass automatically.
Advice taken by the Anglers Co-operative Association and others suggest that that may not be the case. The Bill operated to vest land and assets in the Coal Authority. Under normal law, a transfer of land operates to vest benefits and burdens attaching to that land. It does not automatically vest civil liabilities. It is clear that the Government intended that pre-existing civil liabilities ought to vest in the Coal Authority.
It is a possibility that civil liabilities may disappear if the Bill is passed in its present form. Therefore, does the Minister agree that, for the avoidance of doubt, any civil liabilities, whether actual or potential, existing on the restructuring date shall be transferred to the Coal Authority on that date?
Lord Renton: My Lords, subject to what my noble friend may say, I believe that the amendment deserves careful attention. At various stages in our proceedings my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has emphasised the importance of Clause 7(3), and rightly so. Perhaps I may say in passing that the side note, "Exploitation rights: general", does not summarise or express the full effect of Clause 7.
The main point is that Amendment No. 1 does not alter the purpose of subsection (3) or the principle underlying it; it merely clarifies its application, especially paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) makes it clear that the provision applies to:
"land which is owned by the Corporation and used for the purposes of coal-mining operations on the date of Royal Assent".
Paragraph (c) makes it clear that it applies to:
"land which is occupied on the date of Royal Assent for the purposes of coal-mining operations undertaken at any time but not owned by the Corporation"
That kind of clarity can be regarded only as helpful.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, on this occasion I cannot quite agree with my noble friend. British Coal has a wide range of responsibilities and many are subject to different statutory frameworks. Each type must be considered individually and on its merits. The Coal Authority will become owner of the freehold of underground mines, regardless of their date or whether they have been abandoned. Under Clause 7(3), the Coal Authority automatically acquires responsibilities which go with the ownership.
My noble friend pointed out that on previous occasions the Minister had highlighted the importance of Clause 7(3). This amendment actually deletes Clause 7(3) and replaces it with a subsection which has three further sub-divisions. They deal with unworked mines, land which is owned on the date of Royal Assent, and land which is occupied but not owned by the corporation—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has misunderstood the position. The amendment does not delete subsection (3). It replaces it and repeats it, but amplifies it.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I believe that we are into the semantics—
Lord Renton: My Lords, no, it is fundamental.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the amendment begins:
"Page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert".
It then describes what is replacing subsection (3).
In any event, under subsection (3) the Coal Authority becomes the freehold owner of all British Coal's underground mines, including abandoned mines, regardless of age.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the provision does not apply necessarily to surface land occupied with mines or abandoned mines?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, not necessarily. The effect is to preserve the status quo; in other words, mines continue to belong to a public-sector body. Presumably, that is basically what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, wants. I cannot see that by deleting Clause 7(3) and replacing it with the words on the Marshalled List the noble Lord is improving the situation at all. I believe that the Bill is adequate in its present form.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak so early in the debate. I am surprised because I had thought that we should hear more words on a subject which is clearly of great importance. My noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely right in saying that it is important that the House understands what we are dealing with. For that reason, I am grateful in particular to my noble friend Lord Gray. Much as it is useful to look again at these matters, I am not at all convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has clarified the situation. If his desired effects are as he described in his relatively short remarks, I am afraid that this amendment will not achieve them.
This is the third occasion on which we have dealt with the issue. It is complex for a variety of reasons, and it may be helpful if I describe how land will be dealt with under the Bill. I shall also deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and my noble friend Lord Renton.
First, Clauses 7(3) and 8(2) provide for British Coal's interests in unworked coal and coal mines to be vested in the Coal Authority. That reflects general agreement that the freehold interest in the coal should basically remain in the public sector. However, as I said previously, I see no reason to seek to retain in the public sector the generality of the freehold of other land—that is, surface land—which is or which has been associated with coal mining.
This land falls into a number of categories, each of which will need to be dealt with separately. That is why we envisage handling transfers through restructuring schemes. Perhaps I may begin with land associated with current coal mining operations. I see no reason why mine operators should not own the freehold of the surface land and, in due course, dispose of it as they judge best. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made no case against that.
208
If that is so, there is no merit in transferring the title from British Coal to the Coal Authority, the authority then leasing that land back to British Coal for the period that it continues to operate the mine, and then transferring the lease and the freehold interests to the successor operators at the time of sale. It is better to leave the title with British Coal and then transfer it directly to the successor operators. Much of the land associated with past coal mining is unlikely to be of use for future coal mining. If that is passed to the Coal Authority, it would then be under a duty to dispose of it. Again, it may be possible to short circuit that process by direct sale from British Coal. If so, that would clearly be preferable. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to transfer some of that land to development agencies or local authorities. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate referred to that in our discussions in Committee and on Report. There are therefore a number of possible destinations for that category of land.
Finally, we have land that has been used for past coal mining that may be useful for future coal mining. Our expectation is that that land will generally be transferred to the Coal Authority, along with a category of land not covered by the amendment—land that has not been used in the past for coal mining but may be useful in the future for that purpose.
I said that we have a complex situation, with a number of options; and we do. That is why it is appropriate to deal with it, as the Bill envisages, as was interpreted by my noble friend Lord Gray, through the flexible instrument of restructuring schemes under Clause 12. I do, however, recognise that there is general anxiety about the passing to the authority of liabilities related to past coal mining.
Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. Civil liabilities of the corporation will stay with the corporation on the restructuring date. When the corporation is ultimately wound up, those liabilities will be transferred elsewhere in the public sector before British Coal is dissolved. British Coal cannot be left with liabilities when it is wound up. We must find a home for those liabilities and we shall do so under the restructuring scheme.
By becoming the freehold owner of coal and coal mines, the authority will automatically acquire the responsibilities, including environmental liabilities, running with that ownership, which it will pass on to mine operators under the terms of the lease in respect of areas which it licenses for coal mining.
I turn now to the matter of third parties. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, argued that this amendment is necessary to secure the protection of third parties when the land owned by British Coal is privatised—in other words, the surface land, because we have dealt successfully with the underground land.
I said earlier that the amendment would not work in practice and it would not. The Government have decided to vest British Coal's interests in unworked coal and coal mines in the Coal Authority because, as a general rule, we intend the authority to retain that property and discharge those responsibilities falling on it as the owner of that property.

209
The same consideration does not apply to other land in which British Coal currently has an interest, as I explained earlier. I cannot see what extra protection it would give to third parties to transfer all of British Coal's land to the authority prior to sale.
The Government are taking adequate measures to protect the interests of third parties in the sale of British Coal's land. The measures that we are taking will depend on the use to which the land will be put. Some land will be required for operational purposes of the successor companies or by a future licensee of the Coal Authority. Those operators will be obliged to undergo the licensing process. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned that and said that that was not sufficient. But that is a statutory obligation provided under Clause 2 of the Bill.
I turn now to non-operational land. I am aware of the particular anxieties that have been expressed about land in which British Coal currently holds a leasehold interest. Where land is not required by one of the five regional coal mining businesses, it is likely that it will be sold in the normal way. In those cases, assuming that British Coal is the original lessee, the freeholder will retain all of his rights of recourse against British Coal or its successor bodies under the principle of privity of contract, as well as any rights against the new lessee that appear in the lease.
There may be cases in which British Coal's leasehold interest in land is transferred, other than to a successor company, by means of a restructuring scheme. I can assure your Lordships that, in those cases, the Secretary of State would be bound to exercise his scheme-making powers reasonably, or else face judicial review. We should not under-estimate the powers of judicial review. The Secretary of State could not possibly consider a transfer to a body which he considered was not likely to be able to discharge his obligations.
I apologise for making a rather longer speech than was made by the noble Lord who proposed the amendment. However, I hope that I have dealt with the situation as fully as possible, and I certainly hope that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I took some comfort from the helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He put matters so clearly that I felt that I had at last and for once managed to make myself clear. Alas, I had not so persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but for four minutes that became a private battle into which I felt that I could not intervene with profit.
Then came the Minister and I regained my poise and confidence quite quickly. As I listened to him it became as clear as crystal that we shall simply not agree on this matter. We are calling to each other across a bottomless abyss; we shall never bridge it. It became crystal clear to me when he dealt with the matter of judicial review because judicial review is so far removed from the face of this Bill. I wish to see assurances built into law. I am totally confident that I am right. I have no alternative but to ask the House to express an opinion which I hope will agree with mine.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Airedale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Liverpool, E.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Barnard, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bathurst, E.

Lytton, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bumham, L.

McNair, L.

Burton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Middleton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chapple, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Norfolk, D.

Craigavon, V.

Northbourne, L.

Dainton, L.

Palmer, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Desai, L.

Peel, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ridley, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Forester, L.

Savile, L.

Gallacher, L.

Scanlon, L.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Stafford, L.

Grey, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Haskel, L.[Teller. ]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Teviot, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howell, L.

Wharton, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kennet, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Balfour, E.

Addison, V.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Aldington, L.

Barber, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Beloff, L.

Annaly, L.

Bird wood, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

211

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cadman, L.

Caldecote, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Moyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Davidson, V.

Norrie, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Orkney, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundonald, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pike, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthom, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selborne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Goschen, V.

Sharples, B.

Gowrie, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strange, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Haslam, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayhoe, L.

[Teller]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Holdemess, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trefgame, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Ironside, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kimball, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Kitchener, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Knutsford, V.

Wise, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Young, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 10, at end insert:
("(3A) On the restructuring date the Corporation's interest in geological data shall vest without further assurance in the Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. For the record, I should like to point out that the geological data mentioned in the amendment are of enormous importance. My understanding of the Bill is that it is fully protected by the legislation but for all sorts of reasons—not least Pepper v. Hart—I should simply
212
like the Government Front Bench to confirm that such immensely valuable data will not be lost when the Bill becomes enacted. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, is to vest in the Coal Authority on the restructuring date British Coal's interests in geological data. I am happy to have the opportunity to assure the House that the Government have every intention that geological records in British Coal's ownership should be transferred to the authority. The Revised Coal Authority Explanatory Note, which has been placed in the Library, makes clear that it is envisaged that a great deal of information, notably geological data about coal and mining plans, will be transferred to the authority.
However, the amendments are not necessary to achieve that aim as geological and other information will be transferred to the authority by restructuring schemes under Clause 12 of the Bill. Indeed, to vest that information in the Coal Authority in the way proposed in the amendments would be positively undesirable, as it would prevent relevant parts of the information being shared with the successor companies to British Coal. The successor companies will need the geological information relating to their ongoing operational sites in order to carry on those operations after the restructuring date.
The authority has a duty under Clause 57 broadly to provide public access to the information in its possession which is not commercially confidential. That duty applies to geological data by virtue of Clause 57(1) (a). We would not have included that provision if we had not intended the Coal Authority to take over British Coal's geological data. As the Revised Coal Authority Explanatory Note again states, it is envisaged that the authority will, broadly, place geological data in the public domain but that it will not disclose new exploration data for a period sufficient to enable the person undertaking the exploration to benefit from his expenditure. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is a significant improvement on the existing arrangements for public access to information. With those assurances and the detail that I have given, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has given me precisely the explanation and the assurances that I was seeking. It is excellent to have that statement on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Restructuring schemes in relation to property etc. ]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 12, line 46, leave out from first ("that") to end of line 47 and insert:

("(i) that person consented to the provisions of the Scheme so far as they relate to him;

(ii) no persons to whom obligations are owed, whether in respect of contamination or other liabilities arising out of the occupation of any property used in connection with coal-mining

213
operations by the Corporation or its predecessors, is likely to sustain loss as a consequence of the Scheme.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment, as was the case with my amendments on Report, is concerned with the liabilities of British Coal. I believe that the Minister has accepted that we are all concerned about such liabilities, including liabilities which may arise in the future but which are unforeseeable at the moment and which arise out of acts or omissions of British Coal in the past during the course of its operations.
I am concerned about contamination and especially about contamination of surface sites. There are many types of surface site which are not specifically covered by Clause 7(3) of the Bill. When he was discussing Amendment No. 1, the Minister said that such sites might well be passed directly to operators. Where those sites are held leasehold and the lease is passed directly to operators, there is no provision in the Bill which requires that the freehold owner of the site should be consulted on whether the transferee is offering a strong enough covenant to be able to perform his obligations under the lease. That is one particular category of risk to which an innocent third party might be subject.
My real anxiety is what happens when British Coal has been dissolved. Liabilities under this kind of claim can be very large. The European Community in Brussels is at present considering the whole subject of contamination. Doubtless it will go on being a busybody in this area and will go on inventing new sorts of contamination which it claims are damaging, and the requirement will be that someone has to clear up the site. The cost of clearing up an old colliery site can be £2 million, £3 million or £4 million. That is a lot of money for a landowner, and if the contamination spreads on to neighbouring sites, that can also constitute a lot of money for the owners of the neighbouring sites.
I thank the Minister for a letter which he wrote to me on these issues in which he gave me certain assurances. But I have to say that I do not think the assurances adequately cover the problems to which I am referring. I have two amendments and I shall speak to the other one separately but this particular amendment relates to schemes in relation to property made by the Secretary of State under Clause 12 of the Bill. All this amendment does is to confirm that the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that the proposed scheme will not leave any third party to whom obligations are presently owed, or to whom potential obligations are owed by British Coal, less well off than that person would have been before the scheme. That is a wholly reasonable suggestion. It coincides exactly with what the Minister has said he wants to happen. Therefore if he means what he says, he surely must be prepared to allow this amendment to appear on the face of the Bill for the purpose of clarification.
This is an important amendment because uncertainty is damaging both for British Coal and for the beneficiaries of any liabilities which may exist. If British Coal wishes to dispose of the interest, it will receive worse offers than would otherwise be the case if it is not clearly known who is to accept future liabilities.
214
The owner of the site may well be unable to dispose of the site at a reasonable price because the site will be blighted by the uncertainty that the Secretary of Stale may create a scheme which will leave the liabilities unprovided for. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has done a useful service in moving this amendment. The trouble is —I think everyone who is familiar with coal mines is conscious of this—that the physical and environmental problems to which coal mining gives rise, can continue for many years. There are of course various causes of those problems but they arise especially with regard to slag heaps. One must mention in passing that slag heaps sometimes are created well away from the top of the mine. Problems also arise with regard to underground water supplies, and that is a continuing problem which can affect not only the particular mine in which the contamination first arises, but because of the fluidity of the water table it can affect a much wider area, and frequently does so.
Of course one assumes and hopes and believes that a Secretary of State, in using his powers under Clause 12, will be wise and well advised, and will bear all those sorts of factors in mind, but it is just as well that we should apply our minds to them, and make sure that any Secretary of State in the years to come also does so, by doing what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has suggested; namely, to remove uncertainty by putting into Clause 12 the provisions that he has suggested. I think, if I may say so, that the second sub-paragraph in his amendment that he suggests should be added, referring to "contamination or other liabilities", is of particular importance. I do not think we should leave an important thing like this to chance. Subject to what my noble friend has to say, I really think it would be best to have something on the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. As it is so late in the consideration of the Bill by both Houses, this is the last opportunity that we have of making such an amendment. So it is really the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, or nothing now.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am not going to disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. I merely wish to make some comments on the proposed amendment. To me it seems that the amendment is not by any means clear and I feel that if we were to accept it in its present form it would open up scope possibly for judicial review at some future time, and would raise uncertainty perhaps about the effectiveness of restructuring schemes. This will deter potential purchasers who need certainty about the businesses they are taking on board. Indeed, it could put the success of coal privatisation at risk.
It is of the essence of privatisation that obligations of the public sector must be transferred to the private sector. The scheme-making powers in the Bill are well precedented and follow those in previous privatisations. The issue is that those powers should be used with responsibility. There are already extensive safeguards in Clause 2 of the Bill to ensure that mining companies are able to meet their liabilities. Where Clause 2 does not apply, it must nonetheless be the case that the Secretary

215
of State would take account of the financial strength of a transferee when making a restructuring scheme. As so often happens at the Committee stage of a Bill, the intention of those tabling amendments or moving amendments is of the highest order, but at this stage of the Bill is it wise to accept an amendment which, as my noble friend pointed out, perhaps does not do everything that it was intended to do, and would it not be better to leave the Bill as it is? I think it is a mistake to accept an amendment, however good the intention behind it, if the wording is suspect.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I must say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Gray on this. First of all, I accept that trying to remove uncertainties from this Bill at this stage is the correct approach; but having had a little bit to do with the industry—I do not have to declare an interest for the third time but I shall do so—I have looked closely at Clause 2 and I should have thought that mining companies are put on notice to meet their liabilities—and then there is a further safeguard. As my noble friend Lord Gray has said, surely the Secretary of State will take into account the financial strength of a transferee when making a restructuring scheme. I should have thought that was fundamental to the whole process.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to raise one small point in the amendment which seems to me to be a source of difficulty. We shall end up with a provision that under a restructuring scheme no person shall be:
"likely to sustain loss as a consequence of the Scheme".
That is extremely vague. If there is any prospect that somebody may be left worse off the scheme is halted. That would seem to me to give rise to an objection, but I would only disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, after careful consideration, and with some doubt.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the text of the amendment in the context of the Bill, which states:
"unless it appears to the Secretary of State that".
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, this is a most welcome amendment, which we are happy to support in view of the attitude taken over Clause 7(3).
The Minister wrote to me—I think that it was on 27th May but I would not wish to go to the stake on that —to assure me that the purpose of subsection (1) of this clause is to enable the Secretary of State to license and to grant leases to British Coal to keep it going on and after the restructuring date. The purpose of subsection (2) is to allow him to dispose of assets other than coal and coal mines. I understand and accept both points. But when I tabled Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 on Report the Minister dismissed me briskly, saying that the effect would be to prevent the privatisation of British Coal. I was not surprised by that answer, but I was mildly disappointed that the Minister had such a short memory of the letter he had written.
216
The present amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, in doing whatever he plans to do in restructuring the industry, to protect all these people in whom I have become extremely interested—the innocent bystanders —from any loss arising out of the inherited liabilities of British Coal. That must be right.
When Lord Baden-Powell created the Boy Scout movement, he also set up, for those too young to be Boy Scouts, the Wolf Cubs. The great cry of the Wolf Cubs to their Akela was, "Akela, we'll do our best!". So also must that great Wolf Cub, the Secretary of State, do his best. The amendment reminds him, necessarily, that he must try to get it right. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, before the Minister speaks I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that there is more than one advocate for his amendment on this side of the House. All the advice that I have received is that it is essential that the amendment is passed. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly an improvement on the existing situation.
LordStrathclyde: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Renton yet again in welcoming the opportunity to debate the amendment. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has provided a useful service in bringing it forward.
But that is the only point on which I shall agree with my noble friend Lord Renton, because there are other aspects of what he said with which I have some difficulties, particularly the question of certainty. I agree entirely that the Bill that we send for Royal Assent should have certainty at its core. I believe that the Bill provides that in its entirety.
The main purpose of the Bill is privatisation. The essence of privatisation is to pass the assets and liabilities from the public sector to the private sector. That is what privatisation is all about. But that is not what the amendment provides for. It provides for the retention of the liabilities within the public sector. That in itself could be very damaging.
It may be helpful if I explain how we envisage that the restructuring scheme powers in the Bill will be used and the safeguards which will apply so that we do not leave matters to chance, or at least no greater chance than is applicable in the generality of commercial law.
These scheme-making powers are well precedented and follow those in previous privatisations. It is of the essence in any privatisation that obligations of the public sector must transfer to the private sector. The ownership of unworked coal and coal mines will transfer automatically to the Coal Authority under Clause 7(3) of the Bill. Following that transfer, the Coal Authority will have to comply with any obligations falling on it as owner of the coal.
On the restructuring date there will also be a restructuring scheme transferring to the Coal Authority that part of British Coal's property, rights and liabilities which the Coal Authority will need to carry out its functions. That will include any interests which British Coal has in property at mines which are operated by the

217
private sector under licences granted by British Coal under Section 36 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act.
At privatisation, there will be a further restructuring scheme vesting in the new regional coal companies the property, rights and liabilities which are associated with the continuing mining business. It is intended that all British Coal's rights and liabilities under legal agreements which transfer will generally transfer to the new owners. Those who have legal agreements with British Coal will, therefore, have exactly the same rights against the new owners as they have at present against British Coal.
The assets transferred to the new coal companies will include the operating licences which will have been granted to British Coal on the restructuring date to enable the corporation to carry on its mining business. The Secretary of State, who will both make the restructuring scheme and be the vendor, will when granting the licences be bound to act in accordance with the duties set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. Those were explained by my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Gray. The Secretary of State will also be obliged to take those duties into account when transferring the licences under the restructuring scheme.
In addition to its mining business, British Coal has a portfolio of property which is not required for present or future mining. The future of those assets is a matter for British Coal.
Consideration is still being given to how best to transfer British Coal's non-mining property holdings to the private sector. However, as I have already explained, the property which is not required by the regional companies or the Coal Authority will be sold in the usual way. In that event, privity of contract between the freeholder and British Coal would continue on the disposal of the lease.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am a little confused as to what happens to the opencast sites. He talks all the time about mining. Will opencast properties be treated separately?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all sites will be transferred in one form or another under the Bill in the case of the deep coal mines either directly to the successor companies or to the existing freehold sites, which will also be passed on with their liabilities intact. The Secretary of State's duties do not differentiate between deep coal-mining, opencast or any other mining. The freeholders' position will therefore be fully protected.
The difficulty that I have with the amendment is that it is very wide and would apply to all restructuring schemes, including those in relation to which the Clause 2 duties would in any event have to be taken into account. It would apply to any liabilities arising from current or future use of land for mining, even where that land is owned freehold by British Coal. Since it does not lay down a clear standard against which compliance could in each particular case be measured, it would be very difficult to establish clearly whether the test laid down by the amendment had been met, so leading to great uncertainty for all concerned. It was my noble
218
friend Lord Renton who raised the question of certainty. The amendment would create uncertainty. As my noble friend Lord Gray mentioned, there would also be greater scope for judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that he was against judicial review in its wide application. It would throw restructuring schemes into doubt and make privatisation very difficult to achieve.
I did not mean to get at my noble friend. He and I have had some useful and helpful discussions on the matter. I hope that I have been helpful in clarifying the position. My noble friend Lord Renton said that we must not leave the matter to chance and that this is the last opportunity to amend the Bill. It is the last opportunity. We are at the last stage of a very comprehensive parliamentary procedure not just in this House but in another place.
I can offer the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, reassurance that the interests of third parties will be protected. The Secretary of State himself is liable to judicial review if he exercises the restructuring powers under the Bill inappropriately. Before making a scheme he will clearly have to consider the financial circumstances of the transferee. We could not possibly consider making transfers to bodies that we considered were not likely to be able to meet their obligations. I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary for the purpose which the noble Lord intended and could cause considerable difficulties which I am sure the noble Lord did not intend. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him for clarification on a point which worries me. The matter of judicial review to which he referred has been referred to previously. I should be worried about that procedure for private individuals. It is an expensive procedure for individuals to undertake. The last time that I had any involvement in such a review it cost the individual about £15,000. That is a considerable impediment to procuring justice. With regard to the defence, "Well, we adhered to the best practice available at the time", will the Minister confirm that there are no circumstances under which the residual liabilities which cannot be attached to the operator or to any other official body can attach to an innocent landowner or householder or someone else in that category? I shall be grateful if the Minister can give me that confirmation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may speak with the leave of the House, first, on the question of judicial review. It is not my intention that judicial review should ever be used as the norm. The whole point of judicial review is that it is that last-stop safeguard which individuals or bodies can use. We have mentioned the problem of judicial review in two instances. First, I believe mat the amendment: would vastly increase the scope of judicial review because it would create uncertainty; and it is uncertainty which breeds judicial review. I believe that the Bill clearly provides certainty. The only instance where I foresee the

219
potential use of judicial review is when the Secretary of State has acted inappropriately or unreasonably. No Secretary of State wishes to be accused of that.
With regard to the second part of the noble Earl's question, we are not ignoring the interests of third parties—the so-called innocent bystanders. In reply to the earlier debate and to this debate, I set out how those interests will be dealt with. The noble Earl sought an absolute guarantee that no third party would ever be obliged to pay for anything. No amendment could possibly achieve that because there must be a degree of uncertainty at the very end. British Coal and its liabilities cannot be wound up until there is absolute certainty that those liabilities are transferred to other parts of the public sector, in particular the contingent liabilities.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to deal with the problem. He has just made an extraordinarily important statement. He said that British Coal cannot be wound up unless all the liabilities have been transferred, I think he said to some other public body. Will he please indicate which section of the Bill states that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may speak with the leave of the House. The noble Lord has put down Amendment No. 6. Perhaps the question could be left until the debate on that amendment which relates more particularly to the demise of British Coal and its liabilities. That amendment has not been grouped with this amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, yes, indeed, and I shall raise the matter again. I cannot say that I am satisfied. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Derwent, L.

Attlee, E.

Desai, L.

Barnard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bathurst, E.

Eatwell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ennals, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ezra, L.

Bottomley, L.

Falkender, B.

Brentford, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Foot, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Forester, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Geraint, L.

Burton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gray, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Grey, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hanworth, V.

220

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Newall, L.

Harrowby, E.

Nicol, B.

Haskel, L.

Norrie, L.

Haslam, L.

Northbourne, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Onslow, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Palmer, L.

Hothfield, L.

Parry, L.

Howell, L.

Peel, E.

Hughes, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ingleby, V.

Peston, L.

Jay, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Jeger, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Quinton, L.

Kennet, L.

Rea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Richard, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ridley, V.

Kissin, L.

Rochester, L.

Knutsford, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Savile, L.

Lockwood, B.

Scanlon, L.

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lytton, E.

Shepherd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Somerset, D.

Mallalieu, B.

Stafford, L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Middleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Monkswell, L.

White, B.

Monson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mulley, L.

Wynford, L.

Nelson, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Addison, V.

Dudley, E.

Aldington, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Annaly, L.

Elles, B.

Arran, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ashburton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Astor, V.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Flather, B.

Barber, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blyth, L.

Goschen, V.

Boardman, L.

Gowrie, E.

Borthwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Harvington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Burnham, L.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cadman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Caldecote, V.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kimball, L.

Chesham, L.

Kitchener, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Colwyn, L.

Layton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Liverpool, E.

Courtown, E.

Long, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cranbome, V.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dean of Harptree, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Marlesford, L.

221

Merrivale, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Mersey, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Milverton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mottistone, L.

Strange, B.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Moyne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Swansea, L.

Northesk, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orkney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Trumpington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rennell, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Waverley, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Seccombe, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Selborne, E.

Wise, L.

Sharples, B.

Young, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
( "British Coal Enterprise
The Secretary of State shall, out of money provided by Parliament, make arrangements to maintain until 31st December 1999 financial support to British Coal Enterprise to an amount equivalent to that provided by the Corporation before restructuring.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 4 unless the Minister wishes to comment on the vote which has just taken place. I believe that I heard him say that we could not privatise the industry if the House carried that amendment. Perhaps he may wish to reflect on what he said.
I intervene reluctantly at this late stage with Amendment No. 4. The reason for it is simply that I viewed with dismay the noble Viscount's reply when we debated the matter at an earlier stage. I shall put my anxiety briefly and I shall certainly not divide the House. We all agreed on the great value of British Coal Enterprise. The noble Viscount himself said in replying to the debate:
"I join all noble Lords in commending the work of [British Coal Enterprise]".—[Official Report, 13/6794; col. 1503.]
There is no difference between us. As a result of the Bill, we still do not know what the future of British Coal Enterprise is. I am well aware that my way of dealing with it in putting down an amendment is unsatisfactory because, to say the least, if we were to accept it, the other place would throw it out on grounds of privilege, since under the amendment we would commit the Government to spending money. So I am well aware of what this is all about.
What concerns me is that everyone agrees that British Coal Enterprise is a satisfactory body which does a good job. Yet the Government say that they have not made up their mind about its future. It is quite absurd to introduce the Bill if the Government have still not thought through something as important as that. I wish to place on record my total dismay at the Government's view of the matter, and I hope that, without any delay and certainly before the Bill becomes law, the noble Viscount will come
222
back and tell us what will happen to British Coal Enterprise. They should do that, if for no other reason, because British Coal Enterprise is successful, it creates jobs and is enormously helpful to the. Government in terms of saving public expenditure. That is why I have made this last protest, but I do not wish to delay proceedings. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield cannot be present, and as he originally proposed the amendment, I rise to support it on his behalf. In the view of many people, it is most important that the BCE continues in existence because of the work it does in the present circumstances of the mining industry. It provides advice for those suddenly finding themselves without work; it helps them with job seeking; it helps them with retraining; it helps them with loans, equity schemes and factory and office space if they wish to found new small businesses. BCE has made a significant contribution to employment.
The need is the greater because of the speed of the closure of mines and the shortness of the notice under which those closures have taken place, particularly in comparison with many of our European partners. Consequently, for example, in half the wards in Barnsley 20 per cent. of the employable men are unemployed since the closure of the deep mines there. The need was recognised by the Government when they set BCE up; it was recognised too more than 20 years ago when the British steel industry was set up, as a comparable manufacturing industry closed down.
Much of the objection to continuing the life of the BCE is on the basis of cost. Those who are more expert than I can debate that; but I wish to make the point that in evidence given in 1992 to an all-party committee of the House of Commons on employment, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, together with Cardinal Hume and other Church leaders, made the point that the cost of pit closures could not be assessed simply in financial terms. There is a much wider social effect from unemployment on health and family life.
I conclude by saying that, given the Government's commitment to the regeneration of Britain's coalfields, that commitment will appear hollow if it allows the only agency which is specifically dedicated to the task to disappear at the very time when the coalfield communities' needs are so great. This is clearly not the time even to consider scaling down BCE's activities, let alone winding up the organisation.
6 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He has taken over from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who moved the initial amendment on BCE during Report stage. He has filled the gap between what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield mentioned at that time and the present debate, in which we now bring the matter to a conclusion—though so far as I can see it will not be a very happy conclusion for the future of British Coal Enterprise.

223
The Government have offered finances for British Coal Enterprise for the first 12 months after privatisation. They will finance the first 12 months, and then what? BCE cannot plan or invest and it will have difficulty holding onto its workforce. Indeed, the spirit of British Coal Enterprise will die.
During the debate at Report stage I specifically mentioned that there could be a partnership between British Coal Enterprise and Europe. It already works very closely with Europe and the European Regional Development Fund. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stated that the European Union has already offered substantial funding for a long period so long as it can be matched pound for pound. The noble Lord seems to favour that course.
The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, strongly supports the continuation of British Coal Enterprise in its present form for at least two to three years to see how its relations with the new Coal Authority and the private sector develop. The noble Lord then mentioned the possibility of a fresh financial package, which might include a cash injection sufficient for BCE to operate as a stand-alone organisation for the foreseeable future. During the course of that debate at Report stage my noble friend Lord Peston gave it great support.
I mention all that simply to point out that every quarter of this House and every party that is responsible for any operations within the coalfield communities all gave support to British Coal Enterprise at its present level. But when the Minister came to reply I must say that what he said was a dampener. It has caused great concern and anxiety in British Coal Enterprise. The Minister ought to try to get this matter cleared up as quickly as possible. It is no good for the future of BCE and the coalfield communities unless it is solved very quickly.
On 13th June 1994, the Minister said:
"We have received, and are considering, British Coal's suggestions about BCE's future. DTI officials are in discussion with British Coal and BCE on what in future should be the focus of their activities".—[Official Report, 13/6/94; col. 1503]
So according to that reply the Government intend to change BCE's operations. The Minister went on to say:
"Clearly there will be a need (for a time) to settle and retrain former employees of British Coal—essential work which BCE has pursued successfully and single-mindedly. This cannot come to an abrupt end. BCE statistics show that, while some former employees quickly find new jobs, others may take from between 12 and 18 months to settle into new employment".—[col. 1503.]
It would appear that the Government have already decided to start to run BCE down. That is very depressing for British Coal Enterprise employees. I ask the Minister: are the Government seriously considering running down the activities of BCE? And do they really have to wait, as he suggested at Report stage, until late autumn before a decision can be taken on this matter, when there must have been months of examination as to the future of British Coal after privatisation and its relationship with British Coal Enterprise? It seems farcical that there can be a Bill of this size, that there is no mention of BCE and that we still do not know what is to happen. The Government ought to give a clear indication this evening as to the future of BCE employees.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, this House will debate tomorrow a Motion relating to employment, com-petition and growth; in other words, the problems of employment in our changing society. What has to be done when society changes, when technologies develop and when old industries go out and new ones come in is that some bridge has to be formed. Some concerted effort has to be made to make sure that people who had employment that is no longer available are given the best opportunity of getting new employment. That has been by common accord, including the views that were expressed by the noble Viscount when we last came to discuss this matter, the achievement of British Coal Enterprise. It has done just that. It has provided a minimum of 100,000 new jobs at relatively low cost —at a much lower cost than by other means. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, pointed out, it has attracted the attention of the European Commission, which is prepared to provide very substantial funds so long as a matching commitment can be made.
I believe that the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has moved this amendment—and this is the third time that we return to this matter—is that we remain very concerned. We are worried that a successful operation to find alternative employment in this key industry should now be left in a state of indecision and doubt. It is very difficult to see why this nettle could not have been grasped. Right from the start of our deliberations we have expressed our concern. I ask the noble Viscount when he comes to reply to give us a clearer indication than he gave last time. Then he simply said that he could not indicate precisely when decisions could be taken about the future of BCE because all options would carefully have to be consulted. That seems to me to be a rather off-putting statement on a matter that has created such concern on all the Benches of this House.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government fully appreciate the purpose of this amendment and the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken for the long-term regeneration of the coalfield areas. Again, I join with other noble Lords in acknowledging that BCE has made a very substantial contribution indeed to the regeneration of the coalfield areas, helping to create, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stated, over 100,000 job opportunities over the past 10 years; by resettling former British Coal employees into new jobs or training; and by providing loan funds to small businesses and managed workspace developments in coalfield areas.
Between October 1992 and March 1994 more than 24,500 former British Coal employees registered with BCE. Of those, nearly 14,000 have been resettled into jobs or retraining. BCE continues to support about 9,200 former employees who are still actively seeking jobs and aims to maintain its long-term average of resettling some 88 per cent. of its active clients. With the privatisation of British Coal that contribution is gaining even more widespread recognition.
At Report stage I stated that BCE will be retained in its current form throughout the transitional and immediate post-privatisation period. We had indeed

225
received, and are considering, British Coal's sugges-tions about BCE's future. We explained some of the key issues which had been identified and which would require sound and careful conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, was right to highlight the Government's view that there will be a need for a time to settle and retrain former employees of British Coal—essential work which BCE has pursued successfully and single-mindedly. That cannot come to an abrupt end. We know that, while some former employees quickly find new jobs, others may take between 12 and 18 months to settle into new jobs with the help of BCE. But that is a diminishing and time-limited task.
BCE's funding and managed workshops play an important role in the regeneration of coalfield areas. That work has complemented other regeneration activities undertaken by the Government and others.
In looking at the longer-term future we need to examine how BCE's work might best continue to complement such programmes. The example that was given at an earlier stage in the Bill was that in recent years BCE has undertaken a substantial programme of building workshops. It is not self-evident that that level of building would be appropriate for another decade. We all have sufficient concern for taxpayers not to want to spend their money on projects that will not necessarily be of the best use. Beyond that, there are a series of issues flowing from the question of whether BCE's future lies in the public or the private sector.
When we considered a similar amendment at Report stage, I understand that it was agreed that these were extremely complex matters and that it would be wrong to leap to hasty and premature conclusions before the options for BCE's future had been carefully examined. That is the view that the Government still take.
I suggest that the present amendment has the same weakness as the former amendment. One might argue for December 1999, the year 2004, earlier, later, or perhaps somewhere in between those years. But we should still be faced with the need to reach sensible and considered conclusions about the future of British Coal Enterprise.
Noble Lords in all parts of the House wish to continue to take advantage of BCE's experience and expertise. That has come out very strongly from our debates both today and at an earlier stage. The Government share that desire. That is precisely why we should take the time necessary to reach considered conclusions.
As it stands, the Bill gives the flexibility for the best choices to be made in respect of BCE. With that explanation I invite the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply. He has left me even more mystified. He put up a better case for BCE in his reply than I did in raising the matter. He then backed away totally and did not make the only statement worth making, which is that the Government are fully committed to continuing the work of BCE.
226
I and many other noble Lords will press him on many occasions to let us have a definite statement on this. I certainly believe that the least that we require is a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess. This is an important matter. In my judgment it is in the Government's own interests. I was trying to persuade the noble Viscount of that point.
Having said that, the House has other things on its mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Designated mining museums
The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the administration of the financial, assistance provided by him for coal mining museums during the period of three years following the restructuring date, within six months of the end of that period.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very modest amendment. It is not as comprehensive as I should have wished. Nevertheless I hope that it will be supported from all parts of the House and that it will receive support from the Minister himself. I am grateful to him for agreeing to a meeting with his representatives and Ministers from the Department of National Heritage and the Director of the Museums and Galleries Commission. That meeting was very useful in enabling us to establish common ground in support of the mining museums.
Those of us who supported the mining museums throughout the Bill had the purpose of preserving all three museums; that is, the Welsh, the Yorkshire and the Scottish museums. Support came from all quarters of the House. Perhaps I may say at this point that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me to say how sorry she is that she cannot be present this evening as she has had to go back to Yorkshire, where the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is still ill.
In response to the pressure from your Lordships, the Minister was able to reply on 9th June to a Question for Written Answer from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, to the effect that £900,000 would be available to those three museums over a period of three years, the money to be divided equally among them. As many noble Lords said at Report stage, we were grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for their efforts in securing that not inconsiderable amount. But, as I indicated, there are problems. Those problems stem from the differences in the three museums.
Both the Yorkshire and Welsh museums have an underground mine to maintain. It is estimated that it costs £290,000 per annum in current terms. It is estimated that the equivalent of £170,000 has been provided in kind by British Coal for the Yorkshire museum and an even greater amount for the Welsh museum. So the shortfall from the privatisation of the mines is very considerable and comes on top of the normal financial difficulties that all museums are experiencing at the present time.
Our purpose in approaching the Third Reading of the Bill was to try to establish some flexibility in the distribution or monitoring of the moneys provided by

227
the Government. To do that it seems sensible to involve the Museums and Galleries Commission, which has a national remit. Incidentally that body has already commissioned a report on mining museums which is likely to be published in the late summer or early autumn. We hope that it will throw further light on the needs of the museums.
However, I am advised that technically it is not possible to place a statutory responsibility on a non-statutory body such as the Museums and Galleries Commission. Moreover, the three departments nominat-ed by the Minister—as the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, made clear in his intervention at Report —have already fixed their eyes firmly on the amounts allocated to them. That presents a very real difficulty.
Our second object was to try to keep the door open in the future without commitment to the present or any succeeding government. It seems sensible for Parliament to look again at the situation as the transitional funding comes to an end. That would give an opportunity to reassess the position in the light of the experience of the museums operating, I hope, in co-operation with the private sector and with its help. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting us on that point.
In summary, what does the amendment do? First, it recognises on the face of the Bill that the mining museums exist and that the Government have accepted some financial commitment to them in the interim period. Secondly, it places a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report to both Houses on the administration of the financial assistance provided after three years, thereby leaving the door open. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I support the amendment. At Committee stage, very strong feelings were expressed from all parts of the House about the future of. the museums. Since then discussions have taken place behind the scenes, for which I am grateful to Ministers here and in another place. I am most grateful for their help. Getting money out of the Treasury is never easy and we ought to pay tribute for what has been done. I regret at Report stage that some of us might have sounded a little ungrateful for the transitional finance. In fact what concerned us were the technical aspects of its distribution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has just mentioned.
If the museums are to survive, it is essential to give them a fair wind to raise outside finance. That needs time and continuity. It needs time to approach charitable trusts, local authorities and even the National Lottery. It needs continuity to give sponsors confidence, because no sponsor will invest in short-term matters. Good museum advice is also very much needed and we hope that it will come from the Museums and Galleries Commission.
The object of the amendment is to produce a progress report after two-and-a-half or three years to assess the effectiveness of that pump-priming and to give people a chance to see how things are going. There is no obligation on the Government, the Treasury or anyone else, to continue the finance after that time. We
228
recognise that. But there is a strong obligation on the museums and all interested parties to use their best endeavours to see that a firm financial base is created. It will also give a significant warning to any organisation or institution which may be dragging its feet or behaving in a way which may prejudice the future of the museums that their lack of action may be pin-pointed in a future report as a reason for failure and their attitudes publicised and possibly debated in Parliament.
I have no doubt that proper support will ensure that everybody's mind remains concentrated, for the way ahead is not clear and will be far from easy. I am sure the House would like to give the museums its best wishes for the future. It must be in the national interest that some deep mines are preserved. History will judge that they are just as significant to the history of this country as Magna Charta, the Tower of London or, indeed, HMS "Victory". If we fail to keep them, at least we shall know the reasons why.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I was present at the meeting last night to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred and came away with the firm impression that the Government wished to see the museums continue. They managed to find these resources over a period of three years, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said, is quite an achievement when one is dealing with the Treasury. While it is not considered to be sufficient, particularly in regard to the two museums with underground workings, nonetheless it is a base on which they can continue to operate.
I further gained the impression that the matter would be sympathetically handled and that the Government would use whatever endeavours they could, in addition to advancing the finance—I am not talking about more money; there are other ways in which the Government can help—to see that the museums continue. If the amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, a particular achievement will be that the museums will be referred to specifically on the face of the Bill and the Government will accept the commitment, after the three-year period, to present a report to Parliament.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am sorry that I have been absent from the House. I am obliged to the Minister for writing to me about these matters. I was not able to join in the general pressure on him and I congratulate my colleagues because I understand that the amendment is not wholly unsatisfactory to the Government. That shows a remarkable effort on their part and we all owe them great thanks, to which I certainly add my name.
I wish to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said in regard to help in kind. If one cannot obtain anything out of the Treasury by way of money, let us see what we can obtain elsewhere. Two of the pits in particular have underground workings and need supplies and machinery for that. I trust that we shall be able to rely on the good will of the Minister and others in keeping that aspect of the matter open. The third pit in Scotland is not in the same position.
I do not wish to be a Cassandra, but I received a letter from one of the directors of the museums who said that

229
the degree of reduction in costs which will be required for the two pits we are discussing to stay viable is more than they can reasonably accommodate. When one looks at the figures, they indicate that they would need to make an immense effort if they are to do that. I have a feeling therefore that we shall be returning to the matter. However, if in the meantime supplies can be continued in kind, I trust that we shall be able to keep open these valuable museums of our industrial history.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, asked me to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that he had to leave before the end of the debate. He and I agreed that the needs of these three museums are really very diverse. Secondly, their capacities to raise funds by charging, from charities or from industry, differ greatly one from the other, and therefore an equal division between the three museums of this welcome £900,000—an identical grant to each in each of the three years—would be quite inappropriate.
The noble Lord and I both sat on the Museums and Galleries Commission. One question I should like to address to the Minister is why the Museums and Galleries Commission was never consulted on the proportion of money available to be allocated to each museum. We would undoubtedly have informed HMG at once that the needs of the two were infinitely greater than the needs of the third and that a tapering grant over three years was now so standard that anything else looks like an anachronism.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and I congratulate the Minister on having wrung out of the Treasury a sizeable sum to avoid trouble over the museums. But I must say to the Minister that whoever advised him to dish it out in three equal lumps made a complete dog's breakfast of the allocation. Therefore we would urge the Government that, while stating that they are prepared to make the report that they intend to make, they should not commit themselves as to the yearly allocations they will make to each museum until they receive and consider the views of the Museums and Galleries Commission.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to join this debate at this point, particularly in view of the fact that this is the third time that we have dealt with the issue of mining museums. I like to think that this is one of the easiest times that the Government have had on the whole question.
We have been left in absolutely no doubt whatever about the importance that noble Lords attach to the continuance of these museums. I am particularly grateful to Members on all sides of the House. There has been a great deal of cross-party work, co-ordinated to some extent, for which I am grateful, by my noble friend Lady Trumpington who speaks in this House for the Department of National Heritage and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in that department, Mr. Sproat. Between them they have gone a considerable way to allay the fears of those who are interested in the future of the museums. That is why I announced on 9th June a package of assistance which is unprecedented for museums, and one which many of the other 1,100 independent museums in the UK will envy.
230
Nevertheless, I believe that the Government were right to announce this assistance, given the unique circumstances of coal privatisation.
The House will recall that under the terms of my announcement transitional funding of no less than £900,000 over three years will be made available to the Yorkshire Mining Museum, the Scottish Mining Museum, and the Big Pit Mining Museum in South Wales to replace the help in kind currently provided by British Coal.
I know that many in this House have spoken strongly in support of the Yorkshire Mining Museum. The assistance that I announced is a fair estimate over a three-year period of the cost of the services that they would need to continue in operation. And while there is no prospect of further government assistance after that three-year period, the trustees of the museum will have been given a breathing space in order to find other forms of funding. Thus, the Department of National Heritage asked the Museums and Galleries Commission to administer the funding that the museum will receive from the department, and the commission indicated that it would be glad to do so. Hence the commission will be fully engaged in helping the museum. In addition, the director for the National Museum of Science and Industry indicated that he would be very happy to help the museum in whatever way he can by, for example, giving advice or by facilitating meetings with potential sponsors.
The other two museums, the Big Pit Museum in South Wales and the Scottish Mining Museum, come under the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland. I noted the remarks made at the Report stage and again by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on the relative allocation of funds to these museums, but it would have been wrong to exclude either of them from transitional assistance. The equal funding given to these two museums and the Yorkshire Mining Museum does, I believe, meet the particular circumstances of this case. Certainly none of the three has been disadvantaged by the fact of assistance given to the other.
I come to the substance of the amendment that we are now discussing. I recognise the concern that the issue of mining museums should be studied. In this connection, the House may know that the Museums and Galleries Commission is already conducting a review of United Kingdom mining museums. This is due to report in the summer, and I am sure that it will be a most useful contribution to consideration of future strategy in this area. I understand from the commission that the report will be made public. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for National Heritage will be very pleased to ensure that copies are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage has announced a review of his department's policy towards museums. This will be the first review of policy for museums to be undertaken for many years. It will cover all aspects of policy towards museums, including the position of industrial museums, of which mining museums are an important part. The House will not expect me to anticipate the conclusions of the review.

231
The Government's present firm policy is that they are responsible only for funding directly the national museums and one or two others for which they have inherited responsibility. The Secretary of State will have to consider many competing claims, including representations from some of the 1,100 other independent museums, none of which has been the subject of such special assistance. Nevertheless, every aspect of museum policy will be addressed in the review, and I can assure the House that the claims of mining museums will not be forgotten.
On that basis, having carefully considered the amendment, I am glad to tell the House that the Government will not oppose the amendment and indeed will be delighted to accept it. There is a small proviso to that acceptance, as there always is on such occasions. The drafting is not as expert as it might have been in the circumstances. If this amendment is approved, another place will certainly wish to examine it, but the substance of it will be accepted by the Government. I believe that this is an extremely good result for all those who are interested in the museums. I should like to single out the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who spoke so eloquently on the subject at Second Reading, and my noble friend Lord Swinton, who sadly cannot be with us today.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment, albeit with the slight caveat that he mentioned. I will not take further issue with him on the allocation of the sum. However, I should like to underline the fact that all along we have been concerned with the needs, albeit different ones, of the three museums, which are making a tremendous contribution to our national heritage. We want to preserve that. I hope that, if necessary, the door will not be finally closed. Just as we cannot commit a future government to giving support, I hope that this amendment will not close the door to a future government giving further support if that proves necessary. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23[Reduction in membership and dissolution of the Corporation]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 6.
Page 19, line 3, after ("exist") insert ("and that proper provision has been made to meet any outstanding or potential obligations of the Corporation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment that is designed to protect innocent third parties. It simply ensures that the Secretary of State will not dissolve British Coal until he is satisfied that adequate provision has been made to cover all of the liabilities of British Coal, including future ones arising out of past acts and omissions of the Coal Board.
With the permission of the Minister, I should like to quote part of a letter that he was kind enough to send me:
"It is clear to me that no reasonable Secretary of State could conclude that it was unnecessary for the Corporation to exist before provision had been made, for example by means of a restructuring scheme, for all outstanding liabilities to be honoured in full. Those liabilities would of course include any remaining
232
contractual liabilities entered into by the Corporation under a lease, as well as any remaining tortious liabilities already incurred by the Corporation".
Clause 23(2), as amended by my proposed amendment, would read:
"As soon after the restructuring date as it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer necessary for the Corporation to continue to exist, and that proper provision has been made to meet any outstanding or potential obligations of the Corporation, he may by order dissolve the Corporation …"
It seems to me that there is nothing between us. Therefore, in order to avoid future uncertainty, I simply ask the Minister either to show the House where in the Bill this matter is satisfactorily and unambiguously dealt with or to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, this is a very sensible amendment. We support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is an innocent and helpful amendment, and we should be deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne for moving it. Bearing in mind that it fulfils what was said in the letter from the Minister after the noble Lord and I had had a valuable exchange of views with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I would have hoped that the amendment could be accepted.
With regard to the letter and the part of it that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne quoted, I feel obliged to comment on the words "no reasonable Secretary of State". That is not binding on future Secretaries of State; indeed, it is not legally binding on the present Secretary of State, although as a matter of honour he would not dream of going behind it. A ministerial letter is not part of the law. The great virtue of the amendment, though not the only one, is that it removes doubt.
In the letter which the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, it was also said that the Secretary of State's decision would be open to judicial review. That is a very limited advantage. Proceedings for judicial review have to be started within three months of the decision by the Secretary of State, and that may well be too short a time for tortious liabilities to appear. I am sorry to have to say that, although I am very much in favour of judicial review as a safeguard in certain circumstances, in these particular circumstances it is not a sufficient safeguard. But the noble Lord's amendment not only removes doubt but is necessary and desirable. I hope that on this occasion my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his wisdom will feel that it can be accepted.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. I hope that on this occasion, as on the amendment that we have just discussed, we shall have the happy outcome of full agreement on all sides of the House.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the last time I congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, upon bringing this matter to the attention of the House—after I had made what I thought was an extremely adequate explanation of policy—he voted against me and won. I shall not thank him and congratulate him on bringing forward this matter, but I hope to give him considerably

233
more reassurance than I did last time. Perhaps he will then not feel that it is worth testing the opinion of the House.
The amendment deals with the Secretary of State's power to dissolve British Coal and the provision which is to be made for British Coal's liabilities in the run up to dissolution. The Secretary of State's power to dissolve the corporation, which is contained in Clause 23(2), is quite specific and quite strict. The corporation may only be dissolved when it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer necessary for the corporation to continue to exist. That is what appears on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State could only take such a decision following consultation with the corporation itself and with the Coal Authority.
I am advised that the meaning of this provision is very clear. If there remain liabilities attached to the corporation it must, by definition, be necessary for the corporation to exist. So before British Coal is dissolved the Government would have to make provision for all remaining liabilities to continue to be honoured. The liabilities mentioned here would include any remaining contractual liabilities entered into by the corporation under a lease as well as any remaining tortious liabilities already incurred by the corporation.
It has been suggested that the Government may somehow magic away these liabilities when the corporation is dissolved. I hope that I can reassure your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend Lord Renton, on that point. Under the Bill the Government could not do that even if they wanted to—not just this Government but any government; and not just as a question of reassurance but as a question of law.
The only remaining question to be dealt with is that posed at the end of his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He said that if he and I are in such agreement, why do we not accept his amendment. First, I have some technical difficulties with the amendment as it uses the vague term "obligations" rather than "liabilities", which is the term used in the Bill. But far more substantive: what the noble Lord wants is already achieved in the Bill. I am sure that it must be in all our interests to reduce the amount of unnecessary legislation. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton in particular, who is such a stickler in these matters, would agree that we should avoid unnecessary statutory provisions. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Northbourne can agree.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that very strong assurance. I shall read Hansard and hold him to it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved. ]
Clause 43 [Persons responsible for subsidence]: [Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Health and safety regulations as to rescue service]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 51, line 26, at end insert ("provided that approval shall only be given to a scheme which maintains the same or a greater level of service as that in existence immediately before the restructuring date.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to this amendment, which I had meant to move at the Report stage but time did not allow for that to be done, not only to emphasise the importance of the Mines Rescue Service but also to ask whether the Government, on reflection, could not accept this small amendment in order to emphasise the great degree of expertise and competence that needs to be maintained in the Mines Rescue Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wrote me a letter on this subject because I had discussions with him in the interval between these two stages. He explained that it was not necessary to have the amendment because what it sets out to do has already been set out in legislation dealing with safety in 1974. I agree that there is some similar wording in that legislation. However, the circumstances of 1974, when the coal industry was a nationalised industry—I happen, by coincidence, to have been chairman of the enterprise at that time—and the circumstances of today are totally different. We are now changing a single unitary body which paid the highest possible regard to safety into a number of as yet undetermined other bodies.
I should have thought that it would be desirable, just as we obtained the Government's agreement in the end to have the question of the mining museums put on the face of the Bill, that this issue should be put on the face of the Bill. We expect to have those very high standards of safety maintained. I do not consider that the amendment would do any harm to the sense of the clause. I hope therefore that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree to the inclusion of the amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, naturally we support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The Government's position has always been that the Mines Rescue Service will not: be less efficient under privatisation than it is at present. I therefore have to inform the noble Lord the Minister that there has always been a full-time fully trained brigade on first call and that after that part-timers came in as necessary. I must also inform him that in the past three weeks closures of full-time brigade stations have begun. One is at St. Helen's—the Wigan rescue station—with at least eight fully-trained men. A second is at Doncaster, with about 12 to 14 fully-trained full-time men. The third is at Rhydaman in West Wales, which has reduced its part-time rescue staff. In view of their commitment to maintaining the standard, what have Her Majesty's Government to say about that?
Lord Haslam: My Lords, British Coal's Mines Rescue Service has been shown to be outstanding in dealing with all the highly complex and difficult problems which arise in mining activities. This service far exceeds that which is required under the fire and rescue regulations because experience has shown that to meet the demands of industry, this higher standard is

235
needed. It is essential, therefore, that the proposed rescue service be based as a minimum on this existing standard and that every new owner should be fully committed to it as a condition of operation.
Major incidents or explosions are now fortunately a rarity, but if one does occur this is the ultimate test. If the new service is found wanting, it will be very apparent for all to see. With this in mind I firmly believe that any future organisation should continue on a national basis, with a strong full-time element, ensuring that the same breathing apparatus and ancillary equipment are generally available nationally and that the rescue brigadesmen across all the coalfields are trained in the same procedures. With that in mind, I strongly support Amendment No. 10.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all sides of the House recognise the vital importance of mines rescue, and that view is fully shared by the Government. There is absolutely no difference between us on this most important principle. Therefore, I fully recognise the concerns behind the amendment. But I shall explain why it is not necessary or desirable to have the amendment on the face of the Bill.
However, first, I must reiterate that it is because the Government recognise the vital role of the Mines Rescue Service that they consulted the tripartite Health and Safety Commission at the earliest stage and that they are now taking steps, in line with the advice of the commission, to ensure that standards will be maintained and to ensure that there will continue to be a service with a national capability after privatisation.
Those standards currently set by British Coal's rescue service are based on the provisions of the Coal and Other Mines (Fire and Rescue) Regulations 1956. It is those regulations which the Health and Safety Commission proposes to replace with a new set of regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—the 1974 Act. The Health and Safety Executive has conducted a detailed review of rescue working closely with the industry through the National Advisory Committee on Rescue Work and Rescue Apparatus, on which British Coal, the licensed mines and the major mining unions are all represented, with a view to bringing forward proposals for new regulations.
The review resulted in the letter from the commission of 26th January to the Minister of State for Employment which has been made available to the House and which sets out the commission's views on the basic requirements for rescue. The letter envisages that a cornerstone of the new requirements will be that no mine shall be worked unless it has available to it effective rescue arrangements suitable for that mine.
These new regulations will reflect modern circum-stances and take account of the changing structure and proposed privatisation of the industry. The Health and Safety Executive are working in full consultation with the National Advisory Committee to prepare draft regulations setting out the necessary requirements. The House may therefore be assured that those with the most direct concern that the new regulations should maintain existing standards of rescue are fully involved in their
236
development. Furthermore, all interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals when the regulations are put out for consultation by the Health and Safety Commission.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is unnecessary because there is already an existing statutory provision in the 1974 Act. Section 1(2) of the Act requires that regulations brought forward by the Health and Safety Commission to replace existing statutory provisions must be,
"designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under those enactments".
I do not think there is any doubt that this provides the assurance that is being sought by this amendment. An additional duty in the Bill would not add to this safeguard; indeed it could detract from it by placing a question mark against the commission's role as the guardian of standards embodied in health and safety legislation. I have sent the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, a copy of the relevant extract from the 1974 Act, as he has acknowledged.
Clause 55, together with the existing statutory powers and duties of the Health and Safety Commission under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, will ensure that existing standards of rescue, including a national rescue capability, must be maintained. I believe that that is the crucial aspect. On the basis that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I believe that it has been a valuable opportunity for me to read into the record exactly what our intention is and what our thinking has been as regards these clauses.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I believe that the Committee will be generally heartened by the importance which the Government clearly attach to the Mines Rescue Service and to the standards which should be either maintained or possibly improved. However, I am sorry that, for what appeared to me to be slightly legalistic reasons, this modest amendment could not be included on the face of the Bill.
There are the apprehensions which have been mentioned by other Members who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, spoke about the recent closures of some of the mines rescue centres. The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, pointed out that it was not sufficient in the past and it will not be sufficient in future, if these mines rescue teams have a standard which simply complies with the law. They have always had higher standards which need to be motivated. I feel that that could have been usefully mentioned on the face of the Bill. However, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Interpretation]
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Schedule 5[Pensions Provision in connection with Restructuring]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 106, line 32, leave out from ("surplus") to end of line 33 and insert:
("(aa) so much of any pension obligation arising under the scheme as represents the effect on any pension right

237
giving rise to a pension obligation falling within paragraph (a) above of any decision before 1st September 1994 to appropriate any of a relevant surplus determined as at a time before 31st March 1994 to the payment of increases in any pensions payable in pursuance of that right; and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving this amendment, I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
The Government gave notice at Report stage that they would be bringing forward an amendment to Schedule 5 to remove a possible inconsistency of a technical nature between paragraph 2(12) and other provisions of paragraph 2. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to modify the existing schemes in line with the agreement reached between the Government and the trustees on the new pension arrangements. The amendments clarify the pension rights arising from pre-privatisation surpluses giving rise to principal pension obligations which it has been agreed that the Government, in modifying the pension schemes, will have no power to affect adversely. With that brief explanation of these technical amendments, I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I have studied these amendments. The pension trustees are content with them. They seem to me to be sensible, useful and helpful. We welcome them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 106, line 34, leave out ("so arising") and insert ("arising under the scheme").
Page 106, line 36, after ("(a)") insert ("or (aa)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments of the Opencast Coal Act 1958]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 121, line 4, at end insert:
("Terms on which orders to be exercised
—(1) The owner of the interest against whom the compulsory rights order (in this paragraph referred to as "the owner") has been made shall be entitled to—

(a) payment on the basis of either—

(i) the open market value of the rights granted as would have been fair and reasonable if the agreement had been made between a willing grantor and a willing grantee, or

(ii) the compensation for the losses caused to him assessed in accordance with sections 17 to 23 of this Act,

whichever is the higher, and

(b) secure such terms, guarantees and other security from the person entitled to occupy the land in respect of which
the compulsory rights order is conferred (in this paragraph referred to as "the operator") as are necessary to protect the owner from any loss, damage, claims or other costs related to the exercise of the compulsory rights order.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) (i) of this paragraph, the assessment of the open market value shall take into account—
238

(a) the basis on which the operator has entered into agreements with the owners of other interests to permit the working of the same coal deposit, and

(b) the basis on which the owners of other interests have entered into agreements with the operator or other mining companies for the extraction of coal on comparable sites.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) (i) of this paragraph, the fact that the operator is in or to be in, a special position by reason of his having secured the licence under Part II of this Act to the exclusion of others shall be ignored.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I deal with the two amendments in my name, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Strathclyde not just for his Amendment No. 19, which is grouped with this amendment, but also for the time and trouble that he and his department have taken to try to come to a compromise over the problems caused by the Government's wretched compulsory rights order. My noble friend's Amendment No. 19 is helpful and so were his detailed remarks at Report stage as reported in the Official Report for 13th June at cols. 1568 to 1571. Perhaps rather confusingly, I also refer to col. 1574.
My noble friend has moved towards an agreement. Perhaps, as a generous marker of exams, I might give him four out of 10. But I fear that I would get only two out of 10 for my efforts as I have had to concede much more, in that I am not proposing the abolition of CROs, which was my starting point. I am more than aware that most of the Members of the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, consider that I have been pathetic in so conceding—that is to say, going ahead with the CROs.
Therefore, I am sad that my noble friend's four out of 10 mark forces me to move my Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 to reinforce my noble friend's Amendment No. 19. My Amendment No. 15 is similar to that moved at Report stage. It spells out the conditions which must be met before the Secretary of State approves a CRO. He may only do so when, first, the land is needed to supply a market which cannot be met elsewhere; secondly, the owner has acted unreasonably; thirdly, the amount of coal is in excess of 250,000 tonnes —which reflects the present position—and, fourthly, the owner or owners cannot be found.
My Amendment No. 16 spells out the terms to be offered. Perhaps I may summarise them. It is what would be offered as compensation between a willing grantor and a willing grantee—that is to say, the open market price. I have to repeat that this is the crux of my case. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde tried to tell me that this was too difficult to define. Then my noble friend took from col. 1567 to col. 1571 to explain the Government's method of compensation. Perhaps I may say that it took me only one column to explain mine. Moreover, he suggested in col. 1569 that my case was weak because I needed Sections 17 and 23 of this Act as well. I am surprised that he did that.
The reason for including this matter in my amendment is that some farmers or small businesses particularly, may have invested in equipment for specialised use whose value might be less than the investment and the return that can be made from them in that particular specialised business. We all know

239
about the specialised pig unit or the horticultural one. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I believe that my noble friend comes into that category.
Moreover, my noble friend's suggestions are not on the face of the Bill so valuers and lawyers are unlikely to pay much attention to them. I believe that my noble friend has been misled by his advisers. There are valuers well able to arrive at what a willing grantee would pay a willing grantor, though I doubt if there are many in the Department of Trade and Industry or in Rothschilds, whose main and only interest it seems is to flog off the industry at the greatest price regardless of natural justice to landowner, householder or indeed the countryside. I hope that word is parliamentary language but, to me, "flog" is a better description in this case than "sell".
I have tabled Amendment No. 17 merely to get my noble friend to explain a matter that was raised in the other place on Second Reading on which I think that we need some slight technical explanation.
I conclude by saying that I am much in favour of privatisation, as opposed to noble Lords opposite who I know are not. But both they and I are in entire agreement in believing that if privatisation is to take place, the small print must be correct. In this case, I believe that the small print is seriously flawed. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on Report, the Minister made some interesting statements. I quote from the Official Report of 13th June at col. 1569:
"I cannot see that it would automatically be unreasonable for the landowner to seek more compensation than the statutory provision".
If I may say so, that is an interesting locution which implies that it may not be unreasonable but in many, or most, cases it would be considered to be so.
The Minister then said at col. 1574:
"Generally speaking, landowners … have to consider what safeguards they want to give as assurance that obligations such as restoration will be carried out. This is reasonable: after all, they are to obtain an income from the development".
The income provided under the 1958 Act is sufficient to provide a rent and a profit which would have been received by the landowner and the occupier anyway. There is no provision for any payment related to the new use, the development, of the land. If the income is to reflect the risk that the owner and occupier are carrying, it should be greater and it should be freely negotiated. The Minister's argument can only support the abolition of CROs.
The Minister also said:
"The point that I made was that the landowner can demand a security".—[Official Report, 13/6794; col. 1574]
That is not true. The owner can seek it—I suppose that he can demand it—but he will not get what he demands if the CRO is made. He will get only such security as the authority considers to be reasonable, subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State.
All of those comments and all that is said in support of the amendments prove the need to ensure that CRO powers are used only where they are necessary in terms
240
of real need for coal and that the terms of any such order should recognise the responsibilities to the owners and occupiers affected.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I have hesitated to take part in this debate in support of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, not least because I do not like doing so when I am personally involved in the industry. However, this is so important and I believe that by declaring an interest in opencast coal mining I have something to offer. I suggest that I have more practical experience of it than any other noble Lord in the Chamber.
My family estate has suffered for over 50 years from opencast coal mining. About 1,000 acres have been worked in that time. I can confidently state with experience that the land takes at least a generation to recover. Some of it will never recover and is permanently damaged. Add to that the disappearance of springs and trees and the fact that huge boulders mysteriously rise upwards through the soil, and so on, not to mention the noise, dust, mud and general disturbance while it is all going on and while the restoration takes place. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen that, but I hope that you will do so before considering this matter.
It all started in the war under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Acts which, rather cynically, went on long after hostilities had ceased. Cynicism is not new in government. The compulsory powers were enshrined under the 1958 Act which we all know. I remember my father fighting against them in that year in this House. Since then, those compulsory powers have hardly ever been used by the National Coal Board or British Coal, so it is a shock to see them not only continued but available, in effect, to the private sector under the Bill.
All that disturbance and heavy loss was totally acceptable —indeed, it was welcome—during and after the war when coal was in short supply and badly needed in the national interest. Nobody could object to that. But that is not the case today. Coal does not need special compulsory powers any more than any other mineral. Nor do I deny that in recent years landowners have been able to make satisfactory deals about sites below the 0.25 million tonne mark—profitable to all sides: to the Coal Board, and to contractors as well as to owners, operating entirely under the free market forces in which I had thought that this Government profoundly believed. I do not see why that market cannot continue, but the abolition of the 0.25 million tonne limit prohibits that. Nor do I see why such forces could not operate at any level in the future.
As was said at an earlier stage, landowners will have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them with the CRO powers in reserve. However, it is not only Viscounts who will suffer, but smaller owners and, yes, we are talking about people's gardens. That will happen occasionally and substantial losses may be experienced.
We all realise that the Minister says that those powers will be available only "in the last resort", but the Bill does not tell me how "the last resort" is defined. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would do that. Furthermore, the Bill does not tell me who will

241
define "the last resort". I think that it may be the same person who defines "the national interest" and perhaps the same person who decides planning appeals. I strongly support the amendments which will define such matters.
I also realise that the powers will run for only five years. But just imagine the pressure to get CROs in the last few days of that five-year period. It will be just like at this very minute when, in the last few moments of British Coal's existence, it is trying to get approval to work sites about which it has done nothing for years. I did not think that the Government would ever give compulsory powers to commercial interests and so distort the free market in this way.
I should like to put one more question to the Minister. Why has the planning authority not been able to see the prospectus, which is known as the Rothschild Memorandum, which is available only to potential bidders and then at a high cost? In my case, the county council, the mineral planning authority, believes (from what it can discover) that the coal reserves which have been offered for sale must include several areas where planning permission has already been refused on appeal. If that is so, I think that it is, as they say in Dublin, very deceitful. Whoever buys the coal reserves may have to pay a great deal of money for something that they cannot exploit unless they are prepared to go through the whole planning process again to appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, used the word "flog". I think that I would use the phrase, "The Government want to get the highest possible price at the expense of everybody else", and I am afraid that I have to say that the answer to all this is that the Government's interest is not necessarily the same as the national interest. As someone put it to me less elegantly, "The calf is being fattened for the slaughter". I doubt whether the Government can deny it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I find this issue particularly difficult. My first reaction on reading this part of the Bill was to think how objectionable it was that any compulsory powers should be passed to a private interest. On second thoughts—I have already declared a rather tenuous interest myself—I believe that there is another point of view. It is the one that I think the Government are trying to follow.
I should also say at the beginning of my remarks that I am particularly sorry to find myself differing from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, with whom I have had a great deal of very friendly and helpful contact. Even though we may disagree tonight, we both share a profound concern about what could happen in the North East if employment is not sustained.
It seems to me that the Government have at least gone quite a long way towards meeting the objections and producing some kind of balance in this real, genuine and difficult conflict. First, the powers that were enjoyed by the National Coal Board, and latterly by British Coal, are not being transferred to a mining company. They are being transferred to the Coal Authority which will have, or could well be expected to have, a degree of impartiality which no mining operation could begin to claim.
242
I am not sure what the effect of my noble friend's amendments will be. However, we must be careful not to lock up forever a most valuable asset which could play a large part in sustaining industry and employment in the North-East. In the present climate in the North-East, to render an important resource unusable would be a retrogressive and unfortunate step.
The power will exist for only five years, which is an important move. Secondly, the power will not be held by a mining concern but by the Coal Authority. Thirdly, no compulsory purchase order will be issued without the approval of the Secretary of State. In saying that, I must admit that I have not always found that to be a tremendously valid or convincing argument. However, I suppose that one is entitled to cherish the hope that every now and again Secretaries of State will behave reasonably and decently.
The power will be exercisable only in the event of a landowner proving unreasonable. I appreciate that will be a difficult matter of judgment but it is an attempt to produce a reasonable, workable balance where otherwise the situation would be tilted hopelessly the other way. A further move by my noble friend has been to provide that an offer, once made by a mining company, cannot subsequently be withdrawn. Furthermore, other minerals; which should be obtained will be separately paid for.
I do not feel altogether happy about the matter. For some time, and now only slightly, I have been involved with British Alcan, which is an important employer in the North-East. If that company does not obtain access to coal which enables it to carry out a smelting operation at an economic rate it will inevitably have to close the total smelter. That would be a disaster for that part of the world. Not only would the employees of the smelter lose their jobs, but there would be a considerable knock-on effect for other industries.
It would be wrong for me to seek to expand on that point now, but it is a matter which we should bear in mind. There is another angle to this; very vexed, sensitive and difficult problem.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, sitting on this side of the House, I too find this one of the most difficult parts of the Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Stanley, I wish to see a successful privatisation. We must be most careful because, looking at Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, I believe that we could deal a serious blow to the privatisation of the coal industry. Like my noble friend Lord Peyton and others, I am convinced of the growing importance of opencast mining, even if the noble Lord, Lord Morris, does not like it.
We must be careful to get the balance right. While I too dislike the idea of statutory limits and statutory powers on CROs continuing for five years, I believe that if we are to succeed in seeing the industry move into the private sector we must be careful not to make haste too quickly. We must deal with the issue most carefully and get the balance right.
During each stage of the Bill, my noble friend the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Stanley. I too have my reservations about what is proposed in the Bill.

243
However, I believe that the willing buyer/willing seller situation, in particular in Amendment No. 15, would create huge uncertainties about the cost of access to sites because of the lack of precedents.
I believe that the Government may have the balance right. We must try to ensure at least that those who seek to bid for the various regional areas will not have their hands tied behind their backs to such an extent that they find it impossible even to put in a bid.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. It is my understanding that in speaking to Amendment No. 15, the noble Lord referred to conditions dealt with in his Amendment No. 16 and vice versa. I believe that he transposed them, but if I am mistaken I apologise.
I listened with great care to what was said by noble Lords opposite about the rights and wrongs of compulsory rights orders. I suppose that as a practitioner in the area of compulsory purchase and compensation, I should declare an interest. It was always understood that where there was an overriding public interest, which was ostensibly for a non-profit purpose—in other words, for some strategic need of the nation which could not be quantified—the loss to the vendor who was obliged to sell to the acquiring authority was the measure on a before-and-after basis. However, it is a different situation when the main thrust of the Bill is to prepare an asset in the public sector for sale to the private sector. Apart from the question of whether there is a need for a transitional provision, there is the much wider public interest factor on how we deal with the whole question of property rights and what is a fair balance between them.
I believe that, over the years where there was an established public need, the interest of the individual in terms of having a stake in the commercial outcome fell to be overridden. I am afraid that I do not consider that that case has been made here either in absolute terms or in a five-year interim period. I cannot take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that the assets are locked up. It is merely a question that there will be a slightly lower or perhaps a materially lower product for the private-sector operator and therefore the price will be reduced. I believe that most of those matters can be dealt with through the price mechanism, something which we consistently hear from the Government. I do not believe that that is the death knell of the principle of privatisation.
I take no side on that principle. That is outside my remit. If that is what the government of the day have decided, so be it. It is not for me to comment on that. But with regard to the public interest issue, the interests of private rights in land ownership are important, as are the private rights of householders and businesses. I do not believe that businesses in the countryside—and they are businesses in the same way as any other business—can stand to have their rights and assets diminished in some way in order to enable a more satisfactory prize to be offered on the open market to private operators.
244
I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp and that many people will be anxious about the interim period as we move from the public to the private sector. But the underlying property rights principle is fundamental and we should not depart from it lightly because of the precedent that that will set. Particularly in this country where there is no written constitution and where our constitution is formulated by precedential matters over the ages, we should be extremely careful about going down that road. For all those reasons, I support warmly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I too would like to take the line of the noble Earl who has just spoken. I gained the impression from my noble friend Lord Peyton that my noble friend Lord Stanley proposes the abolition of CROs. My noble friend Lord Stanley might have preferred that, but he has not done so. I do not believe that the anxieties expressed by two noble Lords are relevant in the terms of the amendment. I am not an expert on the subject but I shall certainly support my noble friend Lord Stanley if he presses the amendment to a Division.
Reference has been made to what noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite may or may not believe. I pay tribute to them. Having accepted that it is government policy to privatise—I endorse that entirely and hope that it is a success—they have been entirely objective in their consideration of the Bill at all its stages. Their one aim has been to improve the Bill for the purpose for which it was brought forward. I am personally grateful to them for that.
Earl Peel: My Lords, although I was not present during our deliberations on Report, I supported the amendment when it was moved by my noble friend in Committee. In view of the considerable support which my noble friend received from all sides of the House, I am surprised that we have reached the stage at which we are now. We have not made much progress.
The major difference between this amendment and the amendment moved in Committee is that this is a much more conciliatory amendment. I should have thought that that would have satisfied my noble friend Lord Peyton. I listened extremely carefully to what he said and have a great deal of sympathy for it. But having read the amendment carefully, I believe that it does and should satisfy the very real anxieties which my noble friend expressed.
We return again to the whole question of national need. As has been said many times, it is quite clear that it does not exist at present. One of the points which I made in Committee is that I see the CROs as what I might describe as a back-door subsidy. I have always been surprised that the Minister is not confident that the new licensed operators will be able to operate successfully without having the CROs to back them up.
In Committee my noble friend said that a CRO is not a compulsory purchase power because of the time limits involved; but it really is the next best thing. He said also that CROs are powers of last resort and that is how they will continue; but we cannot get away from the fact that they are hardly conducive to what one might describe as

245
free negotiation and free collective bargaining on the whole question of property rights, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred.
My noble friend gave an example of when a CRO might be used; namely, when an owner had unreasonably refused to negotiate or sought unreason-able terms. Why should he not do that? That is what the free market is all about. Whether we like it or not, CROs wilt be a genuine threat to free negotiation. I know that on this side of the House there remains very grave anxiety that the Government have been too quick to allow basic property rights to be undermined through legislation. I fear that this is yet another example of that happening.
I realise that in this case we are talking about a very few instances, but the principle remains. Therefore, I support warmly my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was extremely impressed by the words of my noble friend Lord Harrowby who told me something that I had not realised. He said that the Opposition had accepted that British Coal should be privatised. Noble Lords opposite are shaking their heads. Therefore, my noble friend was wrong and they are not in favour of privatisation. That is why they support the amendment.
Lord Peston; My Lords, of course we are not in favour of privatisation, but the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, was making a different point: if that is what the Government are determined to do, we are trying to make it less of a mess than they seem to want to make it. That is our position.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if noble Lords opposite are such experts on privatisation, how is it that every single successful privatisation that this Government have brought to the market has been against the advice of noble Lords opposite? I can guarantee that that will be true once more in regard to the privatisation of coal.
My noble friend Lord Peel said that he was surprised that we were discussing this issue yet again. The Government have brought forward a great many amendments in the course of their negotiations with my noble friend Lord Stanley and his friends. Yet again today the Government are proposing amendments which will be of great benefit to those who believe that they may suffer unduly under the regime of CROs or indeed where they have agreed freely to an opencast coal mine.
I should first like to speak briefly to the government amendments included in this group; that is, Amendments Nos. 19, and 21 to 24. I mentioned in our debate at Report that we were still considering a further significant amendment to the Opencast Coal Act. I am glad to be able to introduce that today. My noble friend Lord Stanley referred in Committee to the practice of British Coal, which always leaves its last offer on the table even when it has decided that it is necessary to make a CRO and which is always prepared to make an agreement in preference to the CRO, even after the CRO has been made and even after the CRO has been confirmed.
246
I hope I have made very clear by now our firm intention that those compulsory rights should be strictly procedures of last resort and that rights for opencasting should be secured by agreement to the maximum extent possible. To that end, it would be very desirable for British Coal's practice to be carried forward into the privatised coal industry, and we have been considering how best to do that.
Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 accordingly provide for a new ground of revocation of the CRO after confirmation. Landowners will be able to agree terms on the basis of a previous offer provided that they put this in writing within 28 days of the operator serving notice of the date of entry on to the land. The Coal Authority will then be able to revoke the CRO in any case in which the operator, without good reason, declines to stand by the previous offer. I believe that that in itself will be an important safeguard for landowners as to the way those procedures will be used during the transitional period to 1999. I also mentioned in our debate on Report that we were considering a further clarification of the new section already introduced dealing with landowner's minerals. Further discussions between my department and the Country Landowners' Association have shown that there are reasonable doubts as to whether that section does what both sides would wish it to do. I have clarified the position in Amendment No. 19.
As invited by my noble friend Lord Stanley, perhaps I may comment briefly on Amendment No. 17 to which he spoke. Section 14 of the Opencast Coal Act deals with various rights and duties of agricultural tenants and their landlords, as they apply where the demised land, or part of it, is temporarily used for opencasting but the planning permission provides that the land is to be returned to agricultural use. The effect is, broadly, to preserve the agricultural tenancy during the opencast working. In particular, no notice to quit can be served on the tenant.
The effect of my noble friend's amendment—and I can think of no one less likely to bring forward such an amendment—would be to wreck the protection given the tenant, so that a notice to quit could be served. I am absolutely certain that that was not the intention of my noble friend. Obviously, it would be unthinkable for the Government to accept the amendment.
I turn now to the key amendments in the group; namely, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. It is important to set the issue of opencast compulsory rights in the right perspective. The Bill is about privatising the coal industry. I have made it absolutely clear that the Government's aim in the process is to have the largest economically viable coal industry in the longer term. I believe that that aim is widely shared on both sides of the House. Obviously privatisation is an enormous challenge for the industry. The Government hope and believe that it will surmount that challenge. We certainly want to give it every opportunity of doing so.
The opencast industry is an integral part of the coal industry. We recognise, and understand, the concerns which can arise over opencast developments and their environmental impact. But I hope that noble Lords will not be under the misapprehension that, in striking a blow against the opencast industry, they would be doing

247
a favour to the deep-mined industry in the UK. The fact is that the coal industry will stand or fall together. If a serious doubt was to be cast at this moment over the prospects of the opencast industry, that would undermine the prospects of the industry as a whole.
There is no simple or straightforward solution to the question of compulsory powers. That is why I share so much the sentiments expressed by my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Sanderson of Bowden. They both feel great discomfort at the issue of CROs but realise the importance of having them, at least during the transitional period. There is a view, which is shared by the Government, that there should not be a separate regime for coal. That point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. We have in hand an appropriate review which will enable us to move in a considered way to a single regime for all the extractive industries.
However it is also widely accepted that the existing general regime is complex, expensive, and uncertain; and is generally not a practical route for securing minerals access. It would be a serious change to the outlook of the coal industry if its existing regime were to be removed before the review of that regime was complete and implemented. In other words, if the amendment were agreed to, it would entirely pre-empt the considered approach of those in the mining industry, in planning authorities, in the private sector and in the Government.
The Government are not riding roughshod over the interests of landowners. In fact, the proposals that we have made are undoubtedly beneficial to landowners in a number of important respects. They provide new, necessary safeguards for their interests which I have entirely supported in the discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Stanley. Perhaps I may outline some of the proposals. First, the power to initiate compulsory rights orders will no longer be in the hands of the mining industry itself. In future, it will be for the Coal Authority—which, unlike British Coal, will have no mining interests of its own—to consider applications for an order and to decide impartially whether the making of an order is proper and appropriate in the circumstances.
Secondly, the Government have made available explicit guidelines showing, on the policy of the authority, that it is intended that it will only make such orders in the last resort and after all reasonable efforts to obtain the agreement of landowners have failed. They will also secure that any reasonable requirements for appropriate financial security are met. Orders will remain subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. They have indicated their view that no order should be confirmed unless it is in the public interest to do so.
Thirdly, in Clause 52, the Bill sets an absolute limit of 31st December 1999 on the continuation of those compulsory rights powers. That date cannot be extended by regulation, and any new compulsory powers after that date will have to be based on new primary legislation which would, of course, come before your Lordships' House. Fourthly, the Government have initiated the comprehensive review of compulsory
248
access powers generally which I mentioned a moment ago, with the aim of establishing a single regime for all mineral industries.
Those are all measures which were part of the Bill, or the framework within which it is to work, when the Government introduced it in another place. Since then there have been many discussions with the Country Landowners' Association and further safeguards or improvements have been introduced where we could put in place procedures to ensure that landowners will be notified of all applications for coal mining licences in respect of their land. The Government have brought forward amendments enhancing the compensation to which landowners will be entitled, to cover minerals other than coal. Moreover, the new clause which I introduced a little while ago gives the landowners the assurance that they will be able to go back to the operator's best offer.
There is no reason to think that compulsory rights will be made available more freely in the future than in the past. Quite the reverse. The more formal procedures which I have described, and the tests which operators will have to meet at each stage, will tend to make it less likely that they will seek to have recourse to those procedures.
As to the amendments tabled by my noble friend, they identify two key issues—the terms on which CROs can be conferred and the circumstances in which they could be granted. I dealt with those issues at some length on Report. I shall not try the patience of the House by covering the same ground twice.
However, I believe that the Government's approach is both robust and reasonable. It will not unleash a flood of CROs on the heads of landowners. It will not allow secretive operators to steal a march in some way on unprepared landowners. It will allow landowners to seek more compensation than the statutory code where they have a reasonable case for it in the particular circumstances, while retaining the statutory code as a minimum in every case to provide a degree of certainty which should be helpful to both sides. On the other hand, it will not unreasonably restrict CROs so that none could ever be made except in an emergency.
It will be clear that there are key points in each of the amendments of my noble friend which I cannot accept. There are other points, particularly in Amendment No. 16, which do not need to be covered in the Bill because they have already been covered procedurally.
We are of course wholly at one with the aim of a regime which will be fair and reasonable towards landowners. The Government have in fact made great efforts to ensure that that is the case and have responded to concerns that have been put on behalf of landowners. But if the suggestion is that all change should only take place on landowners' terms, without giving fair treatment to the interests of other parties, then I cannot agree and I have to say that I believe that your Lordships' House will be doing itself a disservice if it adopts that approach.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, questioned the whole approach to opencast coal-mining. I believe he said that the Government's approach was deceitful. I must tell the noble Viscount that there is no question of

249
pre-empting the planning process. The memorandum makes clear that the grant of planning consents is, and will remain, a matter for the planning authorities. It will be for the regional coal companies to apply for the necessary consents for new sites in the normal way.
I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that it is true that what we are considering is a change from the public sector to the private sector, but there will be no change in the law and there will be considerable safeguards in changing from the old regime to the new. It was my noble friend Lord Peyton who I think recognised most of all the dangers inherent in accepting these amendments as regards the more fragile areas of the country where coal-mining has continued, but has continued because there are valuable customers nearby. Those customers may well withdraw their custom if there is doubt and uncertainty in the regime. That is why I am surprised to note that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, who is such a great crusader for the North East, is not defending the Bill as it stands.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I think the Minister is aware that I am concerned chiefly about employment. He is quite right to say that I have frequently raised that matter, because it seemed to me an appropriate thing to do at the time.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that of course is a matter for the noble Lord to decide for himself. I was trying to offer him some guidance. The issue that is central to this matter is certainty. We have already dealt with amendments earlier today on the matter of certainty. At the moment there is no doubt as to what the law recommends. If this amendment is accepted, there will be considerable doubt and it will plunge the coal industry into uncertainty by taking away the existing arrangements. This would damage the prospects of the industry and in view of the safeguards that we have provided we would regard that damage as needless and unnecessary.
The Government have done everything they reasonably can, in discussion with landowners, through new procedures and through amendments to the Bill, to ensure that proper concerns are met. I am convinced that the Government have spelt out an approach to compulsory rights that is fair and reasonable to all parties. My noble friend Lord Stanley has not had all the cake but he has had a considerable part of it and I would hope that he would accept that. If pressed, I therefore must ask the House to reject these amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support and in some cases for their contributions. I should refer quickly to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He said that the Coal Authority would be impartial, but I am not sure about that. He did not spell out why we must have CROs for six years and why they should not stop now. As my noble friends Lord Harrowby and Lord Peel said, my conceding CROs right at the start answers the question concerning an unreasonable refusal to allow mining. That really is quite a large concession, as I have tried to explain to the House and to my noble friend.
250
I am extremely worried that my noble friend Lord Peyton is worried about this matter, as is my noble friend Lord Sanderson. I can only suggest that they relax. With their interest in developing mining operations, I am not surprised at the remarks that they have made. I always think that someone who has to declare an interest, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, is always of the greatest value. I am sure the whole House was struck by what he said.
The point that was made the strongest and best was made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, when he asked how a landowner can make a demand —he shouted the word "demand" two or three times —when he has the threat of a compulsory rights order over him. As my noble friend on the Front Bench tried to suggest, there is no question whatsoever that this will be a landowner's benefit. As I have reminded your Lordships before, I am not a landowner. It is small householders and small businesses that worry me desperately in this regard. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, a landowner will have one hand tied behind his back, and if he considers the compensation that was spelt out by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde —or perhaps I should say not spelt out—it puts him in an even weaker position.
I will not detain the House any longer. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was, as usual, in his most persuasive form. In fact he spoke rather better than I have ever heard him speak and that is saying rather a lot. But he really made the same points as he has made before. Like him, I do not intend to weary the House with those points. Having listened to your Lordships, I am sorry to say that I must revise the mark that I gave him of four out of 10 to two out of 10. I therefore must ask for a decision from the House.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 72.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Airedale, L.

Forester, L.

Attlee, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Barnard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bathurst, E.

[Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Burnham, L.

Grey, E.

Burton, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harrowby, E.

Carter, L.

Haskel, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Holderness, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cross, V.

Hothfield, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Derwent, L.

Knutsford, V.

Desai, L.

Lawrence, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lindsay, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Dundonald, E.

Lockwood, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Lytton, E.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ezra, L.

Mancroft, L.

251

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ridley, V.

Middleton, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Monson, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Savile, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Nicol, B.

Shannon, E.

Palmer, L.

Somerset, D.

Parry, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Peel, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Teviot, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wharton, B.

Raglan, L.

White, B.

Rea, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Richard, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Leigh, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Ashboume, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Balfour, E.

Barber, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mountevans, L.

Borthwick, L.

Moyne, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Northesk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranbome, V.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Selborne, E.

Elibank, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hacking, L.

[Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgame, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Haslam, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ironside, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kenyon, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 121, line 4, at end insert:
("Conditions to be satisfied before a compulsory rights order is made
A compulsory rights order shall not be made or confirmed unless it is shown that it has not proved practicable to obtain the right by private arrangement because the owner has acted unreasonably and that—
(a) (i) the coal in the relevant land is required to supply a market which cannot adequately be met from other sources which are currently being worked or capable of being worked where a coal mining company has secured all the relevant planning consents and has acquired the necessary interests in land, and
(a) (ii) the amount of marketable coal to be extracted as a result of the compulsory rights order being made exceeds 250,000 tonnes; or
(b) there is a present likelihood that the coal will remain unworked on account of other development proposed on the relevant land; or
(c) the persons with power to grant the right, or any of them, cannot be ascertained or cannot be found; or
(d) the persons from whom the right must be obtained or any of them, have not the necessary powers of disposition, whether by reason of defect on title, legal disability or otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 132, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert:
("(3) Where, in the case of any minerals, it would be reasonable for steps for making them saleable or for enhancing their value to be taken on the land between—
(a) the time when those minerals are got, and
(b) any sale of the minerals by the operator from the land, it shall be assumed, for the purpose of determining the market value of those minerals as at the time mentioned in subsection (2) above, that the minerals were in the same condition at the time so mentioned as they would have been had those steps already been taken.
(3A) Any question for the purposes of subsection (3) above as to the extent to which it would be reasonable for any steps to be taken in relation to any minerals shall be determined as at the time mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection and on the assumption that it is not reasonable for steps to be taken where the total cost to the operator of taking those steps is equal to or more than the difference between—
(a) what would be the market value of the minerals for the purposes of subsection (2) above if it were reasonable for those steps to be taken; and
(b) what would be their market value for those purposes if it were not;
and for this purpose, where the minerals would not be saleable without the taking of those steps, the market value referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be taken to be nil.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved. ]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
Page 132, line 39, after ("state") insert ("the amount appearing to the person giving the notice to be the amount which for the purposes of subsection (2) above is to be taken to be").
Page 132, line 43, leave out ("made") and insert ("confirmed").
Page 136, line 16, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
Page 136, line 24, after ("Act") insert:
("(4B) Where in the case of any compulsory rights order made or confirmed at any time on or after the restructuring date (within the meaning of the Coal Industry Act 1994), it appears to the Coal Authority—

(a) that the order would not have been made or confirmed, or would not have extended to certain interests or rights, if a person to whom a relevant offer was made had accepted it,

(b) that that person has, since the making of the order, made a written offer to the person entitled to the rights conferred by it ('the operator') to enter intoan agreement on the terms of the relevant offer,

(c) that the written offer was made either at a time before the specification of a date in relation to the order as the date of entry or at a time more than twenty-eight days before any date so specified,

(d) that the person making the offer will enter into an agreement with the operator on those terms if the order is revoked or varied under this subsection, and

(e) that the circumstances (apart from the expiration or rejection of the relevant offer and the making and confirmation of the order) are not such as to make it unreasonable for the operator to be required to treat the terms of the relevant offer as still available for acceptance,

253
that Authority may, by notice to the operator and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, either revoke the order or vary it by limiting it so that it does not extend to the interests and rights of the person who is offering to be bound by an agreement on the terms he previously failed to accept.

(4C) In subsection (4B) above 'relevant offer', in relation to a compulsory rights order, means any offer which—

(a) was made by the applicant for the order to a person who is one of the persons directly concerned; and

(b) was an offer as to the terms on which the applicant was willing (instead of requiring rights as against that person to be conferred by a compulsory rights order) to enter into an agreement with that person.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am a little puzzled and would welcome clarification whether the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has not moved or withdrawn the consequential amendments to the amendment which was passed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may clarify the situation. Your Lordships agreed Amendment No. 15. As I was running down the aisle, Amendment No. 16 was called by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I shouted "I beg to move".
Amendment No. 17 was answered by my noble friend, and therefore I did not move it. My noble friend had another amendment—Amendment No. 21—which tidied up my own amendment, Amendment No. 18, which was similar. I hope that that answers the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful. Mea maxima culpa.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps we may now move on. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
We have had a series of interesting and wide-ranging debates on the Bill, perhaps none more interesting than the debate we have had this afternoon, although I regret the loss that we have suffered at the hands of the House.
The range of subjects that we have covered reflects the tremendous history of the industry and the large part it has played in industrial development and in so many people's lives over a long period of time—from compulsory rights to concessionary fuel, from safety to subsidence, from water pollution to pensions, from miners' welfare to mining museums. On a lighter note, I should add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who has quoted from the Old Testament, through Goldsmith to A.E. Housman, to perhaps a bit of Virgil, although I cannot guarantee that. But we have not been loving enough for any Catullus. That indicates that we have ranged widely, but I believe that the quality of our debates has not suffered.
We saw two important announcements by the Government. On the first day of Committee I was able to make an important statement on water pollution and
254
pumping, which provided material reassurance on an area of anxiety to many in this House and outside. At Report I was able to announce an important development in the policy on health-related liabilities.
It was perhaps inevitable that in a complex Bill of this size there would be Government amendments. However, I hope that the House will agree with me that the number of amendments that we have had to make has been comparatively small and that the majority have been in the nature of technical tidying up amendments.
However, there is one area which I wish to distinguish from the rest, and that is pensions. Your Lordships will recall the strong commitment on pensions which the Government made at an early stage in this privatisation. Although the amendments made to the pension provisions in the Bill were highly technical, they were important and reflected the Government's genuine desire to provide proper safeguards for the pension entitlements of those in the British Coal pension scheme.
I should also mention the amendment which the Government made to bring in a new clause on liability for inaccurate information. Although I would not wish to over-emphasise the importance of the amendment, it offers reassurance to those third parties who might suffer a loss.
We have won some amendments and we have lost others. However, we have dealt spectacularly well with a number of issues concerning safety, to some extent liabilities and miners' welfare. These are all of the greatest importance and I fully understand the desire of noble Lords to reflect that on the face of the Bill.
Privatisation has achieved an outstanding record of industrial success in this country. I am sure that the coal industry, with its great history of achievement, will make full use of the opportunities which the Bill presents and will take its place among the other former state-owned enterprises which are now doing so well in the private sector.
In concluding, I should like to thank the noble Lords opposite, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, his noble friend Lord Peston, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the. courteous and businesslike way in which they approached our consideration of the Bill. We are fortunate in this House in having so much experience and expertise in so many areas. That was amply demonstrated in debate on the Bill. I believe that we were able to take the discussion into relatively technical areas and to maintain a high standard of debate. In that respect, I pay tribute to the former chairman of British Coal who spoke in the debates on the Bill, and to noble Lords who in one capacity or another have had responsibilities connected with the coal industry. In addition, there were noble Lords who came from mining families and who were brought up in mining areas. Other noble Lords have direct experience of dealing with the coal mining industry from the point of view of the property owner or landowner. I thank all of them for their valuable contributions to the debates.
I thank my noble friends who have contributed to the debates. I have been well supported—some of the time; sadly not always—but in particular I thank my most

255
able Whip, my noble friend Lord Goschen, for his support. Last but not least I thank the officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bill team, which has worked tirelessly to make sure that amendments were tabled on time, explanations given and letters written.
It is an important piece of legislation for an important industry. The transfer of the coal industry to the private sector will be a momentous step. My only regret is that I suspect that we shall have to deal with the Bill once more when it comes back from another place. I sincerely hope that that experience will not be too tortuous.
I am sure that as the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, all noble Lords will join me in wishing it well for the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, this is, by time-hallowed tradition, the point in the passage of any Bill through your Lordships' House at which, in turn, we rise up and offer to each other high praise and hearty thanks for all the goodness and loving kindness we have extended to each other over the past weeks. It is also customary to thank the caretaker, the vicar for the use of the hall, and the ladies (God bless them) for making the sandwiches.
It gives me great pleasure fully to participate in the ritual thanksgiving, and to begin with my noble friends on the Front Bench, particularly the percipient Lord Peston, the monumental Lord Mason, Lord Dormand, doyen of the County Palatine, Lady Turner, whose vigilant care for all aspects of employment so impresses us all—I think it frightens the Government, I know it fortifies me—Lady Lockwood, who has so effectively taken up the running on the matter of the mining museums when the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was struck down by illness, and (if I may group them like amendments) my countrypersons Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Williams of Elvel, and Lady White.
While in Wales, I cannot forbear to add the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who causes the Government such trouble and does the nation such good, but I shall refrain from mentioning by name other noble Lords opposite to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for fear it may prejudice their prospects of promotion. This allows me, however, to recall the sterling contributions made to our debates by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, has the advantage of having governed the industry and therefore knows what he is talking about; the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, whose close and careful study of the Bill has been evident in the shrewd amendments he has tabled, and which have met with no reward; and, memorably, from the spiritual Bench, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. A Labour member of Sheffield City Council spoke to me of him last week, and said: "Ay, he's Right wing on too many things, but when it comes to t'miners his heart and his head's in t'right place". I am grateful to him for his support.
It is not our custom to thank those who have, like flying butresses, supported us from outside. So I shall
256
say nothing about the splendid work of Clare Cozens, our researcher. I shall not mention Andrew Pym or the Country Landowners' Association, and on the contribution of Barbara Edwards and the Coal Communities Campaign my lips are forever sealed.
To the noble Lord the Minister, however, I may, can, and do offer thanks and congratulation on the way he has steered the Bill through its stages in your Lordships' House. He has been knowledgeable—too knowledge-able at times for me—well-informed, sagacious and loquacious, as, indeed he ought to be, with the entire Civil Service at his service for preparation. But he has also been invariably courteous, patient, civilised in discourse, and shrewd in negotiation. And these are personal qualities for which the whole House will be as grateful as I am. And his right-hand man—who seems always to sit on his left—the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, has displayed, when deployed, qualities alarmingly similar to those of his noble friend the Minister.
The Bill itself is perhaps marginally better, a touch tidier, now than when it came to us "with all its imperfections on its head" from another place. But in its thrust and purpose it remains sadly the same. It was well described as "the ultimate privatisation" because it was born not out of economic necessity, not out of any need to create a competitive industry, and not, God knows, out of social concern or compassion for the coalfield communities. It was, in our view, begotten by irrelevant ideology out of revengeful desire to bring the miners to heel, and to crush for ever the power of the National Union of Mineworkers.
It has its inescapable origins in the bitter events of the miners' strike of 1984 and 1985, and we should never forget the anger of those times when policemen faced each other and their own brothers and fathers across the picket lines. I shall never forget watching the convoys of strike-breaking lorry drivers, escorted by police along the motorways in South Wales and Yorkshire, and the sullen and burning resentment of worker divided against worker in coalfield communities which survives to this day.
And the resentment has not receded in the last decade, as is witnessed by the astonishing outburst of anger nationwide when the President of the Board of Trade made that brutal announcement about pit closures last year. Who would have dreamed it possible that Mr. Arthur Scargill could have been cheered to the echo as he walked at the head of a demonstration by miners down Park Lane and through Mayfair? But it happened, last year, and it happened because the ordinary people of this country turned against the brutality with which the miners, their families, their children and their communities had been treated by a Government more interested in victory and vengeance than in justice and in the healing of wounds.
We shall never forget that this Bill, this "ultimate privatisation", is the tombstone of the British mining industry as we have known it, the last nail in its coffin. It parcels out the remnants of an industry deliberately weakened and run down by a Government which rigged the energy market against coal, and then looked on

257
impassively as the inevitable happened, and pit after pit closed and miners swelled the ranks of the unemployed yet again.
We have done our best with the inevitable progress of the Bill through the House. But to be of absolute certainty, my Lords: the Labour Party does not like it. In the end the Bill is simply an irrelevance which permits the scavengers and the salvage experts to come in, pick over the bones, and pick up the profits. The "successor companies", if and when they make their successful bids, are not entrepreneurs. They are merely the undertakers, the funeral directors who will, by virtue of this Bill, send the British coal industry to its account, "unhousled, disappointed, unaneled".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I approach the Bill with one deep regret. It is that the industry which was the object of the legislation should be of such a diminished size. When both the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, and I, who had experience of the industry in its immediate post-war period, remember its size and and importance then and its diminished size now, we cannot avoid feeling very sad.
The purpose of our deliberations on the Bill has been to make it as effective as possible for the industry at its present size to survive and, we hope, to grow. I believe that between us we have managed to achieve that. I believe that the Government have taken serious note of the points raised during our debates here and that as the Bill leaves us it is much improved compared with what it was when it started.
The Government have recognised the importance of the vexed question of liabilities and made many concessions. I pay tribute to them on the question of pensions—all the more telling for me as I happen to be a recipient of a Coal Board pension. I am delighted that, as regards myself and the other 600,000 pensioners, we have been fairly treated. I will say that. Therefore, that particular bone of contention never came up in our debates.
We addressed the question of safety many times and I believe that the Government fully recognised its importance. I regret that they were reluctant to have more said about safety on the face of the Bill.
On miners' welfare, again the Government were of assistance, but I fear that the problems of miners' welfares handled by CISWO are such that their task will increase in the years ahead and in the early part of the next century, rather than diminishing. I hope that that will be taken note of when the situation is reviewed.
On British Coal Enterprise, I believe that the Government recognise the importance of the undertaking and I hope that they will come forward soon with positive proposals. Perhaps we shall have the opportunity of taking note of them in discussions in this House at some early future date. I hope that the Coal Consumers' Council will be replaced with some equivalent body. I personally would have been much in favour of retaining it so that domestic consumers of coal can feel that their interests are safeguarded, just as they are in other basic fuel industries. Finally, as a result of a happy meeting last night, we have managed to reach
258
agreement on the future of the museums and therefore pay tribute to the great heritage inherent in the coal industry.
I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in paying tribute to the Minister and his colleague for the very sympathetic way in which they dealt with many of the points which we raised. I am also grateful for the trouble taken to write those long and informative letters which came so promptly after discussions with them. They are well served in their department in that respect.
All in all, we had a successful debate; we are now sending back to the other place an improved Bill. I hope that the other place will accept without demur all the amendments that were introduced.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, on a day when the British Nuclear Industry Forum has warned the Government that that industry's contribution to United Kingdom electricity supply will fall from 25 per cent. to 3 per cent. over the next 25 years if no new reactors are built, it is important to wish well to this Bill and all who will be involved in its implementation.
I shall make three comments to the Government which I hope they will consider to be helpful. First, as regards opencast operations, it is very important for all parties interested in mining companies that British Coal settle promptly outstanding historic claims. Otherwise, it will not be easy, particularly for new entrants, to quantify those claims, which I believe is an important part of the privatisation exercise.
Secondly, I believe it is absolutely vital for prospective operators—and I am sure that they will obtain this—to have the Government's assurance that both the Government and their agencies are, and are seen to be, absolutely even handed with all who seek to operate in the coalfields.
If operators are to produce meaningful bids without so many caveats that those bids are based more on hope than on fact, as much information as possible should be available in the data rooms, including details of contracts between British Coal and the power generators. That would seem to me to be fundamental, in view of the dependence of the coal industry on those most important of customers.
Finally, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for the helpful way in which he dealt with some of the important points that had to be addressed in your Lordships' House and in particular the way in which he was so helpful to me and, I have no doubt, others on the question of liabilities on health and related points. I also wish to say how much I appreciated the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I say to him that I hope that I am not a prospective undertaker.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to add my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill. He is always courteous and has a ready smile. Although I have not had a great deal of direct contact with him over the Bill, I can safety say that he has kept up to his usual high standard of

259
competence in the subject matter and great charm and skill in dealing with inquiries. I thank him for that and I thank the officials in his department for their help.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who has been a staunch ally in many of the areas with which I have been particularly concerned on matters of property ownership and rights. I hope that that bodes well for the future in the sense that property ownership and rights are not something that are confined to the rich and wealthy: they are fundamental to the substructure of the country and its economy. I warmly thank the noble Lord and his colleagues in that knowledge.
I also wish to express my appreciation to the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Stanley of Alderley. They both battled away fast and furiously on the Bill, with great effect. I wish the Bill well and hope that the points that have been discussed in considerable detail in this House will be heeded in another place. I am particularly concerned that there is the realisation that the question of liabilities is not to be left solely to the principles of risk management in order to create a risk-averse situation for a particular mercantile objective. There are many matters of risk which properly rest in the public domain because they are the product of the activities that are carried out in the name of society to create the wealth of the nation. That should not be forgotten. To try to compartmentalise or ignore them in some way is a mistake and I hope that those points will be taken on board.
On the question of rights under compulsory rights orders, we have made great progress in this House. I hope that the free market will be allowed to operate under the Bill. It will be a great step forward and will help to defuse some of the essential divisiveness of a compulsory purchase situation, which is always a vexed question. I can say that with some feeling, having acted for both sides—both acquiring authorities and private individuals—over the years.
I should like to pay tribute to certain outside organisations, the Coal Liaison Group and, in particular, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union, which have taken a very keen interest in this matter. They have been a tower of strength in the information that they have provided. I wish the Bill well.
Finally, I have an interest to declare that I have not declared previously; namely, that I am a burner of 3½ tonnes of anthracite a year in a coal-fired appliance. I particularly hope therefore that the industry will be leaner, fitter and more competitive in every sense; that the outcome will be a higher quality product which will be the envy of the world; and that we can continue to export the technology to other countries.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thought that the good nature and good humour which have permeated the whole of our debate on this Bill had come to a sudden end tonight because of some remarks that the Minister made. When he made his comments on the remarks that were made by his noble friend Lord Harrowby—I believe I have the name right—he must have known—indeed he did know—that we were very
260
much opposed to this Bill. I repeat that now, although my noble friend Lord Peston has also said so. The Minister then made remarks about me personally when he spoke of unemployment in the North East. But I soon realised that he was teasing us, and we appreciate that.
I should like to add my comments on how co-operative—not all the time but for most of the time —the Minister and his noble friend have been. Above all, we have to express appreciation for the noble Lord's patience. We have raised matters on a number of occasions which he thought that he had dealt with before, and he said so. But in fact he was very patient. Some of us seem to remember when he was not quite so patient. But now we are glad to pay tribute to the way in which he has dealt with this Bill.
The weaknesses of this Bill have been demonstrated time and time again during all the stages of its passage through this House. Its fragility arises from two basic facts. The first is that the Government have not properly thought through the implications of the proposal. We saw that time and time again during our debates. We have seen the Bill stumbling on virtually every aspect: environment; subsidence; CISWO; British Coal Enterprise; liabilities, and other matters. Secondly, the coal industry in this country always meant more than the winning of coal. The Government have never really appreciated that. They have never really appreciated what a pit meant to the community that lived around the pit shaft.
Had the industry been in a parlous state, the Government could have argued for this Bill on economic grounds. In fact, the industry has been a model. My noble friend Lord Morris referred to that fact. There has been a spectacular improvement in productivity. There has been an effective accommodation with imported coal. And the miners have co-operated with management in every reasonable way.
During the passage of this Bill we have not heard a single convincing argument for privatising the coal industry. The Government continue to say that a privately run business is more efficient than one that is publicly owned. But it is sheer dogma to say that that is applicable in every case. It has certainly not been proved in the case of the coal industry.
It is self-evident that the new coal owners will regard some of the present activities, many of which we have discussed during the course of this Bill, as peripheral to the making of profits. It is for that reason that noble Lords on all sides have expressed fears and doubts about safety, research and development, liabilities and many other matters.
After considerable pressure, we have had promises on the problems relating to minewater. Problems were raised on all sides of the House. But few noble Lords are completely convinced that the promises will hold for as long as they will be needed. As the Minister knows— and he was very helpful in regard to my own representations on this matter —I still hold those doubts. All that I can say is that we shall watch the situation very closely indeed in the months to come.
The Government's case on the Bill would have been more convincing had they placed the coal industry and the Bill in the context of an energy policy. Instead, they

261
have considered the industry in isolation, with the review of nuclear power still to come. Such piecemeal treatment serves neither the industry nor the country. It is not surprising that some industrialists have found it difficult to comprehend a policy which has encouraged the expansion of gas, of nuclear power and of French imports, all at the expense of coal—the contraction of coal—which, it is now generally accepted, provides the best value for money.
Throughout our debates concern has been expressed not only about the powers of the Coal Authority but also about how those powers are to be interpreted. I believe that there will be confusion in respect of the work and the functioning of that authority. It is in any case too weak to deal with the problems which will inevitably land on its doorstep—it is weak in powers and resources and perhaps even in expertise.
Finally, I pose a question to which no one can yet have the answer. In spite of the many difficulties and hardships which their work has always given them, miners have always had a deep pride in their industry. That has been shown in their village communities, in their camaraderie down the pit and in their union activities. Much of that has arisen from the fact that for a long time miners were part of a national and co-operative industry and organisation. Under the new conditions based on separatism and competition it may well be that that spirit and pride will disappear, or at least be eroded. It seems inevitable that there will be some change, however small or great, and that cannot be to the benefit of the industry or the economy as a whole.
262
I hope that the answer to the question that I have posed will be that there will not be any fundamental change. The Labour Party is committed to the reintroduction of public ownership of the coal industry, and it appears that we shall be undertaking that task in two or three years' time. It is important—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dormand of Easington: I could have said that I do not think there is any doubt about it. But I am a reasonable man. I believe that that will be the case. But my point is that at that time, when it does arrive, it is fundamentally important that there should be high morale among the miners and indeed all the employees within the mining industry.
The future for coal could be very bright, and it will be so. But one of the first tasks of a Labour Government will be to get rid of this inadequate and unimaginative piece of legislation.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment. The amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eight o'clock.

  POLICE: NEW PAY ARRANGEMENTS
  POLICE: NEW PAY ARRANGEMENTS
  MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, LONDON
  MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, LONDON
  PSYCHIATRISTS: TRAINING PACKAGE
  PSYCHIATRISTS: TRAINING PACKAGE
  DOMESTIC WORKERS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS
  RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS IN PRISONS
  RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS IN PRISONS
  RAF TRANSPORT FLEET: REPLACEMENT
  RAF TRANSPORT FLEET: REPLACEMENT
  RAF HERCULES AIRCRAFT FLEET
  RAF HERCULES AIRCRAFT FLEET
  COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP AND HEDGEROW INCENTIVE SCHEMES
  COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP AND HEDGEROW INCENTIVE SCHEMES