Sitting of 16 May 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Students (Benefits)
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many inquiries have been made to his Department's freephone service from persons asking about benefits available to students in the latest convenient period for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): Freeline managers estimate that about 1 per cent. of their calls are from students; it is not possible to say how many inquiries might be about student benefits.
    Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for that answer. Would the Minister pass on to the freephone staff the thanks of mature students, potential students and access co-ordinators, certainly in Birmingham and the west midlands, for a very helpful service when students who are not the normal 18-year-olds ring up? However, will he have a word with the staff in the offices? When unemployed, mature people ask at the offices what is available for mature students, they are sometimes met by a knee-jerk reaction. They are told that no benefits are available, which is not the case for the unemployed, single parents and disabled mature students, who can sometimes retain housing benefit and income support. That area is not dealt with as well in the offices as it is on the freephone.
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about the freeline service; that will be passed on. I am also grateful for his courtesy this morning during his telephone call. I hope that he has received by now a reply to his letter. The local area director makes it clear that the Benefits Agency has a number of different types of student with whom to deal. We try to ensure that all information is available to all students. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, there is an officer with particular technical expertise who can deal with the issues. There is a district information officer available in all districts to deal with the issues. However, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will, of course, make inquiries at the Benefits Agency to ensure that its information for students is as good as it can be.
    Mr. Brazier: Can my hon. Friend confirm, however, that with the huge and welcome expansion in the number of students, the best way to cope with the difficulties in the long term is not to return to the widespread availability of
    536
    benefits for students, but to do what almost every country in the developed world does—ensure that the majority of students go from home to local universities?
    Mr. Burt: Some of those matters are for the Department for Education rather than for me. I can confirm that my hon. Friend is right about the expanding number of students, and that expansion can be paid for only by asking students to pay an increasing contribution themselves. That is why students were moved out of the benefits system. It must be best that students look towards the education maintenance system for support rather than to benefits. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that an increasing number of students continue to want access to university and higher education. That is welcome and is something for which we can pay.

    Pension Age
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which countries since 1964 have a state pension age higher than that of the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Denmark, Iceland and Norway currently have equal state pension ages above 65 and many others, such as Canada, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the USA, have equal state pension ages higher than the present retirement age of British women. The majority of European Community countries have equalised, or are intending to equalise, state pension ages at 65. Most of the Scandinavian countries and the USA have, or are moving to, an equal state pension age of 67.
    Mr. Legg: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that equalising the pension age at 60 will cost £12 billion more than equalising the pension age at 65? Can he confirm that claims by the Trades Union Congress that equalising at 60 will save money are politically motivated rubbish?
    Mr. Lilley: I can confirm the points that my hon. Friend makes. During the period in which we intend to introduce equality in the state pension age, it would cost about £12 billion a year more to equalise at age 60 than to equalise at age 65. I do not believe that that would be a sensible use of a huge amount of public fiscal resources—equivalent to 6p or more on income tax. Suggestions that we could save money by equalising at 60 are way off beam.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is considerable dismay among many men who very often have to retire even earlier than 60? The average age at which men retire is now 57 and they are unable to obtain pensions, whereas women can get them at 60. In the present economic climate, people should not have to feel deprived if they do not have a pension with their work because they should be able rely on the state pension much earlier than 65.
    Mr. Lilley: Of course, there can be other state assistance for people who, for any reason, have to retire or are jobless prior to the state pension age. A great many people have private pensions, which enable them to retire earlier than that age. It would be an odd use of public resources if extra money were to be channelled to those who have perfectly adequate resources to look after themselves in retirement.

    Benefit Increases
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the main social security benefits have increased since their inception.
    Mr. Lilley: All main social security benefits are now worth as much or more in real terms than at their inception.
    Mr. Pawsey: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply? Does he agree that the majority of benefits have, in fact, increased and quite substantially? Does he agree that that defies public perception? Will he therefore say how much money is now being spent by his Department on benefits and, to make the figure more realistic, will he break it down per taxpayer?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amount spent on social security benefits has increased by 75 per cent. in real terms under this Government and it now costs more than £80 billion a year of taxpayers' money. I cannot express the equivalent on a taxpayer basis, but I can express it per head of the working population. To finance social security, on average, every working person in the country has to pay £15 every working day.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Secretary of State seen the articles in the Financial Adviser this month and last month, which celebrate the fact that 10 million people will have to take out additional personal insurance from insurance companies because of the cuts in the welfare state? Is not it an outrage that the same people sold 3 million dodgy personal pension policies on the basis of 50 per cent. of the premiums being taken in administration charges and commissions? Now 10 million people have had benefit cut and have been taken out of the national insurance scheme, which is good value and takes only 5 per cent. in Administration? Why is he throwing 10 million of our people to the vultures of the personal pension markets?
    Mr. Lilley: I have not seen the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if it is as loosely based as his addendum to it, it certainly requires some re-writing. As he will know, the Securities and Investments Board is requiring that, where there has been mis-selling, remedies are available, which will mean that the people who were mis-sold pensions do not lose out. Surely, that is good news and means that we will wipe the slate clean of the past misdemeanours and ensure that, in future, people can have confidence in the whole system of occupational and personal pensions.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that when social security spending to help the less well-off has increased in real terms year in year out, people who should know better are constantly trying to put across the impression that the opposite has happened and never point out that, whereas our social security has increased each year, a number of our European partners have cut their help to the less well-off?
    Mr. Lilley: It is rather strange, but we have become used to a certain proportion of the chattering classes referring to any increase that is less than they want as a cut. There have been substantial improvements and increases in total social security spending over the years. We have made sensible reforms and, as a result, have avoided the abrupt, arbitrary and painful cuts that some other countries
    538
    have had to make. That is to our credit and shows our good sense. Other countries wish that they had taken earlier the reforming measures that we have taken.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's chatter disguise the fact that since 1979, when the Conservative Government took office, the incomes of disabled people have plummeted? There has been a widening gap—[Interruption.] I had my figures checked by the House of Commons Library only 10 minutes ago. While average income has risen by a factor of four, disabled persons' income has risen by only 2.6 per cent. That is a terrible reduction in income.
    Mr. Lilley: On close inspection, it appears that the hon. Gentleman has decided that a 2.6 per cent. increase in the incomes of disabled people can be described as a cut. The truth is that we have more than trebled spending on disabled people—a record in which we take some pride.

    Widowed Parents
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what support is available for (a) widowed fathers and (b) widowed mothers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): Child benefit, together with the range of income-related benefits, is available to both widowed fathers and mothers. In addition, widowed mothers are entitled to receive contributory widows' benefits and widowed fathers receive one parent benefit.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that ever since the Beveridge report in the 1940s, our social security system has been based on the principle of a bread-winning father and a dependent mother? The Government have built upon that recently by increasing widows' benefits. However, does my hon. Friend recognise that some of the 30,000 widowed fathers find life difficult? Would not it be appropriate to consider assisting them further?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the existence of widowed fathers. I stress that the qualifying criteria for widowed mothers and fathers for income support, the lone-parent premium in income support, housing benefit, child benefit, one-parent benefit, family credit and the forthcoming disregard for child care in family credit, are all the same.
    There is the additional provision of the widowed mothers' allowance, which reflects the fact that women are more likely than men to have been dependent on their spouses and that wives who are working when widowed earn, on average, less than their husbands. To extend equal treatment between widowed mothers and widowed fathers would involve either paying benefits to some men who do not need to be dependent on the state or taking some benefits away from widows, neither of which is an attractive course.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that some of the widowed mothers and fathers are disabled people? Apart from financial matters, those people desperately need the sort of measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) tried to introduce. In view of the Government's dishonesty and treachery in defeating the

    539
    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, should they not now acknowledge that the Bill should become law at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Hague: There has been no dishonesty or treachery by the Government. My right hon. Friend has announced a series of consultations on these subjects, to which the hon. Gentleman should direct his attention.
    The point of the main question concerns the benefits available to widowed fathers and mothers. Those benefits are very considerable—a fact which should be recognised

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners currently have an occupational pension; and how many had one in 1979.
    Mr. Hague: In 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, an estimated 61 per cent. of all pensioners had an occupational pension. The equivalent figure for 1979 was 43 per cent.
    Mr. Thomason: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he confirm that the figures for the more recently retired are even better than those that he has just cited? About 70 per cent. of those who have recently retired have income from occupational pension schemes. Can he confirm that in 1979 the figure was under 50 per cent?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right to say that almost 70 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have income from an occupational pension scheme. That figure was very substantially lower in 1979—just over half the total. Apart from that, 76 per cent. of pensioners now have income from investments and savings, which again is a considerable increase on the 62 per cent. equivalent figure in 1979. Those factors have all contributed to the rise in pensioners' living standards.
    Mr. Olner: Is the Minister aware that many men and women find that their occupational pensions are not realised to their fullest extent because they are made redundant at an early stage? Surely the Minister should be examining the phenomenon. He should have it well in mind also that many people have put a misplaced trust in companies offering personal pensions, thinking that they would be given a reasonable return for their money.
    Mr. Hague: The security of personal pensions is being dealt with by the Securities and Investments Board. The board has already published a series of measures that are to be taken. We await its further consideration.
    During the 1980s, the Government introduced considerable improvements to the indexation of occupational pensions for those employees who leave schemes early before their normal retirement age. That has been of great assistance to many hundreds of thousands of people.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: While I welcome the spread of occupational pensions in many parts of the population, I remind my hon. Friend that only about 40 per cent. of recipients of invalidity benefit are also in receipt of an occupational pension. Will he ensure that restrictions on benefit under the new incapacity benefit do not lead to hardship among those who are genuinely unfit to work and
    540
    do not have access to other resources such as occupational pensions, permanent health insurance or income from savings?
    Mr. Hague: I know that my hon. Friend pursued that point during the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill and that my right hon. Friends have taken note of that. The introduction of an objective medical test is intended to ensure that there is no hardship and that help is directed at those who most need it.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that the Government's reliance on the large proportion of pensioners having either occupational or private contributory pensions masks the serious problem of poverty among older women pensioners who have to rely entirely on the state pension plus housing benefit to survive? Their poverty is becoming worse, as is the humiliation of their lives. The Government's refusal to uprate the pension in line with average earnings means that such pensioners' living standards are deteriorating year on year. What does the Minister plan to do about these people?
    Mr. Hague: It is because older pensioners in particular have not had the benefit of occupational pensions, investments and savings to the same extent as younger pensioners that, since 1988, the Government have targeted additional resources totalling £1.2 billion in the form of additional benefits on the poorer and the older pensioners. That is our response to the problem, and it will continue.
    Mr. Willetts: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the labour market becomes more flexible it makes more sense for more and more people to have personal pensions, as the best way of saving for their retirement?
    Mr. Hague: The availability of personal pensions, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests, is extremely important in a more flexible and mobile labour force. The availability of these pensions has meant that people are now saving for their retirement some billions of pounds that were not being saved before. These moneys will provide additional income in their retirement.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce further changes to the operations of the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Burt: A number of changes were put in place in February and these must be given time to take effect. We have no plans for further changes at present, but the operation of the Child Support Agency will continue to be kept under review.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that that is an entirely unacceptable answer for the thousands of families throughout the country who are facing ruin as a result of the operations of the agency? When will he understand that what is needed is not further tinkering or analysis but a fundamental change to the basis of the agency and its operations? Will he convey to the agency that the public expect it to spend less money on holding courses in expensive hotels when its staff should be back at their offices dealing with correspondence from Members and their constituents?
    Mr. Burt: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The agency is getting on with doing its job of producing assessments and higher rates of maintenance for parents with care of their children. That is its job and those are the principles that guide it—the hon. Gentleman is well aware that those principles are endorsed by a variety of people. The reforms that we made in February were not cosmetic and resulted in a reduction in the number of assessments made at that time. It is right that they should be given time to have effect. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are continuing to keep the agency under review, which is right and proper.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that it was an eye-opener to many of us to discover the extent to which some people ripped off the state in the past by expecting the system to look after their children? Having said that, the CSA scheme is clearly littered with anomalies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and I ask him to have a word with our right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and ask him kindly not to embark on any more general reforms of the social security system until the Government have sorted out the scheme, all its anomalies and all the other things that have gone wrong with it.
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he put his question. He is right to draw the attention of the House to the terrible anomalies in the previous system, which left parents with care without adequate maintenance and depended far too much on the benefits system to support separating couples. It should be known that 96 per cent. of all the cases with which the CSA is currently dealing involve those who are on benefit.
    My hon. Friend also drew attention to the concerns that have been expressed by a number of parties about the operation of the scheme. He will know that different voices have expressed different views; only last week, the National Council for One Parent Families issued a statement in association with Gingerbread calling on us not to forget the interests of lone parents when considering the operation of the CSA.
    Any further consideration that we give to the matter would have to balance interests, because it is important that the House supports a proper system of maintenance for all in the United Kingdom. That is why we think it right to keep the affairs of the CSA under careful review.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that interests must be balanced. Does the Minister accept, however, that anomalies in the system have created overwhelming pressure, in particular financial pressure on second families, which is quite intolerable? The Minister has been quite right to wait to see how the February changes have bedded down, but the key question is at what stage he will feel able to make a move. That moment must be close and some changes must be made.
    Mr. Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He referred to the February changes, the bulk of which were designed to provide some form of assistance for those who had been complaining about the agency, particularly because of the second family problem and similar issues. The support that we gave in February to protected income, which improved matters beyond the recommendations made on that particular point by the Select Committee on Social Security, was designed to help those second families. Our desire to ensure that the agency is properly
    542
    reviewed is governed by our wish to see how those changes are working. Those changes were only introduced in February, just three months ago, and it is important to give them time. As my right hon. Friends, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said from the Dispatch Box, if the need for further change is proved, it will be made.
    Mr. Congdon: May I welcome the changes that were introduced in February, in particular in respect of phasing? I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that one of the biggest difficulties facing absent parents is when the costs that they incur increase greatly as a result of a maintenance assessment replacing a court order. Does he agree that it is important that we keep that under review to ensure that the system works fairly? In so doing, we must not only ensure that it works fairly, for the absent parent, but must bear strongly in mind the needs of the lone parent and the parent with care.
    Mr. Burt: Yes. My hon. Friend puts the case correctly. In relation to the amount of money left after the maintenance requirement has been made, the intention behind the formula was that some 70 per cent. of net income, as calculated in that formula, should be left available to absent parents to meet their other needs and obligations. My hon. Friend is right to say that the House must balance carefully the interests of all parties—parents with care, children, absent parents and the taxpayer.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that a policy of wait and see is not heroic, but it is just plain stupid given the crisis now facing the agency? Can he give me one reason why there should not be an independent appeal procedure to deal with cases where there are genuine hard circumstances and where the maintenance demands have lost touch with the ability to pay, as has happened in some cases? Has he noted the repeated press reports that the Government have decided to legislate soon to ensure, for example, that financial and property settlements that were intended to effect maintenance payments could be taken into account by the agency? Given the Minister's main reply to the question, is he telling us that that is not true? If so, does he recognise that that is totally unacceptable to the Labour party and to many people in the country?
    Mr. Burt: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was long enough in the tooth to know to take with a pinch of salt what is in the newspapers. We stand by the answer that we have continually given in relation to this matter: as I said to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), we have made the changes and we want to find out their effect. We have been through the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about appeals before. The danger is that a completely open system of appeal would return us to the totally discretionary system that the House and many other people have said on many occasions they do not desire.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the media comment since the CSA began to operate has tended to ignore the plight of single deserted mothers and, even more, the plight of millions of working couples who have set up stable traditional family units and who, as we heard earlier, contribute £15 a day on average towards the costs of the social security system?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend draws attention to the other side of the coin, which is important. It is true that, in the

    543
    early days of the CSA, by far the greatest running in terms of press comment was made by absent parents and in relation to the issues that concerned them. Only in the past few weeks have the representatives of lone parents said that they want their voice to be heard and got their side of the case across. No one necessarily represents taxpayers in these matters except Her Majesty's Government; it is right that we should take into account taxpayers' interests for the very reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend, which were accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House when the legislation was originally passed.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to the recent report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on the first year of operation of the Child Support Agency, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what measures he proposes to introduce as a consequence.
    Mr. Lilley: I am giving NACAB's recent report careful consideration, as we do any representations about the scheme.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister recognise that the citizens advice bureau is an organisation that enjoys a very special respect among the British people, and that he should pay a great deal of attention to what NACAB has to say about this contentious matter? Does he agree that a more positive attitude by him and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) would be welcome?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about NACAB. I will as I said, give full consideration to its report. I always respect reports coming from that organisation. I am sure that most people concerned with citizens advice bureaux share the view of most hon. Members that parents are responsible for their children; that that responsibility persists even if, sadly, they split up; and that the taxpayer should be involved only to the extent that parents do not have the means to support their children. It is therefore appropriate that we have a system for assessing parents' means. We tried to get that system right originally, then to reform it in February. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, it is important to see how those changes work out.
    Dr. Spink: In the light of NACAB's representations on the CSA, will my right hon. Friend take all possible steps to ensure that errant fathers are made to pay and to co-operate with the CSA—including, where necessary, the immediate attachment of earnings at source?
    Mr. Lilley: I take my hon. Friend's point. The NACAB report called for more stringent enforcement measures and we are working in that direction. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have been more successful in pursuing those so-called feckless fathers who had left with the mother looking after the child not a trace of their whereabouts. More than 85 per cent.—about 29,000 of such cases—have been tracked down so far. That is a greater level of success than we perhaps expected when we established the agency. and is an important aspect of its work.
    Mr. Frank Field: Further to the NACAB report, can the Secretary of State confirm that the system that the Child Support Agency replaced gained maintenance payments for those on benefits for less than 60 per cent. of eligible
    544
    mothers, but that in its first year of operation the CSA is raising less money for taxpayers than the liable relative system that it replaced? What conclusions does he draw from that?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is right. Under the old system there were some 1.3 million lone parents, 1 million of whom were dependent on income support and more than three out of four of whom were not receiving a penny of regular maintenance from the absent parent. As yet, we have no final figures for the first year of the new system's operation. We are conscious that, given that it is in its first year, it will fall short of the targets set for it, but its performance will build up over time.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is not it thoroughly dishonest of Opposition Members to criticise the principle of the CSA, given that it had all-party support? That should not obscure the fact that a number of anomalies in the system will have to be dealt with. The fact that so much evidence is becoming available should mean that we can at least set a date by which we are prepared to assess that evidence. If my right hon. Friend would agree to look in a year's time at the evidence of the previous year, would not that go a considerable way towards answering the justified concerns of those of us who accept the principles on which the CSA was set up?
    Mr. Lilley: We have demonstrated by our speedy response to the Social Security Select Committee report, which we implemented rapidly in February, our willingness to respond where changes are required. The fact that we implemented the bulk of the Committee's recommendations and, in some respects, went further than those recommendations, shows that, as we keep the agency under review, if and when we find that changes are necessary, we shall introduce them. A specific date is not helpful, however. It is important that the agency be allowed to continue to get on with its work and improve its performance, and that those who have been contacted by it respond and pay the money to the parents who, by and large, have been bringing up children on income support.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the operation of the social fund.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Our assessment is that the social fund is working extremely well in targeting resources on those people most in need of help. Nearly 9 million awards totalling £1.5 billion have been provided from the discretionary fund since the scheme started. Even so, we routinely monitor the operation of the fund and continue to introduce improvements as necessary.
    Mr. Hutton: Does the Minister agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee that structural changes are now required in the operation of the social fund? Will he ensure that if someone satisfies the criteria for the award of a grant or loan, that person will receive help notwithstanding any financial constraints that would otherwise deny it?
    Mr. Scott: We take careful account of the Social Security Advisory Committee's advice. We improved the

    545
    social fund, particularly its management, in April this year. Although it is in the nature of a discretionary fund that not every application can succeed, this system is much better than its predecessor, which was doubling in cost every two years.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: How much has the social fund cost to set up and how many millions or billions of pounds have been awarded? Does my hon. Friend agree that loans rather than grants have been an effective way to provide most where the need is greatest?
    Mr. Scott: As the years of the fund's operation have passed, it has become increasingly clear that loans are an acceptable part of social fund provision. As of the end of last year, £1.5 billion had been expended on the operation of the social fund since its inception.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister aware that the social fund is failing homeless people? Has he read the latest report by citizens advice bureaux in Scotland, which shows that people are locked into hostel accommodation because they are not receiving grants or loans for essential household items such as cookers and bedding? As that is the only source of help for such homeless people, should not the Minister review the situation urgently so that people can set up home, which is preferable to languishing in hostel accommodation?
    Mr. Scott: It cannot be the sole responsibility of the social fund to accommodate everybody who is rehoused. Social fund loans are available to those who go into unfurnished accommodation. Local authorities can also assist in certain circumstances.

    Income Support
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the change in the level of unemployment since November 1993 has had on his Department's estimate of the cost of income support provision for this financial year.
    Mr. Lilley: The number of unemployed claimants has dropped by more than 90,000 since November 1993, and we estimate that that has reduced expenditure on income support by £176 million and on unemployment benefit by £90 million.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very welcome news of a year-on-year reduction of nearly 250,000 in unemploymennt has had an extremely beneficial effect on the cost of unemployment-related benefits? Does he also agree that policies that would introduce a statutory minimum wage and a maximum working week would be liable to increase unemployment, with a consequent increase in the cost of benefits and the likelihood of tax increases to pay for them?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. The fall in unemployment does not just reduce my budget; it is a great boon and benefit to those 250,000 households whose members are now back at work instead of being unemployed. We are doing all that we can to encourage people back into work, not least through benefits such as family credit, which now enables 500,000 people to work who previously might have been tempted to remain unemployed.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State recall making a remarkably unpleasant speech at last year's Conservative party conference, and subsequently suggesting the introduction of a so-called habitual residency test? Have the social security commissioners given any recommendation on that ill-advised proposal? If the right hon. Gentleman introduces such a test, will he provide an exemption for citizens of the Irish Republic? Will he be sensible and allow that barmy idea to die a natural death?
    Mr. Lilley: My recollection is of warm support, both then and subsequently, not least for the proposal that we in this country should introduce something that already exists in most continental countries. It would not be possible for someone from this country to go to most continental countries and pick up the equivalent of income support and housing benefit. Why should people from the continent who are here to learn English be entitled to do that? We are being thoroughly communautaire in adopting similar procedures over here, but we have not yet heard the full results of the consideration being given to the matter by the Social Security Advisory Committee.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Disestablishment
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations have been received about the financial consequences of disestablishment.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Church Commissioners the recent Adam Smith Institute report by Adrian Pepper, entitled 'The Consultants' Report on the Church of England', which makes a number of recommendations about how the Church could improve its performance?
    Mr. Alison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion, and I will certainly pass it on to my colleagues. There is a verse in the book of Proverbs which says:
    'in the multitude of counsellers there is safety.'
    We shall bear that in mind as we consider the multitude of counsels that we receive.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that if disestablishment occurred, the same group of people who managed to lose £800 million of the Church's assets would still be in control?
    Mr. Alison: Disestablishment is a cloud no bigger than a man's hand at present, and may not go anywhere, so the hon. Gentleman's question is to some extent hypothetical. In relation to the £800 million figure that he cited, he will have noted that, in 1993, the value of the assets of the Church Commission increased by £396 million. We are rapidly making good the notional loss which has been recorded in earlier years.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: How much of that £396 million was regained from stocks and shares and from the market, and how much from direct giving by the laity? Can the final £400 million be made up in one way or another?
    Mr. Alison: If I said £396 million, I apologise. The figure should be £296 million. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will allow me a measure of optimism and a firing-from-the-hip apology for having got the figure wrong.
    My hon. Friend asked about the increase in the value in so far as that relates to donations. We are talking entirely about the capital valuation of assets, of which about £190 million represents the increase in assets in the stock exchange security and £100 million represents the increase in the value of property and commercial assets.

    Church Land (Housing)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the Commissioners' policy towards responsible asset management as it affects housing development on land it owns; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners' duty is to their beneficiaries—the clergy. This requires them always to consider the promotion of the housing and other development potential of land through the normal planning processes. The Commissioners seek, when it is consistent with their responsibilities, to make land available for affordable housing.
    Mr. Hughes: May I reinforce the view, exemplified most recently in the row in Wiltshire, where the Church Commissioners plan to build executive homes rather than affordable homes for villagers and other people, that the Church has two duties: first, to provide the money for its clergy and, secondly, to go not always for maximum profit but for the enhancement and building up of communities and family life? The Church Commissioners can then ensure that they do not make a muddle on this issue as they made a muddle of their investments last year.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will have digested, even though it has only just been delivered to him, my earlier comment that when it is consistent with our responsibilities, we make land available for affordable housing. But the Church Commissioners are not a housing charity, and they must bear in mind their primary responsibility to maintain the level of stipends for the clergy and, above all, pensions for retired clergy and their dependants.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Courts Services Agency
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the cost of setting up the Courts Services Agency.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The preparatory work started in July 1992, and has cost £320,000 up to April this year. A budget of £690,000 has been set aside this year to carry out the work needed to launch the agency in April 1995.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that, given the number of closures of both Crown courts and county courts over the past four years, the setting up of an unaccountable
    548
    agency, which will make the whole process of the administration of justice much less accountable to both Parliament and the public, is a complete waste of money?
    Mr. Taylor: The Government believe that it will be money well spent. It is directed towards improving the management and systems of the court service and, as a direct result, improving the standard of service that can be afforded to court users, who are the public—our constituents.
    Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister show a little more concern for those members of the public who, over the past year, in the county court system alone, have received more than £400,000 by way of compensation for errors and delays? Is not that just a picture of what is happening everywhere in that service—demoralisation, inefficiency and Government complacency? Is not it time that he abandoned these hare-brained, ideological schemes and started taking care of the consumer of legal services?
    Mr. Taylor: There are no hare-brained schemes or ideologies. The interests of the consumer are uppermost. There have certainly been some problems in London, but the rate of complaint has fallen rapidly. The Lord Chancellor is acutely conscious of the need to handle complaints in a sensitive and user-friendly way.

    Divorce
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve mediation services for couples petitioning for divorce.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I think I had better read my answer fairly slowly.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is not being paid by the word now.
    Mr. Taylor: For one of the few times in my life, I am speaking without a fee.
    The Lord Chancellor is considering the case for legislation in the light of the responses received to the Government's consultation paper on mediation and the ground for divorce. He therefore has no immediate plans for improving mediation services.
    Mr. Wicks: But does not the Minister think that improvements could be made to mediation services, even ahead of legislation? Given that, every year, 160,000 children under 16 have parents who divorce, does he recognise the need for urgency?
    Mr. Taylor: Yes. I recognise the urgency, but, in matters as important and sensitive as this, it is very important to get things right. The hon. Gentleman is an expert in these areas, and I respect that. Moving to mediation as a concept is difficult. Moving away from fault-based divorce and adversarial techniques is, in my view, considerably easier, but they are parallel paths. It would be a great mistake to allow legislation to get to the statute book without having quite defined how we would provide mediation, how we would pay for it and who would be the mediators.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will recall that I practised in family law for a number of years before coming to the House. Does he agree that, in making any

    549
    changes in family law, particularly in divorce law, it is most important that we ensure that, in any divorce, the interests of the children remain paramount? Will he confirm that, whatever other changes to the law are considered, the long-established legal principle in this country—that the interests of the children are paramount—will remain?
    Mr. Taylor: I am at pains to emphasise to my hon. Friend that the welfare of children will remain paramount. In fact, if it is possible to enhance the superlative, I suggest to him and the House that, under the proposed arrangements, the welfare of the children will be even more important because the parties will be asked to consider what we now inappropriately call 'ancillary matters' before they get their decree. The welfare of the children, the future of the children and funding for the children will have to be addressed by the parties. They will have to resolve those issues, perhaps with the aid of mediation.
    Mrs. Ewing: But given that many effective voluntary organisations already work in mediation services, is the Minister prepared to ensure that they are given sufficient funding to enable them to complete a task that is very important to the families concerned without having to rely on legislation being introduced? Beyond that, is it likely that, within the next Parliament, legislation will be introduced to ensure that family mediation services are recognised and given their due worth?
    Mr. Taylor: It is not for me to anticipate what will be in a forthcoming legislative programme, and I do not think that the hon. Lady would expect me to. She will accept, however, although she may not be content with the situation, that local services exist; that, in many cases, they are very good; and that they are currently funded by the voluntary and private sectors, with assistance in some areas from the probation service, local authorities and the legal aid fund.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that many fathers who face mediation find that their lawyers tell them that the mother's interests always seem to come before the father's, although the children's interests may come before both? In this age of equality, should not we start to look more closely at the way in which men and fathers are viewed when divorce settlements come about?
    Mr. Taylor: The law is even handed between men and women in the unfortunate circumstance of divorce. My hon. Friend is quite right to identify the fact that the interests of children come before those of the mother and father; but it is very often the best interests of the children that make the settlement between the parties look as though it is asymmetrical. That asymmetry might well follow arrangements for residence, contact and the like.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Theft (Churches)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the current levels of theft from churches.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It would appear that there is a Lord, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Alison: By divine providence, I return to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Church Commissioners are aware of anxieties about the level of theft from churches. The responsibility for their guardianship rests primarily with the parochial church council and church wardens. The Council for the Care of Churches offers advice on security and has published a booklet entitled 'Church Security—a Simple Guide'. The Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, as the main insurer of churches and other church buildings, also offers practical advice about security and a number of concessionary schemes.
    Mr. Banks: Although I am in no way religious, I find distasteful the fact that people have been stealing from churches. It is a breach of trust and an appalling crime. What discussions have the Church Commissioners had with the various police authorities so that perhaps more specialised policing services can be put in place to track down these thieves? Naturally, I would not recommend Group 4 to give any advice. Perhaps a police equivalent of the Spanish inquisition would be appropriate.
    Mr. Alison: On studying in detail my somewhat extended response to him a moment ago, the hon. Gentleman will discern that the responsibility is highly dispersed and lies with parochial church councils. It is not within the remit of the Church Commissioners to intervene directly. However, we do our best to propagate good advice. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sensitive reference to the unacceptability of thefts of this sort. He will bear in mind that the founder of the Christian religion issued a warning that we should not lay up for ourselves,
    'treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.'
    Forewarned is, to some extent, forearmed.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my local churches have been on the receiving end of theft? Often when many of the images and chattels of a church have been removed the whole character of the church is changed; many of those items have been there since time immemorial and are respected and greatly thought of by the congregation. Does my right hon. Friend think that we should say to the parochial church councils, 'You now, unfortunately, have a duty to lock your churches'?
    Mr. Alison: A great many churches are locked, but some are kept open all the time. There remains a considerable body of valuable antiquities and antiques and other treasured articles in parish churches. However, the overwhelming significance of the value of living individuals in churches remains its particular treasure. I am sure that if my hon. Friend occasionally graced his own parish church with his presence, as I am sure he does, it would make up for the incalculable loss through theft of goods and chattels and treasures.

    Housing
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to switch investment from up-market homes and offices into affordable homes to rent.
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners already provide approximately 1,600 homes at affordable rents in inner London on their Octavia hill estates. They also seek whenever possible to make land on their agricultural estates available for that purpose.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The last report by the Church Commissioners that I read made a great point of the fact that they were investing in up-market houses and not investing new money in affordable homes. As that investment policy was disastrously wrong and made no money for stipends for the clergy, surely they should look again at their policies and give affordable homes a greater boost—and, indeed, do their Christian duty as well as their financial duty.
    Mr. Alison: Our primary Christian duty must be to maintain our primary charitable objective, which is to provide a high cash flow to pay the stipends of clergy and pensioners and their dependants. I told the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who pressed the same point that, where we can, we mitigate the impact of this necessary policy by trying to help with low-cost housing. For example, opportunities have been taken, where planning has enabled us to act within our legal duty, to provide land for affordable housing on a number of sites in Cambridgeshire, Hampshire and Yorkshire as well as in London. We try to bear in mind my
    552
    hon. Friend's point, but we are caught on the horns of a dilemma as to whether, strictly speaking, we can pursue the policies of a housing charity—which we are not.

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many churches are currently administered under the redundant churches scheme.
    Mr. Alison: At the end of April 1994, 290 churches were vested in the Churches Conservation Trust, formerly the Redundant Churches Fund, for preservation.
    Mr. Viggers: Bearing in mind the fact that these interesting and lovely buildings are national assets and have moved away from religious use, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be appropriate for the Church Commissioners to ask for a revision of the formula whereby the state pays 70 per cent. of maintenance costs and the Church Commissioners 30 per cent?
    Mr. Alison: I do not rule out an approach to secure a revision of the formula, but it would be tempting providence to do so immediately, since the formula has just increased substantially in favour of the Church Commissioners, from 50 to 70 per cent. Before we press for it to rise to 90 per cent., we should digest the advantageous terms that we enjoy at present through the good offices of the Department of the Environment.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short statement. Following representations through the usual channels, the business for Thursday 19 May has been changed and will now be as follows.
THURSDAY 19 MAY—Motion on the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order.
Motion on the Value Added Tax (Education) Order.
Motion on the Railways Pension Scheme Order.
Motion on the Railway Pension (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order.
The business for Monday 23 May will be announced on Thursday in the usual way, but it may help the House to know that it is likely to include the Third Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, followed by other Government business.
Mr. Derek Foster: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for so readily agreeing to change Thursday's business so that hon. Members who wish to do so can be in Edinburgh on Friday. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for suspending campaigning for the European elections until after the funeral.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: The warmth of the House's reception for the right hon. Gentleman shows both its welcome for his remarks and its pleasure at his breaking the normally Trappist vow of the individual who holds his office.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generosity of his remarks and the way in which we have been able to co-operate on that matter and on another on which the Government planned to make a statement today, which the right hon. Gentleman and I discussed on Friday.
Sir Peter Emery: I am certain that I reflect the view of the House when I say that I wish that we could frequently have such statements from the Opposition Chief Whip.
I remind my right hon. Friend that we lost the Report and Third Reading stages of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill last Thursday. Can he say when that business is likely to come forward?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I can be helpful by saying that I anticipate that it will be included in the business that I shall announce on Thursday. We are still giving that matter consideration, so I should not wish that to be taken as an absolute commitment.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I express my gratitude to the Government for so readily making the concession that they have, in consideration of hon. Members' travel arrangements—particularly those of Scottish Members. I have my sleeper booked already.
Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that some of the motions tabled for Thursday are contentious? It would be helpful for the dispatch of Thursday's business if the right hon. Gentleman can say something about the timetabling of those motions.
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to say anything off the cuff, but I hope to take the generally constructive posture of the Opposition Chief Whip, in indicating that there might be co-operation through the usual channels on agreeing something reasonably tidy in that respect. I will certainly do my best.

BILL PRESENTED
  LANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS)
  Mr. Peter Thurnham, supported by Dame Peggy Fenner, Mr. John McFall, Mr. John Fraser, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. A.J.Beith, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Dudley Fishburn and Mr. Patrick Nicholls, presented a Bill to make provision for persons bound by covenants of a tenancy to be released from such covenants on the assignment of the tenancy, and to make other provision with respect to rights and liabilities arising under such covenants; to restrict in certain circumstances the operation of rights of re-entry, forfeiture and disclaimer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It will be brief, and I apologise for making it today.
There is a feeling on both sides of the House that—given your great interest in preserving the rights of hon. Members—you might wish at some stage to comment on the view that, over the past two or three weeks, private Members' time and private Members' business have been interfered with in an unwarranted way. Two weeks ago, a Bill that would have given disabled people rights—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we are all aware of that. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Sheerman: Last Friday, we debated a Bill to prevent disability—
Madam Speaker: I was in the Chair.
Mr. Sheerman: I remember your being there, Madam Speaker.
The feeling is that the Government are now organising business in a way that almost undermines private Members' time and private Members' Bills. I have heard the matter being discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will you make a statement, Madam Speaker, or talk to the relevant Committees in order to make some headway? There is a feeling that our rights as Members of Parliament are currently being undermined by the Government.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was present on Friday, when I was in the Chair and several hon. Members raised the issue. I understand that a number of hon. Members have already written to the Procedure Committee about the whole procedure of dealing with private Members' Bills. I anxiously await the Committee's report, in which I am as interested as the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is on the same subject. May I point out that the problem with private Members' Bills arises every year? It is in the very nature of private Members' Bills that if they are controversial, it is always difficult to get them through; I must point out, however, that when the Select Committee on Sittings of the House—which I have the honour to chair—sat just over two years ago, there were no representations for the procedure for private Members' Bills to be changed.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time, and is very experienced in these matters. I am as aware as he is of some of the difficulties that the House runs into from time to time in regard to contentious issues.

European Union
[Relevant documents: White Paper on Developments in the European Community July to December 1993 (Cm 2525) and the Commission's White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment (Supplement 6/93 to the Bulletin of the European Communities).
Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister to open the Adjournment debate, may I appeal to the House? A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will be taking a great deal of interest in the debate. I do not wish to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches, but I ask hon. Members to exercise voluntary restraint in regard to the length of their speeches.
3.36 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State apologises for not being present; he is attending a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels. He had hoped that the discussion on Bosnia would allow him to return in time for the debate, but, for other reasons, it has had to be delayed until this afternoon.
We are to debate two White Papers, one on developments in the European Community during the last six months of last year and the other on the European economy. If there is a common theme running through both papers, it is making the European Union work better.
The Maastricht treaty came into effect in November last year, after clearing its final hurdles in the German constitutional court. Our aim now is to make a success of it. Implementing the treaty means curbing the itch to legislate, and seeking Community instruments that are simpler and clearer. It also means putting into practice the second and third pillars of the Union, so that member states can tackle issues of foreign policy, justice, and home affairs on a basis of more effective intergovernmental co-operation.
The Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade was also completed successfully last year, in December. The Government strongly supported the efforts of Sir Leon Brittan, the Trade Commissioner, who conducted negotiations on behalf of the 12 member states. It was vital for us that the European Union maintain its free-trading vocation, remaining committed to dismantling trade barriers not just within the Community but worldwide. It was not easy to overcome the protectionist tendencies of some other member states, but there is no doubt that—as with previous GATT rounds—this round will deliver a powerful boost to world prosperity.
Figures are obviously only estimates, but a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study estimated that an increase in world income of about US $270 billion could result from the Uruguay round. The industrialised and developing world will benefit from increased trade flows and there will be better rules for settling trade disputes.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister admit that countries that are highly dependent on trade in cane sugar, for example, have come out of the GATT round extremely badly? They are 20 per cent. worse off than they were when they received special concessions from the European Community. Is not the throwing away of our

557
responsibilities to small banana and cane sugar producing countries the reason why some of us are cynical about the way in which GATT works?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Under the Lome conventions, we have a number of legal obligations to assist certain developing countries. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bananas and sugar, but the agreements, if modified, can be reconciled with the free-trading objectives of the Uruguay round. It was noticeable that the developing world was enthusiastic about the Uruguay round; it sees a great deal to gain overall in a freeing up of world trade.
The European Commission, negotiating on behalf of the 12 member states, deserves our thanks for the persistence with which it conducted those negotiations, but the self-discipline of the 12 member states made an agreement possible. We hope to introduce and to give effect to the World Trade Organisation; the agreement was signed in Marrakesh and is due to come into force on 1 January next year.
During those negotiations, another feature of the economy was at the top of the British agenda for Europe—unemployment and the need to tackle the associated question of competitiveness in world markets. In the past, we have discussed competitiveness in Europe, but we also need to ask whether Europe is competitive in world terms and, if not, what we can do about it. Similarly, unemployment in Europe has been under-debated and has not received enough attention.
A change of emphasis is noticeable, particularly among those in Europe whose vision of the future has hitherto been about creating new institutions. The value of institutions lies not in theory, but in what they do, what they deliver and how effective they are. We believe in creating a people's Europe, not a Europe for bureaucrats and politicians. That means responding to people's day-to-day concerns about jobs, security, crime and the need for budgetary discipline and action against waste and fraud. That has meant patient work in the Council of Ministers with other member states that share our aims in particular areas of policy.
For instance, the Maastricht treaty gives full legal status to subsidiarity. That means that decisions will be taken by member states unless the policy objectives require action at Community level, as was the case with the GATT negotiations. To give effect to that principle, last year the British and French Governments submitted a joint list of directives to be withdrawn, amended or repealed. Most of them were accepted and the Commission is now working up details for implementation.
We will keep up the pressure and the Commission will produce another report by the end of this year. I know that the German presidency, which starts on 1 July, attaches the same high priority to making subsidiarity work in practice and to turning the words of the treaty into action.
The White Paper on the European economy is in many ways a disturbing document. There are 20 million people unemployed in the European Union and the number has been rising at every turn of the business cycle over the past 30 years. Even in good years, growth in Europe has delivered far fewer new jobs than in economies elsewhere in the world. Last year, member states were invited to submit papers on growth, competitiveness and employment. Ours was the first to be published—we submitted it
558
in July last year. Many of its themes were incorporated into the final Commission White Paper, which is one of the subjects of today's debate.
Europe has become a high-cost continent. Action is needed to lighten the burden of regulations, to improve the flexibility of labour markets, to avoid excessive social costs and to improve training. Action is also needed to complete the single market and enforce the rules on competition. In December last year, the European Council adopted just such an action plan. The Commission is now to conduct an audit of existing legislation in terms of its effect on employment.
There is a feeling, which is now widely shared, that well-meaning legislation has imposed uncosted burdens on industry and business.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Has my hon. Friend read the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which was published about two years ago and said that non-wage employment costs were the biggest single cause of unemployment in France which is now at its highest level in absolute terms?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, non-wage labour costs are sometimes startlingly high in Europe, which is undoubtedly a contributory cause of unemployment. When I said that the feeling was widely shared, I included thoughts from the OECD's report and other studies that offer the same conclusion. There is no doubt that the result of such burdens and costs has been higher unemployment in Europe and firms becoming less competitive in world markets. In other words, over-regulation leads to unemployment.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of different communities to create jobs is a matter not merely of wage costs caused by social regulation but of the imposition of taxation? The proportion of gross national product taken in taxation in Europe varies between 36 and 45 per cent., whereas the United States takes only about 31 per cent. and Japan 29 per cent? It is precisely those countries which have been most successful in creating jobs.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I could have said that Europe is becoming a high-cost and high-taxation continent, and something must be done about both. However, overregulation was the subject of my remarks. I was drawing attention to the fact that the Government are tackling the problem at the national level. We believe that it must be tackled with the same vigour in the Community.
It was clear at the very successful Anglo-German summit last month that many of the concerns about cost, taxation and over-regulation are shared by the German Government and, as they will be taking over the presidency on 1 July, I think that we can look forward to further deregulation initiatives in the latter half of the year.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the problems of high costs and high taxation, which are part of the European set-up, we also have a serious problem with vicious protectionism? Does he recall our correspondence about the crazy restrictions recently placed by the European Community on trade with China which have knocked on the head two firms—PMS. and Hi-Tec—in Southend? They have been

559
instructed to reduce their business by 75 per cent. which will mean the loss of jobs as a direct result of European protectionism.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I recall the correspondence with my hon. Friend. He will know that we did our best at the Council meeting concerned further to liberalise trade and to dismantle the restrictions to which he has referred. He will agree that barriers have come down and that restrictions have been removed on trade between the two countries, although not as far and as fast as he would like. I know that the firm in his constituency had been put at a disadvantage by the remaining barriers to trade.
The action plan agreed last year at the Brussels summit did not tackle only cost and regulation; it also includes measures to make the single market work better. A high-level group is to co-ordinate work on energy and transport networks. A separate group is studying information networks and we hope that that will lead to rapid moves further to liberalise the European telecommunications market. Many of these are long-term measures, but interim reports will be made to the European Council meeting next month in Corfu and further reports will be made by the end of the year, by which time we wish to see real progress.
Other areas in which the citizens of Europe want action are international crime, terrorism, drugs, money laundering and illegal immigration. Those are dealt with in the so-called third pillar of the Union through co-operation between Governments. Good progress has already been made and, in particular, the EUROPOL drugs unit started work in February to analyse and exchange intelligence on drug trafficking and related crimes.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recently launched an initiative to crack down on fraud in the Community, again using the new procedures available under the Maastricht treaty. European taxpayers have the right to know that their money is being properly applied and that waste, mismanagement and fraud are being dealt with. The European Parliament has new powers in this area to ensure that money is accounted for and that the reports of the European Court of Auditors are taken seriously and followed up.
Indeed, the European Parliament now has wider powers to check the legislative process. They can help us to redefine the work of the Community so that what needs to be done is done better, through fewer, clearer instruments which are then properly complied with and properly enforced.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The second item on the Order Paper today is a motion on a report of the Court of Auditors on the environment. Why was it 16 months before that report was presented to European Standing Committee A, by which time it was outdated? The Committee was so incensed that the motion before it was defeated. Today's motion must either be accepted or objected to, and we cannot discuss it on the Floor of the House. If we are concerned about the report of the Court of Auditors, should not the matter be discussed on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Member has complaints about procedure, he would do better to direct them to the business managers. My point, which I repeat, is that reports from the European Court of Auditors, which
560
have tended to be largely ignored in the past, are now to be followed up and implemented. In addition, the European Parliament has certain powers to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Does not the interesting example raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) underline a rather important home truth about the European Union, which is that national Parliaments and the European Parliament should regard each other as complementary rather than as necessarily conflicting? Together, they can add to the sum total of public accountability.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The real debate in Europe now is how the new powers are to be used; that is the importance of the European elections. People now have the chance to put in Members who will utilise the new powers and, where necessary, work with their colleagues of similar parties in national Parliaments to achieve the same ends.
I return to the future of the Community and, in particular, enlargement. I am pleased that the European Parliament recently approved the agreement to admit Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland to membership of the Union. The way is now clear for signature of the accession treaty, probably at the next European Council meeting in Greece, and a Bill to enable United Kingdom ratification will be introduced to Parliament in due course, certainly in time to meet the deadline of the end of the year. All that, of course, is subject to the referendums that must be held in each of those four states and for them to decide if they wish to join.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: What assessment has the Minister or the Foreign Office generally made of the damage that was done by the position of the British Government and others in the qualified majority voting fiasco to the subsequent referendums in the potential member states?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our assessment is that it has done no damage at all. It shows that important national interests can be protected and that agreements can be reached. That should be of assurance to new countries coming in, which have a well-developed sense of statehood.
The whole process of enlargement fulfils a longstanding British ambition. Indeed, we started the ball rolling on the current round of enlargement at the Edinburgh Council meeting of 1992. The negotiations for enlargement were tough and a number of member states had important interests to defend. We protected our fisheries, we kept our budget rebate intact and, yes, we reached agreement to protect minority positions in the Council of Ministers when votes are taken by qualified majority. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, let me emphasise that that issue was about majority voting.
We will continue to insist that, on vital national interests—matters such as taxation, defence, foreign policy, immigration, treaty changes and so on—unanimous voting will continue to be required. I realise that that is the difference between the parties. The Opposition wish to extend majority voting, and they have said so on a number of occasions, but we do not.
We look forward to the four new countries joining on 1 January next year, if possible. Of course, they will not all share our views, but they are free traders and they are used

561
to making their way in the world. They will be contributors to the budget, so they will share our views on the importance of budgetary discipline. They all have a keenly developed sense of statehood, with strong national parliaments. All of them are committed to good government and a European Union based on the rule of law.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: One more time, perhaps.
Mr. Winnick: In view of what the Minister has just said, is he aware that there is increasing concern, certainly in this country, over the fact that, in the new Italian cabinet, five members are clearly pro-fascist and in the second tier of 37 Ministers, 12 are associated with fascism?
Bearing in mind the fact that, as I have said in exchanges with the Foreign Office, next year will be the 50th anniversary of the defeat of fascism, when we will be celebrating—not commemorating, but celebrating—the end of the war against fascism, does not the Minister recognise that the answer that he gave me in the previous Foreign Office questions was very complacent indeed and that we should be concerned—however it came about—that there are fascist Ministers and Cabinet Ministers in one of the leading member countries?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not recall that the hon. Gentleman complained when we used to do business with Communists and Marxists, some them with extremely disagreeable records on human rights. At Government level—I include the previous Labour Government—we frequently have meetings with the leaders of east European countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union, most of whom were hardline Communists, with extremely poor records on the treatment of human rights.
I shall repeat the point that I made, possibly to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), at a Question Time. It is for the Italians to decide, under their democracy, whom they elect. If they elect a Government and they are committed to the constitution and duly elected, we will do business with them.
Mr. Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to attack an hon. Member of the House for taking positions which he has never taken? For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has always—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order with me. He is putting to me a point of argument and frustration. If Opposition Members catch my eye, they will be able to put matters in another perspective.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Walsall, North asked a question and I gave an answer. That is what the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is complaining about.
Mr. Winnick: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the defender of Back-Bench Members and I have been accused of being a defender of
562
dictatorships and totalitarian movements if they were communist. That is a lie, and the Minister should withdraw his statement.
Madam Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order. If the hon. Member feels that he has been done an injustice by the Minister, he may seek to catch my eye and to set the record, as he believes it to be, absolutely correct.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory rose—
Mr. Winnick: Apologise.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not disputing the hon. Gentleman's record of standing up for human rights. I made the separate point that he and his hon. Friends did not complain when the Government, and the Labour Government, used to do business at official level with communist countries and Marxist states, all of which had deplorable records on human rights.
My final point is that if we make a success—
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I have begun my concluding remarks and I wish to adhere to Madam Speaker's injunction that we try to keep our remarks relatively brief.
A successful enlargement this time round will, we hope, pave the way for future rounds of enlargement. Recently, two more countries—Hungary and Poland—applied for membership. Already, Malta and Cyprus are being considered. Those developments raise important questions about institutional reform and finance—questions that go well beyond the scope of today's debate. We welcome, however, the prospect of reuniting Europe, its having been divided by communism for nearly 50 years.
We reject a European Union that is rigid, centralised and incomplete. We share with other countries a view of Europe that is diverse, outward looking and able to face common challenges with confidence. I believe that the events of the past six months and more have taken us further in that direction.
4.1 pm
Ms Joyce Quin: The debate, when first planned, would have coincided with the opening shots in the European election campaign. That is no longer the position because of the tragic death of John Smith last week.
The debate allows us, however, to advance our views on what we see as the development of the European Union, to comment on the documents that are before us and to show that there is an alternative to the Government's approach and that we have many positive ideas for the way forward.
I welcome the debate, but its timing is unfortunate for practical reasons. It is rather odd that the debate coincides with the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels. That being so, it is rather difficult to influence any of the discussions that the Foreign Secretary might be having with his counterparts. In terms of our ability to influence today's meeting, it is a matter not of one minute to midnight but of one minute after midnight.
The Minister raised various issues, one of the most important being the enlargement of the European Union, to

563
which the Opposition give an unqualified welcome. It is something for which we have long called. We feel that we have much in common with the four applicant countries, with their strong social democratic tradition and their belief, like us, that Europe needs a strong social dimension as well as a strong economic one.
I shall ask the Minister one or two questions about enlargement, and especially about the agreement reached at Ioannina—the famous Ioannina compromise. I recently wrote to the Prime Minister to question what he said in the House about the agreement. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was 'justiciable' in the European Court of Justice. I am sure that the Minister knows that in the European Parliament recently the Commission President, Jacques Delors, said that the agreement at Ioannina was a political declaration but not a legal text.
Does the Prime Minister still adhere to his belief that the agreement is justiciable? I tried to raise the matter with the Minister in Committee last week during a discussion on enlargement, but my question was not answered. I would welcome an answer today.
I should like the Minister to comment on a claim that was made to me by one of the Labour Members of the European Parliament about a statement by the Secretary General of the Council to a meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the European Parliament a week ago. He described what would happen, once the Ioannina compromise was supposed to be working—that would come into play when between 23 and 26 votes were against a Council decision—when four countries besides Britain were part of a so-called blocking minority of 23 votes.
According to the Secretary General, it would be necessary for all the countries concerned to say specifically that they wanted to use the Ioannina compromise. Therefore, it would not be enough for Britain to say that, since a certain number of votes were against a proposal, the compromise should be automatically invoked. He also said that, should one of the countries opposed to the decision withdraw its opposition in the spirit of unity, matters would simply proceed, despite the fact that our Government might want to invoke the compromise, without any hindrance. Will the Minister comment on that?
It is clear from a parliamentary answer to one of my hon. Friends that the Government's assurances on social issues are simply oral and that there is nothing in writing. We strongly believe that nothing has been achieved other than a restatement of what was already the case. The Government may say that certain issues will not come before the Council because they will not be taken under the health and safety heading.
Many countries would agree with us, however, that many of the social directives proposed in Brussels are related to health and safety—for example, the vexed directive on working time and the directive on the protection of young workers. A strong case can be made for saying that working inordinately long hours harms health and safety. The Government have made a completely false assumption that health and safety has nothing to do with those important issues.
The Labour party strongly believes that we should play a positive, central role in Europe. That is the best way in which British interests can be safeguarded and British people can be given a good deal from the European Union. The Opposition also believe that that is the best way for Europe to make progress.
564
I should like to illustrate that argument by referring to four policy areas where the kind of policies that we are putting forward would be good for Britain and good for Europe. On the economy, we welcome many of the proposals contained in the Delors White Paper, although we would have preferred the stronger version that was originally available. We believe that a great deal could be achieved through co-operation on infrastructure projects that would help to create jobs. For example, funding should be given to provide direct rail links between the channel tunnel and all the regions and nations of this country. Such links are long overdue.
I am sure that my hon. Friends could refer to numerous public transport schemes that deserve funding in their areas, and if I may be permitted to cite one from my part of the country, the completion of the Tyne and Wear metro integrated transport system would be greatly welcomed. I say 'integrated', although, unfortunately, integration has been lost because of bus deregulation and other measures.
Many important environmental projects should be encouraged through such co-operation and the Opposition's idea of public-private partnerships. We should also like regional funds to be put to much more effective use; so often they have swollen the coffers of the Exchequer without providing proper additional benefit to the regions concerned. After all, the regional funds of the European Union were originally designed to offer such benefit.
We also believe that more co-operation on research and development is important. We regret the rather negative attitude that has been adopted to the European Community's framework programmes. Those programmes should be extended and better targeted.
We also, importantly, believe that our industry needs equal treatment in the European Union. Whether we are speaking about our old industries such as steel, shipbuilding or coal, where we believe that we have lost out unfairly in the European context, or about research and development and new industries, we need measures that ensure that we are not disadvantaged by the support that other countries may give.
That is also important for exports. When I used to take a special interest in that subject from the Opposition Front Bench, I was worried that we had a far more niggardly attitude to such aspects as export credit guarantees than many of our European competitors. It seems to me that the Government are expressing a vain hope when they say, as they often do, that they will cut down support and hope that everyone else will follow suit. I do not believe that that is a sensible way to approach industry in the European Union. One must obtain agreement on a common level of support so that progress can be made.
Mr. Fabricant: Perhaps the hon. Lady knows that I was greatly involved in exporting before I came to this place. Does she accept that, since the Budget and the previous Budget, the Export Credits Guarantee Department now offers terms at least equal to those of HERMES in Germany?
Ms Quin: I accept that there were some modest measures to support exports, but, for many years, there were many discrepancies in the terms of the support that we were offering. How many exports were lost in the

565
interval? I am speaking about a number of years ago. I think that that weakened our economy at a difficult time for US.
On other aspects of the economy, we note that today the European Commission is still giving a rather unfavourable forecast of British economic growth. We believe that the policies that have been pursued have weakened our economy and our industrial base, in spite of our great natural advantages of oil, coal and gas. A great deal more needs to be done if the economy is to recover.
The second area to which I shall refer is social and employment matters. I say strongly that the Labour party believes that the European Union is not simply a market or a free trade area: it has been a market with a social dimension from the beginning. It is obvious that a social dimension has been built into the European Coal and Steel Community treaty, the treaty of Rome and subsequent treaties. Therefore, it is not credible for the Government in the 1990s to try to remove the social dimension of the European Union on the spurious ground of subsidiarity. That simply will not work, and it explains why we are so marginalised and isolated on that issue.
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Lady suggested that the Government might oppose the progress that she would advocate towards greater social cohesion on the ground that we might be marginalised or that it might be spurious to do so. Has she considered the fact that the jobs of the people of this country depend emphatically on our being competitive, and that the only way in which we can be competitive in global markets is by having wage costs that are comparable with those throughout the world?
Ms Quin: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument for a minute. Perhaps, in replying, I can refer to inward investment, which I know exercises the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House. If one considers inward investment and the reasons for it, one will see that low wages have practically nothing to do with the inward investment that has taken place in recent years.
I refer the House yet again to the evidence that was given by Nissan to the Employment Select Committee during its study on inward investment in which Nissan said clearly that the social chapter, far from presenting it with a threat, caused no difficulty to the company because it already had terms and conditions that exceeded those of the social chapter. Indeed, it was interesting that the management of Nissan, in their evidence, said that they thought that the low-wage, low-skill approach to the economy was the road to economic disaster.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady explain why the United States, which has a low-tax, deregulated, free-market economy, has managed to create 30 million new jobs in the past 20 years, whereas the European Community, whose economy has gone in the opposite, more regulated direction over the same period, has managed to create only 5 million new jobs, most of which are in the public sector?
Ms Quin: I stoutly maintain that no facile correlation exists between low pay and poor conditions and high employment. For example, the Government have spent
566
much time advertising in German and Swiss newspapers about the virtues of a low-wage economy, yet Switzerland, in particular, has an unemployment rate of only 4 per cent.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Switzerland is not in the European Community.
Ms Quin: That is irrelevant to my argument. I said that there was no correlation between low wages and poor employment conditions and the level of unemployment. Employment terms and conditions in Switzerland are much better than those in this country. Austria, which is applying to join the European Union—it hopes to join shortly and I trust that the referendum there will be successful—also has low unemployment, yet it is extremely keen on the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) should bear that in mind.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that she has hit the nail on the head? It is not low or high wages but membership of the EC which causes the burdens, high costs and unemployment that the people of Europe are now suffering.
Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman has a strange view of the universe. The record of the past 20 or 30 years shows that the countries in the European Union with the lowest wages and poorest working conditions have not had particularly high unemployment; the contrary has been the case. If deregulation is such a success, why was this country, after 10 years of that medicine, the first to go into recession?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Quin: Many hon. Members now want to intervene, but I have already said enough to show that no simple correlation exists between poor wages and poor conditions and high unemployment. I feel confident about that.
Listening to Conservative Members, one would think that inward investment would never go to countries with good employment conditions or high wage and non-wage costs. In the past couple of weeks, I have noticed that the South Koreans are to assemble cars in Europe. The plant where they hope to produce up to 30,000 vehicles a year is in Germany. That is another matter that should be borne in mind.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Quin: I have already given way several times.
The growing inequalities in Britain under this Government are outside the general trend in the European Union and we want that to be reversed. Such inequalities are morally wrong but also economically indefensible and Britain is paying the price for the fallacy that poor wages and bad conditions are linked to economic efficiency. Plenty of evidence shows that that is not so.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Quin: I may give way a little later.
On the social dimension, we also regret that the Government have consistently blocked a range of directives which we think would have helped British people at work, and which would have been very much in their interests. I could mention several of them, but in particular there was the information and consultation of

567
workers in multinational companies, the directive on parental leave and the directives on giving employment rights to part-time and full-time workers.
Let me say clearly that we not against flexibility. We believe that flexibility is an important aspect of employment, but we do not want flexibility to be a lifetime penalty of lost benefits and poor pension and holiday entitlement. We would like flexible part-time work to be an opportunity, not a penalty.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady will accept that a significant amount of inward investment has come to different parts of the country during the last decade or so. During her speech, she has given a number of reasons which were not the cause of that inward investment. Would she be kind enough to tell the House why she thinks those companies decided to invest in this country?
Ms Quin: There are several reasons, such as the availability of labour and of certain skills. As for Japanese investment, the fact that we speak English is an advantage because of all the commercial contact which Japan has had during the past 30 years with the United States. It was obvious that the Japanese would look to Britain, and we welcome them to areas such as mine in the north-east. I willingly concede that companies have received grants from the Government and from other sources.
It is also fair to say that there is some concern among would-be inward investors, particularly because the two opt-outs which the Government have negotiated mean that we seem to be semi-detached in a European context. Perhaps it is for that reason that the rate of investment into the United Kingdom has slowed somewhat, and we have seen efforts by some companies—particularly by the Japanese, but also by the South Koreans, as I mentioned just now—to invest in other countries.
To a certain extent, those companies may feel that they do not want to put all their eggs in one basket, which I can understand; but there is also a feeling—borne out in an Ernst and Young report on inward investment—that our semi-isolation in the European Union is a factor weighing in the minds of inward investors. The Government ought to take that into account.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Quin: I have given way several times, and I will not give way again. I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
Mr. Jenkin: It relates to the hon. Lady's point.
Ms Quin: This will be the last intervention I take.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Why is unemployment so much worse in so many other EC countries than in ours, and why is the EC as a whole an unemployment black spot compared with developed countries throughout the world?
Ms Quin: Given that unemployment in Britain has been consistently higher than in other European Union countries during the time the Government have been in power, the hon. Gentleman should perhaps direct that question to the Government. We must look at different countries in different ways. For example, Germany has had specific problems recently which it has tackled with tremendous courage. It is interesting that the European Commission is now painting a brighter picture for Germany in the future.
568
[HON. MEMBERS: 'What about France?'] Recent predictions are rather more favourable for France than they are for Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Yes, according to the lunchtime news today.
The third area I should like to mention is the environment. The Labour party feels positively about European environmental initiatives and we believe that it is an important area for us to co-operate on in the future. The subject was, to a certain extent, debated fully last week, and I commend to the House the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who talked about Labour's policies and attitude towards European environmental issues.
Perhaps at this stage I should respond to something that the Minister said about the question of subsidiarity. We believe that the Government's view of subsidiarity is entirely false. They seem to see it as a simple choice between taking decisions in Brussels and taking decisions in Westminster and Whitehall. Labour believes that subsidiarity means taking decisions at the lowest most appropriate level—that could mean the local level, regional level, national level or European level, or even the United Nations level, depending on the issue which is being discussed and which is under consideration.
We note from the report "Developments in the European Community: July-December 1993" that the Government's claim a few months ago that they had managed to scrap certain European environmental directives on the ground of subsidiarity is completely false; it is clear from the report that those directives have not been scrapped. I am glad that they have not been scrapped. We are not against them being revised if that means even better standards for Europe's citizens as a whole.
Sometimes the Government try to convince us that they are defending British interests by raising the Union Jack. I do not want to see the Union Jack raised alone on dirty beaches around our coasts. I want to see the Union Jack alongside the blue flag of environmental approval from the European Community, which would at last signify that we had complied with the commitments that the Government entered into when they signed certain European environmental directives. It is a scandal that many years later we are still far away from fulfilling those obligations.
As for the environment, we also believe that there is tremendous scope for job creation in energy efficiency. Perhaps I can echo the complaints made by my hon. Friends about the way in which the Government recently scuppered the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We believe that such measures have job creation potential, and it is something that should be looked at seriously. There are also opportunities for our industry in helping to clean up the, sadly, heavily polluted economies of central and eastern Europe. Those economies have tremendous problems and they need our help both in aid and in trade.
Finally, I turn to the fourth element on which I believe we have positive proposals to put forward—decentralisation in the European Union. I have already talked about our views on subsidiarity. We believe in regionalisation and decentralisation. We find it rather strange that the Government sometimes complain of bureaucratic centralism in the European Union when bureaucratic centralism seems to be the recipe that they have been keen to give to the people of Britain over the past 15 years.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that on decentralisation—I have been following what she is saying—it is absolutely essential that all member countries in the Community should have a commitment to democracy? Therefore, does she share my apprehension at the Minister's complacent remarks about the inclusion of fascist Ministers in Italy—[Interruption.] Tory Members who are heckling will undoubtedly next year savour celebrating the end of the war against fascism. If that is true, why are they so complacent about the presence of fascist Ministers in the Italian Government?
Ms Quin: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should have liked a more fulsome apology from the Minister to my hon. Friend's intervention earlier in the debate.
We want to see a more open and more democratic European Union. I think my hon. Friend will agree when I say that we believe that the contribution of the four new members to the process will be important. We hope, although we do not expect, that the Government will support those four new countries in their desire for greater openness in the proceedings of the Council of Ministers and, indeed, in their great concern to ensure proper freedom of information throughout the European Union.
The Labour party has a positive agenda on the four areas that I have mentioned. We do not believe that everything in the Euro-garden is rosy. We also have ideas for change, whether they be on the common agricultural policy, an increased battle against fraud or an increased European awareness of problems to do with racism. One of the proposals in our European document is for a European Commissioner with a specific remit for racial equality. The European Union has done a great deal for women's rights, but there is a great deal that could be achieved, particularly for ethnic minorities and the various groups in the European Union.
I have tried to make my speech positive. I believe that the Labour party has a positive programme to put forward. There is a great deal about the Government's approach that we reject. I conclude by quoting from the very fine tribute to John Smith that was made by Michael Foot in The Observer yesterday, in which he said that he had hoped that John Smith would be here
"to play a full, magnanimous part in the Europe he had helped to create".
I hope that that will inspire many of us in the months and years to come.
4.30 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I gladly agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), the Opposition spokesman, on her last remark. It is sad at this particular time that John Smith is no longer with us. He was always absolutely clear headed about the European Community and the European Union and developed all his views in accordance with it. During the campaign—if he had been taking part—I believe that he would have given a very important lead to the people of this country and would have secured the support of his party for it.
The debate is important, in part because we are at the beginning of a campaign for the election of our European Members of Parliament, but also because we are now hearing from Government sources that the Government are preparing, apparently, a wide mass of proposals to put forward at the 1996 conference. It is therefore good that we
570
are able to express our views before the European election, and also, if I may say so, that the Government recognise that they could not be more wrong if they think that they will change the European Union into a free trade area, which was their former idea. The quicker they learn that the better.
The debate gives an opportunity for mentioning a few home truths. I do not want the Government to go through the same humiliating performance that we saw when they recently tried to change the voting system in the European Union. Nothing was more humiliating as far as our country was concerned, and it has done us immense harm. It did so in part because at the same time it emerged from sources—said to be in Downing street—that if the Prime Minister did not get everything that he wanted in 1996, we were out.
I was in the United States at the time that that was published, and the Americans said to me,"But what on earth can your people be thinking of? You do not matter outside the Union. We are not interested in you outside the Union." I heard exactly the same from the far east. It was then stated that of course there was no such intention. But the damage was done. People ask, "What are you playing at?" They think that those who make such suggestions are out of their minds; and on that I agree.
When it comes to the importance of the election, I hope that all hon. Members will urge the people of this country to vote, as that is essential. Ever since I have been connected with European interests in the political way, which is now nearly 50 years, I have always been told by the Europeans, "We want you to show us how to create the European democracy. You have the oldest Parliament among us. You have the mother of Parliaments. You have the experience and the expertise, and it is your lead and guidance that we want." And we failed them completely.
At the previous European election 33 per cent. of the people voted—the lowest percentage in the European Union. What is there to be proud of in that as a country, a Parliament or a party? That is why I hope that we can urge our people to use their European vote. We cannot say that the attendance for the debate is a good example of the keenness of the House to debate European matters. We must try to persuade people to vote, and for that an explanation is required.
Over the past 15 years the people of this country have been given no explanation of what is going on in the European Community. [Hon Members:"'What about your White Paper?"] My White Paper was extremely good and greatly appreciated at the time. [Interruption.] Perhaps we could have some manners. Good manners were certainly not displayed during the speech by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin).
The trouble with Maastricht was that the Government took it for granted that because a large majority sent the Prime Minister to Maastricht and because he won the general election and got the Second Reading on the Bill, everything was straightforward. But it was not and people now require a full explanation of what is happening, what we are doing, why we are doing it and how it benefits them.
Over the past 15 years the Government have not said a good word about the Community. People have had no information about the money coming to us—more than £9 billion in the past seven years for regional development and other purposes—nor have they been told that we get a larger share than any other member of the European Union.
Mr. Peter Shore: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: I am sorry, I shall not give way. Madam Speaker has asked that everybody be brief. I shall be as brief as I can and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be called.
When for 15 years nothing is put forward with the weight of Government backing and official information what can people do except read the nonsense in the deplorable gutter press? Last weekend an American said to me, 'How has your press got into this state? It is incredible. We had always thought that the British press at any rate was truthful and that it dealt with important matters. But now nothing appears in many papers about what is going on in the union unless it is a matter at which they can throw mud.' That puts the task on us and especially on the Government and their information services to explain everything that is happening.
We have rightly heard a great deal about the social order, the economy and wages in the Union and about the action being taken on those issues. This country went into the depression much earlier than others and we have come out of it somewhat earlier than others. That is the economic truth. Germany has the highest wages in the Union and was the most successful. But it then had unification and took on 18 million people who had had 50 years of communism and an entirely out-of-date industrial set-up that was falling to pieces. To a large extent those people were less skilled than people in the rest of western Europe and they naturally wanted to take quick advantage of joining western Germany.
Perhaps people can today criticise Chancellor Kohl for going for immediate unification, but I do not think that he could possibly have done anything else. The Front-Bench idea of a royal commission to examine it for 15 years and committees to look at the individual recommendations bore no resemblance to reality. Chancellor Kohl had no alternative. However, the ratio of the East German mark to the West German mark was misguided. If they had stuck to their original proposal of a ratio of 3:1 they would not now have so many problems. But I have no doubt at all that the Germans will master it: the signs are already showing.
We are told that the answer is to push down wages. One of my hon. Friends said that that is the only answer. What is the logical conclusion? It is that to compete in the Pacific, one must reduce wages to the level of the People's Republic of China. Who would accept that? No one—not for a moment. One way to compete is by forcing wages down wherever possible. Another is to improve one's management and technology—and that is the alternative that we should be working on, for all that we are worth. The Government ought to give that objective every possible financial support.
The problem will become greater because much of the People's Republic of China has technology newer than that of this country. When China invests, it insists on the latest technology, from countries that have the latest technology. That is the real problem facing this country. We shall not get anywhere returning to the dogma of the old diehards in my party from whom we thought that we had moved away, who earned us such a bad name in the 1920s by their lack of support for workers and pressing wages down as hard as they could. That is past. If that is emphasised in my party, it will be disastrous for it when the next test comes. I have
572
no doubt about that. Let us concentrate on better management and improved technology. That is the only chance that we have of competing.
Other countries in the Union will do that. Once the Germans get through this spell, they will do that as much as any country. The Japanese come to the United Kingdom because they can pay higher wages and get results. They have been doing that successfully for the past 20 years, but they will not continue if Britain is outside the Union—not for a moment.
Some countries inside the Union believe that the French and Germans will separate, but that will not happen. Their interests are too close. They have learnt their lesson. We have seen that not only in terms of their economies but in defence and foreign policy, in which the French and Germans are drawing closer and closer together. The idea that one can permanently separate foreign policy, defence, and economic and financial matters does not bear examination. What can be achieved in foreign affairs and defence depends on one's economy and finances.
If one does not have the economy and the finance right, one cannot do the other things. To say that it is an achievement to separate them bears no relation to reality. The other member states know that and will go on their own quiet way, merging things together. Once again, we shall be on the fringe.
What nonsense it would be to imagine that we could separate those three aspects in this country, with finance and the economy being looked after at Westminster; foreign policy in Liverpool, because it has always been outward-looking and has a view across the Atlantic; and defence in Edinburgh, because the Scots will get a war quicker than anybody. Those aspects are bound to come together, and we shall not achieve anything by trying to slow that process.
As to the single currency, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would not hold a general referendum but that perhaps we should have one on a single currency when the time comes. That is a fascinating idea. If the other members of the Union said that they had decided on a single currency, we would have to say that we made an undertaking to hold a referendum. The issue of whether sterling entered a single currency would be campaigned on in public for four or six weeks. What would happen to sterling during that time? Look what happened in a couple of hours on Black Wednesday. What would happen during four to six weeks' campaigning on whether or not to join a single currency? It is fantastic and unbelievable that anyone could even consider such a thing possible. That would again bring us into disrepute.
More and more, other members of the Union are saying, 'They want to be on the outside, and we can let them be on the outside.' They take less and less notice of anything that we put forward. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other members of our Front Bench realise that.
Four new members of the Union have been approved. I met a large number of people in Europe over the past week and I know that those four countries were the angriest about the attempt to change the voting. They said, 'We are joining, and now you are trying single-handed to monopolise the voting.' The Foreign Office did not even discover whether there was any support for that change. What a Foreign Office. What a policy—to try to do something like that without knowing whether or not one could get it through.

573
On Thursday, I was in Aachen for the awarding of the Charlemagne prize to the Norwegian Prime Minister and had a great opportunity to learn the views of others. The President of Germany made his farewell speech there. Also present were Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and nearly 20 ambassadors. There was no Minister from the British Foreign Office present, no British ambassador from Bonn—not even a clerk from the British Foreign Office. Do not other Union states draw the conclusion that we are not interested in what happens in Europe and in the Union? Of course they do, and they act accordingly. Those may seem simple matters but they are important when people are working together in a union. Over the years, I have seen countries growing closer and closer in all their activities.
After the collapse of the Soviet empire, President Bush said that we would have a one-power world and that it would' be a peaceful world. Worryingly, we have seen instead a world more stricken by strife than anything since the end of the second world war. The one world power tried to deliver what it thought were the goods, and failed. It failed over Yugoslavia, where the United States was not prepared to put troops on the ground to bring about any other solution. It failed over Somalia, where it withdrew its troops, and in other activities. The USA is taking less of a place.
It is not a one-power world now. Russia is still a power. We saw the way that the election moved, and we hear what the Russians have to say. When I was in Moscow the week before Easter, I spoke to business men, politicians and diplomats. They said, 'We like the British Government's know-how approach, of saying that they will show us how they do it and that we can follow it if we like.' I saw some of the schemes being undertaken. But those business men, politicians and diplomats said, 'However, we will not have anyone tell us what we must do. Anyone who tries will be in difficulty.'
Therefore, there is Russia, which is a military power that is also tying up individual parts of the new Russia. There is the People's Republic of China with a population of 1.25 billion people and 12.5 per cent. growth each year. When the American Secretary of State went to China and threatened to remove the most-favoured nation clause unless it did as the United States required in respect of human rights, China said, 'Kindly go away,' and the Secretary of State left with nothing. China too is a modern power.
More and more American business men say, 'You cannot try to tie human rights to other matters when countries have different civilisations, histories, religions and political systems. By all means try to influence them in respect of human rights, but do not try to force them with threats, when it is a power of that size and importance.'
Japan is the fourth power of great importance. Economically, it leads the world. It may have difficulty keeping Prime Ministers—I was going to say that Japan is not unique in that, but I will not say anything at all. Japan's achievements are remarkable, and it will continue being ahead in technology and to tie up with the People's Republic of China.
The sixth possible power is India. Often, we do not realise how much is happening in India today from the point of view of its economic development and political influence in Asia.
574
The fifth power, which already exists, is the European Union. If we are to play any part in the world and in those six powers, it will be in the European Union. If we go outside it or move on the fringe of it, we shall have no effect on the rest of the world powers. That is a new situation, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. We have been very slow to realise the way that the world powers are developing. If we do not appreciate that, we shall be left behind.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. Friends that it is vital for us to carry out the task that the Prime Minister originally identified. He said that we should be at the heart of Europe. We cannot be at the heart of Europe if we are not prepared to take part in its heartbeats: that is the humble truth. That is what we must do, and do whole-heartedly. Instead of constantly explaining why we are not going to do things, and trying to do less and less—which does not benefit the people of this country anyway—we must show that we want to make the utmost contribution that we can to the European Union. When we can show the world that, the world will respect us again and we shall have influence in our own continent.
That is the task. The Government are responsible for carrying it out, and I want to see it carried out fully.
4.50 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) painted a very wide canvas. I found myself in considerable agreement with part of what he said; but, as is so often the case, his judgments struck me as being continually distorted, first, by his barely concealed anti-Americanism and, secondly, by his enthusiasm for Europe, which goes far beyond any serious sensible balance of advantage and disadvantage.
I was going to intervene on a simple point, which itself illustrates the point that I have just made. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that we are recipients of money from the European regional fund. That is true, and if we tot up the sums received over 10 years or so we will find that they add up to a substantial amount. But the right hon. Gentleman knows—probably better than anyone else—the extent of our net contribution to Europe. After allowing for all the money that we receive for the regions and from any other funds, and for the rebate negotiated so bitterly by the right hon. Gentleman's successor as Prime Minister, we find that every year an average of some £1.5 billion to £2 billion is paid by this country for the so-called privilege of being a member of the European Community. That is a fact.
Another fact of—I think—much graver importance is that, over the past 10 years, the balance of our manufacturing industry trade with Europe has totalled the appalling figure of nearly £90 billion; or, rather, minus £90 billion. Before we joined the European Community, we had a slightly positive balance with Europe. I am prepared to allow for a great deal of difference on how we judge the overall enterprise of Europe, but no one in his senses who looked at the facts objectively could pretend that we have not had to bear grievous burdens and heavy handicaps as a result of our membership of the Community. I see that I have the continuous dissent of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup; that does not surprise me.
Let me turn to the subject of the debate. The Minister reminded us that on 1 November 1993 the European Union

575
—the creature and creation of the Maastricht treaty—came into effect. On that day, at a stroke, every person in Britain, and every citizen of the other 11 states in the European Community, suddenly found himself acquiring citizenship of the European Union. I am sure that that came as a great surprise to those people—those who knew what was going on, that is.
I must tell the House that there were no wild scenes of enjoyment and public rejoicing in the streets of Stepney and Bethnal Green on 1 November 1993. Because I am fair-minded, I should add that there were no acts of overt hostility, such as a public burning of the treaty. Neither event took place—I think because the British people are now just about soggy, fed up and bored stiff with all that has been going on. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup rightly complained, over the past two or three years very little has been explained to them about what is implied in—and, indeed, what is in—the Maastricht treaty, and how it will affect them. There has been a total failure to communicate. I say that from my side of the argument, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would say the same from his side.
The failure to communicate is a great pity, but it does not mean that things are not happening; they are. Notwithstanding reassurances from Ministers, the great engine of federalism is still driving ahead in the European Union. Two processes are involved: first, the various mechanisms and timetables set out in the Maastricht treaty, and, secondly the preparations for the 1996 intergovernmental conference, which have already started.
Stage 2 of economic and monetary union began on 1 January 1994. The European Monetary Institute—the precursor of the European bank—has been established, and the Government have complied with their obligations under stage 2 of EMU by forwarding to the Commission the progress report on the plans made by the British Government to conform with the convergence criteria laid down in the Maastricht treaty. Based on the November 1993 Red Book, fiscal projections over the next five years show that the United Kingdom's public sector borrowing requirement will conveniently fall to 2.75 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1996–97, and to 1.5 per cent. of GDP in 1997–98. Both are well within the 3 per cent. of GDP demanded by the Maastricht treaty.
The Government, of course, will say that that is pure coincidence—that their basic aim all along was to get the PSBR down, irrespective of how the economy was progressing as a whole and irrespective of unemployment levels.
Interest rates and inflation rates are also down to the levels that would meet the obligations of moving from stage 2 to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. Only our absence from the exchange rate mechanism disqualifies the United Kingdom from making an application in three years' time. We all remember the Prime Minister's encouraging words in his article in The Economist last autumn, when he said that—what were the words he used?—joining the ERM was 'not on the horizon' or that 'not in the foreseeable future' would he contemplate such a move. He is keeping his options open, however.
Despite the setback to the ERM when the franc was forced out of its 2.5 per cent. band last year, and the subsequent introduction of a new 15 per cent. band within the ERM, exchange rate policies on the continent have remained firmly linked to the deutschmark at the old
576
parities, and monetary policy has continued to reflect the anti-inflationary stance of the Bundesbank. The ERM, and with it EMU, is—I fear—back on course.
We cannot imagine, or take it for granted, that the ERM is in a state of total collapse and that we can cease to worry about the imminence of EMU. On the continent, the federalist drive remains powerful and undisguised. The Conservative and Christian Democrat parties—the European People's party, I think they call it—adhere to the Athens declaration of 11 November 1992. On organising the future of Europe, they said:
'the European people's party advocates European unification on the basis of democracy and federalism.
The Maastricht Treaty on Political Union and Economic and Monetary Union provides an appropriate and sturdy framework for European unification … but the Treaty on European Union is not enough in itself to achieve the aim of European Union. Starting now we must therefore prepare for the Inter Governmental Conference scheduled for 1996 and draw up a European Constitution.
The Federal Constitution of European Union must be democratic and based on the principle of subsidiarity'.
The federal constitution of European Union! What can I say to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and his hon. Friends about that? I understand that the Conservative party has some kind of close relationship with the European People's party. I hope that we shall hear, if not Ministers, then Back-Bench Conservative Members, categorically reject the assertion that that federal aim is shared by the Conservative party of this country. I hope that we shall hear that loud and clear before the end of this debate.
I have not been able to lay my hands on a similar declaration by the Party of European Socialists, of which I find all of a sudden I am a member and which my party has apparently joined. The great majority of continental socialists are federalists. I was pleased, therefore, to receive a communication in my mail this week from my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, in which he nailed what he described as a number of lies, including:
"lie 5: Labour is Federalist and wants a centralised Europe".
I do not know about wanting a centralised Europe, but I am glad to have my right hon. Friend's assertion that it is a lie to suggest that Labour is a federalist party. Let him make that noise again, and let him say it loud and clear.
The Liberal Democrats are openly federalist, but they are not alone in that—so are such influential people as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and such influential organisations as the European Movement, which recently published a pamphlet about what Britain's stance should be at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. The pamphlet includes these significant proposals:
'the co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs should be transferred to the competence of the community institutions'.
So we can say goodbye to that pillar. It continues:
'the common foreign and security policy should be brought by stages into the competence of the community institutions'.
If the European Movement had its way, we could say farewell to the other so-called pillar—foreign policy. The document continues:
'Britain should renounce its opt-out from the commitment to Economic and Monetary Union … The IGC should provide the drawing up of a constitution for the Union'.
I believe that hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is the chairman of the European Movement. He is not in his place today, but that cannot be helped. It is interesting that he should so publicly and openly associate himself with the federalist aim in that document. Its line

577
reflects the provision in the Maastricht treaty for the IGC in 1996, which specifically calls for a review to be undertaken of the so-called pillars of which the Foreign Secretary is so proud.
Those same federalist views are held by the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, whose recent report was approved by an overwhelming majority of Members of the European Parliament. It is not without significance that, during his recent visit to the European Parliament, Chancellor Kohl gave his support to greatly increased powers for the European Parliament. The federalist goal is the cherished purpose of the European political elite—the classe politique, whose ambitions are so significantly divergent from those of the mass of the populations whom they claim to represent.
The 13 May issue of The European contains an interesting MORI survey of European response to the following question:
'on balance do you support or oppose a United States of Europe with a federal government'?
In four countries—Belgium, Greece, Italy and Spain—those in favour outnumbered opponents, but in the other eight member states, the reverse was true. In the United Kingdom, no fewer than 68 per cent. of the electorate oppose a federal Europe—Liberal Democrats, please note—while only 17 per cent. are in favour.
In 1996, the issue of a federal union will directly confront us in the IGC, but there is an indirect route to the same purpose, which should also deeply concern us—the proposal that we should adopt a single currency and enter the third stage of EMU, which would deny any British Government the effective means of economic self-government. We must be equally aware of that danger and implacably opposed to that course of action.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that the inevitable consequence of having a single market, a large area of open trade and open movement of capital in Europe is a single currency. I do not believe that the recent formation of the North American Free Trade Agreement will lead to a single currency absorbing the peseta or the Canadian dollar; nor do I believe that it will lead to a new, wider federal union that is larger than that between those countries.
Mr. Nigel Forman: The right hon. Gentleman gives the instructive example of NAFTA. He is not arguing, is he, that the effective freedom of national authorities, either in Ottawa or in Mexico, is enhanced by the nominal freedom of their currency being allowed to move against the American dollar?
Mr. Shore: They have considerable freedoms over their economies and their political goals. There is a great difference between claiming that sovereignty is absolute power, which it is not, and that it is self-government, with preferences being made on behalf of a country's people and not at the behest of others. It is an important distinction, which the Canadians understand. After the United States, Britain is the largest English-speaking country in the world, but there are others—Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Are those smaller English-speaking countries about to absorb themselves in a vast political and economic union with either Japan, in the case of Australia and New
578
Zealand, or America, in the case of Canada? Of course not; they value and are prepared to defend their national self-government and freedom—and so should we.
I have already referred to the Prime Minister's article in The Economist last autumn, which gave considerable encouragement to those of us who do not like the idea of economic and monetary union. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than to hear Ministers say that they have not only temporarily opted out of the commitment to the third stage of EMU, a European central bank and the single currency but have concluded that those goals are not for us, and that on no account will we accept them.
I should like a similar commitment from my party. During the passage of the Maastricht Bill, it was depressing that, after the tabling of amendment after amendment to strike out the commitment to a single European currency, to the goals of convergence, to a European central bank and to the proscription on public borrowing beyond 3 per cent. of GDP, those proposals were voted down by the Government, with the Opposition sitting on their hands and abstaining.
Last September, I was much encouraged by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the then Leader of the Opposition, who, sadly, is no longer with us. It is important that his words should be noted. He said:
'Today I re-affirm the aim and the goal of full employment remain at the heart of Labour's vision for Britain. Labour's economic strategy will ensure that all instruments of macro economic management, whether it concerns interest rates, the exchange rate or the levels of borrowing will be geared to sustained growth and rising employment'.
That speech was an implicit—almost explicit—repudiation of economic and monetary union, a single currency and a European central bank. One cannot deploy all the instruments of interest rate, exchange rate and levels of borrowing without repudiating the doctrine of economic and monetary union in the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No, I am coming to the end of my speech. I hope that that commitment will be re-affirmed by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman later tonight.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup told us that we should urge the British people to vote in the forthcoming European election. My reply to that is, 'Yes, but we should be clear-sighted.' The one thing that will not arise in the election—to my regret and, probably to that of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—is a serious judgment on Europe and our future in it. It will not even be mentioned in most of the speeches that are made. The election will be a judgment on the Government's performance in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do, so let us be reasonably impartial. We shall urge all our fellow citizens to vote but—whatever his party label—I ask them not to vote for a self-proclaimed European federalist.
5.9 pm
Mr. David Howell: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this rather calm debate on what is undoubtedly a very contentious subject. The House wishes to debate the issue in a mood that is inevitably sombre after the tragedy of last week.
In the document that is the subject of our debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose absence I

579
quite understand—he is attending a Council meeting of Community Foreign Ministers—states rather hopefully that he believes that the dust has now settled on the Maastricht debate. I wish that he was right, but I cannot agree with him.
I believe that the issues raised before, during and after the Maastricht treaty process remain important and very much to the fore. I do not believe that the dust has settled; nor do I believe that the position of the party of which I am a member is quite as it is so joyfully described by the media and by its critics, including the Opposition, although that is a reasonable position for the latter to hold. They claim that my party is wholly divided, like an orange, and sliced between two contrary views on the future of the European Union.
I may already be defying the tone of earlier speeches, but I believe that it is wrong and that, in my party and, I suspect, in the Opposition, there is substantial common ground on the type of Europe of which we want to be part and on how we believe it should develop in the years ahead. Such common ground not only exists but is growing all the time. It not only has supporters in this country but is gaining adherents in all member states. That is certainly my experience, even in the so-called olive states of Spain and Italy, although I do not know so much about Greece.
What is that common ground? Let me try the patience of the House a little and describe that common ground on which I am convinced that my party and the country can unite and present a powerful front. I believe that we should get away from the various labels. We have been accused of being marginalised and isolated and of standing out against the European process, something which I would not wish to do.
Some colleagues may object to this, but I believe that most of us want to argue from within Europe. We want not to be silent or to accept everything that is rolled out but to argue from within. Our future does not lie in walking away from the right kind of European Union, for which we can and should fight and argue.
Such a Europe is a Europe of nation states, states of diversity which do not seek to have uniform standards imposed on them and which do not wish to be merged into a super-state. Those who argue otherwise and talk about the inevitable destiny of a Europe that is going to be a great political power bloc in a world divided into many such blocs have an old-fashioned and outdated view of how the variegated world will develop.
It should be a Europe of nation states, and that view is increasingly shared by those who vote, speak and act in the Parliaments and legislatures of the member states as they realise that some people really were contemplating the alternative—a Europe not comprised of nation states.
The characteristic of our stance should be that we put to the fore a clear and dynamic view of what we want to achieve at the 1996 intergovernmental conference. I do not accept that that conference will be a tinkering affair, a way of tidying up post-Maastricht, while we roll towards the goals asserted by the high priest of Maastricht. Those who say that there is nothing much to be done in 1996 so we had better squeeze all that we can from it while the process rolls on are adopting a dangerous attitude.
In 1996, there will be a need for Union reform, not tinkering. We shall need institutional change, even constitutional change. Although the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) does not like to talk about the constitution of a future Europe, we shall and
580
should be involved. We should not be frightened of talking about constitutional issues in the type of Europe that we want or of setting off on the right road. If we do not proceed, the present constitution—that embodied in the existing treaties—will be the one to roll forward the process, and that is not the type of Europe of which I wish to be a member. I believe that a growing number of people in Europe feel the same.
I do not feel 'comfortable'—to use the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—with the European constitution, the structure of European treaties or the way in which they are being interpreted today. Many people feel the same.
Nor do I feel happy with the concept of a multi-speed Europe which implies that, although different bands of European countries will move in different collective groups towards various objectives, there is nevertheless an overall sensation of speed and movement towards an integrated whole. Statesmen who want a settled Europe instead of constant upheaval and argument about how we should live in great single market that we have yet to build would be wise to seek equilibrium rather than rush towards this or that objective in this or that collective mood. We need a settled Europe.
I hope that most members of my party will agree that 1996 will provide an opportunity to halt the federalist agenda so accurately described by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. Unlike him, I believe that it can be halted. He has long held the view that it cannot and that the process is inevitable. If we are strong and confident and hold our position, I believe that we can change the direction and tone of many of the openly federalist commitments of members of the older generation who are influencing the Brussels scene.
For many years, I have followed the words of Jacques Delors, a man of vast ability who has many admirable qualities, but whose recent comments are becoming increasingly bizarre. He seems to be asserting ever more stridently a type of old-fashioned centralism against the wishes of the people of Europe. He was quoted the other day—although I hope that it is nothing more than a mistranslation—as saying that people who did not share his integrationist views were racist. That implies that all those in the member states—but especially those in Britain —who do not agree with the centralising process inherent in his ideas for political and monetary union are to be branded as racists.
There is a strong consensus in my party—perhaps the word 'consensus' is unfashionable and 'common ground' might be a safer expression nowadays—on the need to formulate a policy about the way in which we want to shape Europe after 1996. What does that mean? It certainly means that the Commission's monopoly of the power to initiate legislation should be curbed, a notion to which I attach great importance. If this is not too intimate an affair for the Opposition to hear, I notice that intensive discussions at grass-roots level in our party have produced a series of recommendations suggesting precisely that.
Although members want to stay in the European Union and argue from within, they want the Commission's powers to be curbed. We must work out precisely how that can be done. We have to make precise proposals for altering the legal procedures by which it is decided whether a matter belongs to the competencies of the Commission, the central machinery of the Community or to the nation

581
states. We must also re-examine the European Court of Justice; we cannot allow judgments constantly to be made in favour of the Union.
I listened in vain to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), waiting to hear his view of how national Parliaments, including ours, are to play a formal part in the procedures of subsidiarity and the government of the Community. The Maastricht treaty contains some fine words about national Parliaments playing their part. However, I have heard nothing since on how that should be brought about.
We know that Chancellor Kohl has sent a letter to the European Parliament inviting it to the party. It has been invited to participate directly in shaping the agenda for 1996. It concerns me that for this Parliament and for other national Parliaments, the high-flown phrases of the Maastricht-makers have not turned into anything. No proposals exist of any kind other than that we are allowed to have debates such as we are having now.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On the subject of Mr. Jacques Delors and national Parliaments, does my right hon. Friend think that this Parliament should have, for example, more of a role in the appointment of a successor to Mr. Jacques Delors?
Mr. Howell: That may well be so. We need at least to assert the type of people whom we expect to see as the Commissioners of a future European community. They should, after all, be servants of the people of Europe and not their masters.
I have no criticisms of the skill and importance of some of the great men and women who propose themselves as candidates for the Commission in the future; I hope that future Commissions will be composed of some of the best and brightest brains in Europe. However, I hope that they will be officials and not people with a high political profile. We are certainly entitled to have that opinion and I believe that we would be served in that way.
'Subsidiarity' is an elastic word. I believe that we are united in believing that it is not just a legal concept which can be solved by legal rulings, let alone by the European Court of Justice. It is political concept and a political judgment, so judgments must be made by politically legitimate bodies. That is why I conclude that we cannot accept that the list drawn up of what should be subsidiarised—if there is such a word—or devolved from the Community should be drawn up by the Commission or even that Governments should get together, draw up lists and discuss them with the Commission.
It is central to the political role of this House and of other national legislatures that we should have a say in what should be unravelled and decentralised from the Community, in terms of future powers and, indeed, of existing powers.
There are people who argue that what one is saying is all very fine, but that the game is lost—the thing has rolled away from us and there is nothing to be said in 1996. That is profoundly wrong. On every side, there is a growing army of people who understand very well that we want a new kind of European Union with new priorities. It will be a wider body which is based much more on the nation states.
582
The accession countries tend to have gone along with Maastricht to see the accession business through. However, when one travels to those countries and talks intimately to the business and political leaders, one finds a very different tone, whether in Helsinki, in Stockholm or, to some extent, in Oslo. As I said, if one goes to Madrid, which used to be the ultimate home of federalist enthusiasm, one now hears a totally different view as the people there begin to understand the British arguments. As a senior Minister there told me the other day, 'We the Spanish—and our arguments—are converging with you.'
While we focus on the wrong objectives, which we must change in 1996, the real objectives for the modern Europe, which some of us thought we were fighting for and building, are slipping away from us. What is the real objective? It is that the whole of Europe should be democratic and in the democratic community. What is happening while we are having all these arguments? Recycled communists are slipping back into power in country after country in eastern and central Europe. They are beginning to creep back in Hungary; they are back in the Ukraine; they are back in Lithuania; and they are beginning to have a greater influence in Poland.
Our children and grandchildren would say, 'Having fought in the war and then having seen the tragedy of Europe split, you had an opportunity; then came the wonderful opportunity of these countries coming back to democracy. Yet you argued about the finer points of monetary and political union while these countries slipped away again.' They would never forgive us.
This is where the priority lies and this is where the idealism lies, if we are trying to put the idealism back into Europe, as I believe we should. We should concentrate on the real issues of history and get away from the absurdities of trying to impose the political agenda of a single currency, which will, of course, never work. A common currency—a hard ecu—might work, but the goal of a single currency, as George Soros and others regularly point out, is the way in which to make George Soros rich. It has done so already and will do so again.
We do have a positive agenda. We are building the greatest single market the world has ever seen. It stretches from Lapland and the Gulf of Finland to Lisbon in the west, and from Syracuse in the south to the north of Scotland. This is a mighty enterprise which, if we work at it and get the security aspects right, will bring back into the democratic community all the nations of Europe which belong in Europe including, in my book, the Baltic three, which are just as much part of Europe as are the Visegrad four.
That is the agenda that we should now pursue, without apology or hesitation. It commands wide and growing support in Europe, and it is the one on which we should concentrate if we want to see the right kind of Europe after 1996.
5.24 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I have addressed many audiences and many chambers, but none quite as intimidating as this, with my true friends behind me and my real opponents facing me. I gather that convention demands that one must be polite, so polite one must be.
I am very conscious of coming to the House in place of Jimmy Boyce, a man who came from a part of our society about which not enough of us know. He was unemployed

583
for many years, a victim of the very cruel policies that have cost so much for some of the great talents of our nation over the past 15 years. I come from a different background, but I will fight for the causes that Jimmy supported. I hope that I can in some way measure up to the service that he provided to Rotherham in the short two years in which he was a Member of this House.
I am also conscious of the fact that I follow in the footsteps of Stan Crowther who is well known to the House and was a great public servant to Rotherham over 50 years of political life. I am also conscious of following in the footsteps of Brian O'Malley, the man who inspired me when I first became involved in politics. He collapsed at the Dispatch Box, another victim of the stress of public life. Like everyone else, I was glad of the tributes paid to John Smith in the press. We speak no ill of the dead; perhaps from time to time, my old friends in the Gallery may speak some good of the living.
Last week was for me the best of weeks and the worst of weeks. When I came to the House on Tuesday, John Smith greeted me and said that it would be a day that I would remember for the rest of my life. John Smith talked of a dream, but the dream was extinguished when, on Thursday, he left us. He spent a whole day with me in Rotherham, seeing the steel plant and the college, and talking to Asians and to party members. He left a message of hope for a new and better Britain.
I am proud to have been elected by the people of Rotherham to represent their interests in Parliament. They have not always been so happy in their choice. The first Member for Rotherham—a Member for Yorkshire in those days—was Sir Thomas Wentworth, later the Earl of Strafford. Older Members of the House may remember that he was executed on a Bill of Attainder in 1641. He was promised that his life would be saved by none other than King Charles I, but he was, of course, sacrificed.
Alas, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) are not with us today. They must know how poor Thomas Wentworth felt as they, too, were given the full support of a Prime Minister—a sure sign that they were about to mount the political scaffold.
'Put not your trust in princes',
were Thomas Wentworth's last words. The spirit of Rotherham and, indeed, of Yorkshire ever since has been one of sturdy self-reliance and a rejection of authoritarianism and the centralising forces that Toryism has represented throughout the ages.
Rotherham was the place where Thomas Paine, that most noble of commoners, who brought democracy to America and the 'Rights of Man' to Europe, even as he was forced into exile by the Pitt Government, built his great suspension bridge. I do not know how many hon. Members know that Thomas Paine was a great manufacturer as well as a great democrat. The bridge was a feat of great engineering, as important as in many ways as his enunciation of the rights of man. Paine's bridge was built by the Walker Brothers of Rotherham, whose cannons sunk Napoleon's fleet at Trafalgar.
What would Tom Paine find if he returned to Rotherham today? The great manufacturies, on which Adam Smith based his 'Wealth of Nations', have all but disappeared, 25,000 jobs have gone since 1979 and the coal mines, which once promised Britain its own energy source safe from the perils of foreign disturbances, are now capped. The local council, with the money and the will to
584
build homes for the homeless, is prevented from doing so by the most centralised administration since that of Charles I.
Paine would find poverty in Rotherham, I am sad to say, as bad as anywhere in Europe. Indeed, he was dismissed from Government service for arguing for fair wages for public servants. Poorly paid public service, he argued, attracts only the ill-qualified and breeds corruption, collusion and neglect. He went on:
'An augmentation of salary sufficient to enable workers to live honestly and competently would produce more good effect than all the laws of the land can enforce.'
I offer that to our low-wage merchants on the Government side of the House. We already knew that Thomas Paine was a great democrat and a friend of Rotherham manufacturing, but it came as news, even to me, that he believed in a statutory minimum wage 200 years before its time.
For all those problems, Paine would find, as would anyone who visits Rotherham, a town and a people whose spirits are unbroken despite all that has been thrown at them in the past 15 years. The pedestrianised town centre, which is one of the nicest in Europe, is spoiled only, alas, by the pressure on shopkeepers arising from the declining purchasing power of the citizens of Rotherham.
One of the world's most advanced engineering steel plants, UES, is at the cutting edge of modern technology. I must to say my hon. Friends, talk not of steel as an old industry. Steel is one of the most modern and advanced sectors of our economy.
There are new partnerships between the chamber of commerce, the training and enterprise council, the local council and the trade unions, which support unity and a common cause to promote Rotherham.
Tom Paine would also find a very great sense—Tom Paine was, if nothing else, an internationalist—of feeling that, if Rotherham is to succeed, Britain must play its full part in Europe, because Britain is part of Europe as surely as Yorkshire is part of Britain.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, who, since 1938, has stood for, yes, a Tory vision of internationalism against isolationism and that yellow streak of appeasement and opting out, which has always shamed the Conservative party, as it shames it in so much of its policy today.
We are part of Europe and the Euro-septics on the Government Benches may want their cash-and-carry Europe, in which each state takes what it wants. They decry centralisation, yet they have gone through the Division Lobby voting for measure after measure after measure to transfer power from local authorities—indeed, from the House—to give it to their friends in privatised companies and quangos. I want to see power shared downward to the regions, to communities, horizontally to the sister units of civil society in Europe, but, above all, I want to see power made accountable.
If we are to live in an international community in which trade and travel and money and ideas can go through porous frontiers, at least we, as human beings, as subjects of Her Majesty, as citizens of Europe, should have the right to have the human spirit protected through regulation of trans-frontier activity. Yes, Europe is too important to be left to Brussels, but if we are to fight for British interests, we must do so by promoting transparency, democracy and

585
accountability in all European institutions. R.H. Tawney described the hereditary disease of the English nation as 'the reverence for riches' and went on:
'If men are to respect each other for what they are, they must cease to respect each other for what they own.'
I apologise to the hon. Ladies present and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the references to the rights of man and quoting men. I see myself, after post-modernism and post-industrialism, as the first 'PPC'—post-politically correct—hon. Member.
England is the most money-obsessed country in Europe. Switch on the BBC and every five seconds there is some Brylcreemed spokesperson for the bond markets telling us how the dollar is doing. The BBC and ITV tell us the price of the stock market at any moment, anywhere in the world, but have ceased to report on the values needed to bring cohesion back to our communities. I do not blame them. They take their lead from those who rule our society and until we get public interest hands on the tiller of the state, instead of the sticky fingers of so many of the Conservative Members and their friends in the till, the media can do no more than take a lead from those who put a price on everything, but know the value of nothing.
For all our obsession with cash, Britain remains the poor man of Europe. Italy's gross domestic product per capita in 1960 was exactly one half of Great Britain's. Now, it has overtaken us. We have been so busy preaching at Europe and trying to teach Europe the secrets of the United Kingdom's economic record, we have committed, to use James Fenton's phrase—how pleased I was to see my old friend become professor of poetry at Oxford on Saturday—
'the fault of thinking small and acting big'.
Perhaps we have forgotten that we have some lessons to learn; lessons about partnership, lessons about the successful countries in Europe. Germany, even after unification, has a lower unemployment record than our own. The Benelux countries and the new entrants are successful, too. Those who proclaim themselves Thatcherites, such as in the Prime Minister's favourite holiday country Spain, have the worst record of job creation and balanced development.
The core answer from Europe—one of vital importance to Rotherham and one to which I intend to commit myself in the House—is that manufacturing is not dead and, despite all the best efforts of the Government, should not die. The rising sun has been coming here continually to try to save a sinking England, but we now find that Japanese investment is going to Germany, to France and is leaving these shores.
If I may refer, as a socialist, to my favourite Sunday reading, The Sunday Telegraph tells us how well Germany is doing, that the Japanese research and development centres are installing themselves there and that the Japanese now prefer to be in Germany because of its high skill base, good labour relations and its position as Europe's engine of growth.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) blamed our balance of trade on Europe. I have to say to him that it is 15 years of anti-manufacturing policies, of the destruction of partnership, of the lack of investment and the money that
586
has flowed overseas that has been at fault. In fact, if we would learn from our European partner competitors, Britain would be in a much better shape.
It is not only an economic question. I was privileged to have many conversations with John Smith when he was in Rotherham and he talked of the constitutional changes that Labour would like to introduce, such as the end of the absurd spectacle of hereditary Members in another place making and casting laws, the need for national Governments for Scotland and Wales and regional assemblies, and the need for a referendum—not on electoral reform as I see it, but on re-thinking the way in which we govern ourselves. That is part of the constitutional package that I think is necessary for a new Britain.
As with John Smith's commitment to full employment and to trade union rights, we are seeing fleshed out a new programme to reconstruct our lives in Britain as great as that which we saw after the war, but, this time, with us secure in the heart of Europe.
A Europe of what? Is it a 'Europe des patries' as General de Gaulle said? That is difficult for us. We have four nations, but what is our fatherland? That is not a word that we can use easily as British people. It is not a united states of Europe or a stepping stone to Tennyson's 'Parliament of the World', either. After many years working in Europe, I find the Germans more German, the French more French and the Italians more Italian. It is only we in Britain who seem to live in a permanent identity crisis about who we are and what it means to be British. That is because the old Toryism is dying. The new Labourism is not yet born. As a consequence, the morbid symptoms of corruption and xenophobia that lie at the heart of the Cabinet are everywhere to be found where the Government are at work.
Those who are hostile to Europe are to be found in all nations. We have the Euro-sceptics here, there are the French communists and now we have the Italian fascists. I have with me the programme of Philippe de Villiers, the conservative right-winger in France. He wants Europe to be protected against any imports from outside the Community. He wants also a Europe in which national controls stop immigration. Like the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my father came here in the 1930s. He was a refugee from fascist Europe. The Europe that is described by Philippe de Villiers is not one of which I want to be part. Indeed, I am not even sure whether Conservative Members believe in such a Europe.
Closing the door to foreign immigrants and to exports from around the world is not a Europe in which we need to believe. We in Europe should defend our interests, but, at the same time, we in this country should deepen our friendship with countries such as Germany and—I declare an interest because my wife is French—France. In the words of Victor Hugo,
'France is the adversary of England as the better is the enemy of the good.'
I am conscious of returning to the country that made me. I have returned from elsewhere in Europe, where I worked for many years. I have learnt much, and some of that learning I might bring to the House. I am not
'A steady patriot of the world alone,
The friend of every country but his own.'
I remain British. I am proud of the schools that made me and of the health service that put me together when I cracked my head open in the 1950s. I am hopeful that such

587
again could be the kind of United Kingdom in which my children can grow up. It is a country in which we always refer to faith, hope and charity. But greater than any of those concepts is justice.
I will argue for justice for the people of Rotherham. I will strive for economic justice for the unemployed and social justice for the weak and disabled people of Rotherham. I so much agree with those who say that the best tribute that we could pay to John Smith would be to pass the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was recently talked out. There must be 'plain justice'—justice for the criminals who walk free in an England that opts out of Europe. In so many parts of our communities, unfortunately, it seems to opt out of decency and law and order. If I can deliver any part of that message during my time in the House on behalf of the people of Rotherham, I shall be well pleased.
5.43 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made a most eloquent speech. He made it within a week of arriving in the House, which I must tell him is somewhat unusual. He spoke gratifyingly about his predecessors, who are of great historical interest in some instances, such as Tom Paine and Wentworth. I rather think that the hon. Gentleman favours Tom Paine rather than Wentworth.
The hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about his more immediate predecessors, Jimmy Boyce and Brian O'Malley. There are some in the House who will remember Brian O'Malley with affection. Indeed, we remember them both with affection and because they remind us, if we needed any reminder, of the course of human mortality in this place. The hon. Gentleman is most welcome. We all enjoyed his speech and we hope to hear him on many such occasions, although perhaps he will not get quite such an easy ride in future.
The debate allows us to take stock of our position in the European Union before the intergovernmental conference in two years' time. The debate is welcome for that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, there is a substantial majority in the House for Britain being at the heart of Europe. I am sure that that is the position. It is the case also that Europe cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world. It must be more aware of its relationship with other countries than perhaps it has been so far. The impression given over recent years is that it is concerned only with its internal identity. It has appeared to have been trying to fashion a political identity and has not been sufficiently aware of the opportunities and the penalties that might ensue unless we take account of the competitive position that arises from other countries. The European Union as a whole must be aware of that position.
We have been a member of the European Union for 20 years. In contrast with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who I know has been opposed to our membership of the Union throughout that time, as have one or two of my hon. Friends, I say that our membership over that period means that we have inevitably fashioned ourselves as a fully-fledged member of that Union, especially in a commercial sense. It is absurd to contemplate damaging our economic future by pulling out of the Union, as some hon. Members wish to do.
If we were to take that course, we would be damaged. There is no question about that. We would not have seen
588
the flow of inward investment from Japan and the United States on the scale that has been apparent if we had not been members of the European Union. Much more importantly, we would not have seen that investment if they had thought that we would not last as members of the union. If we pulled out, we would be sidelined and ignored in all discussions within the European Union. That would surely be the result if we showed that we were reluctant to play our part.
We should ask ourselves why it is that all the EFTA countries, which have the benefit of association with the European Union, are so anxious to become fully fledged members. They wish, of course, to have some say in those matters that affect them and in their economic well-being. They all believe that they must have some say in all the economic, trade and environmental issues in which they are so closely involved.
Some people are putting about another option. They argue that the course of our European trade has been damaging to us. They say that we have a deficit on our balance of trade with Europe and that if we had concentrated rather more on the far east, all would have been very much better. I do not know why it should be our self-appointed role to tell business men where they should do their trade. We can take it, however, that they will pursue their business wherever it is to their best advantage to do so.
We need a firm industrial base, which the United Kingdom is now much too small to provide for itself. We have seen increasingly over the past few years—I am sure that we shall continue to do so in future—the international division of labour. To believe that we could form a large enough industrial base on our own is absurd.
It is foolish to play down the significance of the European market. The European Union has 6.5 per cent. of the world's population and generates 25 per cent. of global economic output. The EU's total output has risen by 30 per cent. since 1980, that increase being almost as large as China's total gross domestic product in 1990. Those who are enthusiastic about our trade and interest in the far east, which we can commend and hope to go for, must not ignore the substantial importance of the European Union for our business and jobs.
In a business sense, we are up to the neck and beyond in Europe. That was the position long before the single market started. British business has been breaking into Europe, finding new markets and establishing commercial links. If we examine the pattern of commercial development, we find British firms both large and small enmeshed within the European Union. What would happen if we had associated status? Only today, negotiations are taking place between British Airways and Air France on the basis that British Airways should be allowed to land at Orly airport. Imagine for one moment what our position would be if we had associate status. We would have no negotiating power with the French or any other country that tried to trade against our interests. Important European institutions, such as the Commission on Competition, are essential for our economic well-being.
Mr. Jenkin: I thoroughly agree with the thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument. A great many people who have been critical of the Maastricht treaty and the way in which the European Union is now operating would not,

589
however, advocate leaving the European Community. As my right hon. Friend has said, we would regard that as totally counter-productive.
Sir Peter Hordern: I am sure that that is true.
We must be aware of the fact that other countries have perfectly legitimate points of view and a perfectly legitimate way of carrying out their own objectives. The thought that we could lecture them into adopting some other form of activity or try to persuade them to go against what they deem to be their own interests is ridiculous. We must, of course, always stick up for our own national interests, but we must at least be aware that other countries believe that they have their own national interests too.
One of the reasons why I am so much in favour of the European Union is that we need a large single market. We tend to think of that market in terms of manufactured goods only, but we must also think about it in terms of services, in particular financial services. We have an decided advantage in the City, which is one of three global centres. As most of the savings in the European Union are in the form of bonds and as savings in this country and the United States are mostly in the form of equities, we have an unrivalled opportunity to sell financial services. We should be able to harness capital to the cause of the European single market.
One day, once the infrastructure is in place, eastern Europe will provide an industrial and commercial renaissance. We need to be at the centre of Europe to ensure that that happens. That will not happen, however, unless those countries are able to export their goods and services to us. There is far too much talk of welcoming those countries to democracy, free trade and enterprise while at the same time barriers are being raised against their exported goods and services. Such a policy is neither legitimate nor fair, and we must change it.
We must always be on the side of free trade and open markets and opposed to protection. The brute force of the economic facts of life will ensure that happens because otherwise unemployment will increase as companies throughout the European Union start to invest elsewhere. For some years, many German firms have invested in the United Kingdom because they say, quite frankly, that they cannot produce their goods at home competitively because of their wage rates and other expenses. One cannot protect employment by passing laws that place too high a burden on companies' costs. We must argue against that and demonstrate our case from within the European Union.
Of course there are objectionable sides to the Union—for example, its flood of regulations, fraud and waste, especially in the common agricultural policy. We must strengthen the European Parliament, as the Maastricht treaty provides, to deal with those problems. Some of the opponents of Maastricht are even against giving the European Parliament additional powers to combat fraud and waste within the CAP. They would rather that that fraud and waste continued than give additional powers to the European Parliament to allow it to question the Commission about the causes of such fraud and waste. Surely that is carrying opposition to an absurd degree.
We have an opportunity to start from first principles in contemplating the IGC in two years' time. Let us suppose that the treaty of Rome had never been signed. It would have been better to have had the single market without
590
tariff barriers. We should not imagine, however, that we could ever persuade the French about the virtues of the free market, as Cobden, on his own, once persuaded Napoleon III in 1860. The single market exists and so do some of the health and safety regulations and the social chapter, from which we have an opt-out.
Such opt-outs may be the pattern of the future. We already have an opt-out from the single currency. If France, Germany and Holland meet the conditions laid down by Maastricht, I see no reason why, if they decide to do so, they may not have a single currency of their own. There is nothing in the treaty to prevent them from doing so. It would be up to business and industry to decide whether they wish to deal in the ecu or to continue to deal in sterling or any other currency. For many years, the oil industry has carried out its business in exactly the same way by dealing in the United States dollar. There is nothing strange about that. We can afford to be entirely neutral on the matter.
We should not say, however, that it would be wrong for those other countries to form a single currency if they wished to do so. In any event, we would be unable to stop such a decision. Such decisions should be part of a gradual, evolutionary process based on the idea that our business and industry should be able to deal in a single currency—for example, the ecu—if they find it convenient.
That also means that we cannot disclaim all responsibility for what happens to sterling, as some people would do. Some people believe that it was a great mistake to join the exchange rate mechanism. They believe that the solution is to allow sterling to fall to a level at which full employment could be guaranteed. When we had a strong pound linked to the gold standard we were able to attract funds from all over the world and the same was true with Bretton Woods. In those days, we always had low interest rates. I must remind those who believe that a falling pound is the answer to our economic problems that, goodness knows, we have had one for long enough. It did not appear to have all the advantages that people would like to claim for it. If we returned to such a policy we would have much higher interest rates.
Whether we have a single currency in Europe or anything else, the sensible thing to do is never to say never. We must always allow evolution to take place. We must see how things work out in the future. There is something very unattractive about us lecturing European countries about how they should run their affairs. To do so to the extent that we damage our own interests is absurd.
We may not always agree with other European countries, which have different traditions and different interests, but as a predominantly trading nation, we simply cannot afford to be anywhere but at the centre of Europe. We cannot afford to be isolated. That does not mean that we must have a federal Europe but if we believe, as we must, that trade and investment will provide the engine of growth and the prosperity that we need, it is essential for us to be at the centre to remove the barriers that may stand in the way of such trade.
For centuries we have been at war with our European neighbours. The peace is new and very fragile. We need to be at the centre to act as much as we can in harmony with other countries. We must always act with common sense. That is the spirit in which we should conduct negotiations at the IGC.
5.57 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his remarkable and excellent maiden speech. Those congratulations are tinged with some envy because he showed the kind of confidence that some of us have taken 20 years to acquire—perhaps we have yet to acquire it. I am sure that he will represent the people of Rotherham with skill and diligence in the years to come.
It is a pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham but the debate also takes place in the sad aftermath of the death of John Smith. John and I came to the House in 1970. We both had the honour to serve in the 1974 Labour Government—he served in a number of Departments and I served at the Treasury. He was a good and revered friend and a formidable leader of my party. We did not agree about everything. He was a Scot and I a Welshman. I sometimes used to tease him that perhaps there were too many blessed Scots in the parliamentary Labour party. He sometimes showed a certain amount of impatience with the looseness and prolixity of language which the Welsh sometimes employ when discussing political matters, but at least we agreed about devolution. We differed on the Common Market—the European Union, as it is now called. He believed in it when it was not fashionable to do so in my party. He also believed in the European ideal.
It is now, apparently, fashionable in my party to believe in the European Union—I do not know about the European ideal. Not only do we believe in it, but we adhere to almost every facet of it—the social chapter, the autonomous central bank, a single currency, the entrenchment of a rather monetarist economic policy in the Maastricht treaty. Sadly, in voting for the Maastricht treaty, we seem to have voted to abandon that commitment to full employment for which I always thought that my party stood. All I can hope is that fashion will change again and given the speed with which my party has ditched old beliefs and acquired new fashions in the past 10 years, that may happen.
The European Union is a strange beast. As it trundles along towards the ever-closer union of European peoples, that higher state of fusion which the Europeans apparently want, it devours democracy as it goes. Step by step, politics is taken out of politics because, as more and more of the functions of a democratic nation state are transferred, as they are being, to the Union, they are usually transferred into non-democratic organisations, to non-elected institutions, to a type of glorified Euro-quango.
Democratic choice in the present Union—perhaps we can change it for the future—is gradually and irrevocably diminished. Elections become more and more about personalities and trivialities. The treaties, the directives, the case law, the European Court—the whole of the acquis communautaire, as I think we should call it in one short phrase—is entrenched. It is a constitution, a massive written constitution—we hear so much from people who say that Britain does not have a written constitution and should have one—that is entrenched in the sense that not even a single nation state can change it.
I believe that the constitution of the United States can be changed with a two thirds—perhaps three quarters—majority of the two Houses of Congress but this constitution cannot be changed by a single nation state or
592
by two or three nation states. It now needs 12 nation states to agree to change the fundamental constitution of the acquis communautaire. They all have to agree.
Mr. Burns: I think that I am correct in saying that, to change the constitution of the United States, two thirds of the states must vote for a change.
Mr. Davies: That may well be so, but at least there is a mechanism. It is not an easy mechanism and it has been used only once or twice, perhaps only once. Here, we have an entrenched constitution that cannot be changed by Britain or by any one of the 12 member states without the consent and agreement of the other 12. Before long, if the referendums in the four applicant states result in a yes vote, 16 nation states will be needed to change the constitution. After a while, no doubt, if other nations came in, it will be 20.
That is not a recipe for democracy. I believe that the more nation states come in, the less democratic—if that is possible—the European Union will become, because the possibilities for change will become fewer and fewer. In that situation, the entrenched bureaucracies of the European Union will take over and make the decisions, because the democratic bodies will not be able to vote for change.
That unchanging acquis communautaire is a comfortable mode for the political class, for the bureaucrats who follow it, for the diplomatic corps and the range and army of hangers-on and followers of the European Union. It is convenient, it provides gainful employment, it is a type of superior welfare state for the political class and those people around them. Elections come and go. The electorate can change little because they cannot change the acquis communautaire. Indeed, one cannot even touch it and if one criticises it too much one is described as all sorts of things—possibly even a racist, as we heard from Jacques Delors. The vested interests are happy because that cannot be changed.
The elections to the European Parliament were mentioned earlier. I hope that my team wins and no doubt there are other members of other parties in the House who hope that their team will win. It is only natural. Frankly, however, an objective elector does not become involved in the day-to-day minutiae of politics. For an objective elector, does it matter whether the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal party—or all three parties—subscribe totally to the acquis communautaire? None of us can change it; neither can the European Parliament. Does it really matter who is elected, from that point of view? Obviously, we want to impose a defeat on the Government and I hope that we do so, but does it really matter to someone who is not involved in politics? Does it matter who is elected to the European Parliament? It has very few powers and it must keep its hands off the entrenched constitution.
The Minister mentioned the 20 million unemployed people in Europe. Those 20 million people, unlike the political class, are not within the pale—they are outside it. I believe that the European Union has little to offer them and that, sadly, the 20 million will increase, even if recession recedes in Germany and France. Renewed growth in Germany and France will mean a reorganisation of their industrial base, which will create more unemployment.

593
What does the European Union have to offer those unemployed people? Bits of paper, commissions, committees, unelected assemblies that go back and forward to Brussels. The real levers of economic and industrial power, which lay within the nation states, are being transferred to the European Union, which cannot act. We are losing the very levers of power that we on the left used to believe enabled us to do something about unemployment. Instead of them, we have received an entrenched economic structure in the Maastricht treaty, to which the old European left would have taken considerable objection. The modern European left, apparently, has accepted and absorbed, and been delighted to take on board, that new economic system.
When there is a British general election, I usually try to write my own short manifesto. I try to write about industrial policy and economic policy. I found it very difficult last time to write about industrial policy because I could not check the treaty of Rome. I suspect that, next time, the words about economic policy will be few and we shall have to fill our sentences with clichés and statements of little substance.
The British electorate are not stupid. They have to choose between the people who aspire to be emperor at the next election. Given the context and framework of the treaty of Maastricht and the European Union, I suspect that the electorate will recognise that the emperor has no clothes. That may be why only 30 per cent. turned out in the last European elections. I suspect that not many more will turn out this time.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) still lives in a world of economic blocks. Having lost the old ones, he is looking for new ones. Apparently, India is to be a new economic block. We shall leave him in that world. The Union was conceived as an impregnable economic block in a world of large economic groupings. Inside its walls, the people of western Europe would be secure from the rantings of the bear to the east and from salesmen that sometimes descended on Europe from Asia and America. Those hordes of vulgar commercial travellers from Osaka or Chicago would be kept out of the new Europe and the whole entity would be secure and safe.
I have news for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup: the world has changed. We now live in a global rather than regional world, although that may sound like an 'Irishism'. The pillars on which the European Union was founded have been buffeted by external economic forces beyond the control of the political class within the pale.
Throughout the 1970s, one talked of economies of scale. What has happened to those? We hear little about them today in the steel or car industries. Over the past 10 to 15 years, a massive revolution has taken place in manufacturing. I would not say that small is beautiful but, provided that a company has the right skills and technology, it can compete whatever its size. We no longer live in a world of large economic blocks and economies of scale. In terms of the production of goods, we live in a world of decentralisation.
The Minister mentioned GATT, of which we hear little these days. The Uruguay round was extremely important. What price regional economic pacts when one has GATT? The right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern)
594
mentioned services. GATT has not gone quite that far yet, but it is certainly moving in that direction. If we look at manufacturing in terms of GATT, we find a global, rather than regional, economic world. Part of my argument is that the world is passing those regional economic blocks by.
Mr. Forman: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the new global realities. In the context of his remarks on GATT, does he accept that the regional groupings—whether the European Community, the Cairns group or the North American Free Trade Agreement—provided the levers by which people could get at least some of what they sought?
Mr. Davies: I would not say that they provided the levers, but I entirely accept that, if countries band together and agree a negotiating stance, they are in a stronger position. We are now moving towards a global economic world, especially if a world trading organisation is set up. It therefore makes no sense for the dinosaur of the EC to try to create an ever-increasing union of European peoples, because economic factors outside will have an effect.
The European Union can be compared to IBM a few years ago. IBM was the classic dinosaur—it grew in the 1960s and early 1970s but then failed to compete because it was out of date and smaller companies in Japan and especially the United States beat it. It is now trying to restructure and compete again. Likewise, the European Union as conceived is out of date. Who knows? Perhaps it will do an IBM. I do not really believe that it will, because the political class within the pale has no real incentive fundamentally to reform and become radical. I suspect that 1996 will be more of the same, as the beast trundles on, seeking a higher state of fusion of the European peoples. I hope that a radical restructuring takes place. If not, we should remember that, once we achieve fusion, fission happens soon after.
6.15 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) worried me when he said that he did not know what to put into his election manifesto. Knowing him to be a truthful person, it has been plaguing me. As he is a kind and Christian gentleman, he could say that, if elected, he would be kind to children and animals, but, sadly, one cannot even say that now. A letter that I received this morning from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that, even if we were concerned about the foul cruelty of animals being transported to Europe and all hon. Members voted against it, we could do nothing. A legal reassessment has been made of article 36 and, although the Government thought that they might be able to do something, sadly, they can do nothing. All that the right hon. Member for Llanelli can say is that he will be kind to children and animals, in so far as the EC will permit.
I have listened to many dull, light and uninspiring maiden speeches, but the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made a confident and exciting speech. I hope that we shall have the privilege of hearing him on many occasions. What he said about John Smith was right. I went to university with John at the same time as my young wife went to school with his young wife. He was one of the few to emerge from the House with honesty, consistency and integrity. We should all pay tribute to him as we admire and applaud those virtues.

595
What worried me about the hon. Member for Rotherham—I do not seek to criticise a maiden speech—was that, in a dramatic part of his speech, he held up an exciting pamphlet produced by Philippe de Villiers and said that that terrible man, who is either a fascist or a communist, wanted to protect European trade from trade outside the Community. As a socialist who believes in liberty and the freedom of people, he said that he could never have anything to do with that. It struck me how right the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was. Basically, we must tell people the truth about the EC rather than give interpretations, arguments or visions, and I hope that the Government can do something about that.
Had the hon. Member for Rotherham, who is obviously talented, been told that the EC was one of the filthiest protectionist rackets in the world and that two firms in Southend had been put out of business because of protectionist measures introduced by the EC six weeks ago, he would have known more. That is not a criticism of him. People simply do not know.
In this brief speech I appeal to the Government to tell people the facts about a few matters. People can then make a reassessment and will probably appreciate Government policy more than they do. The only economic truth that we can say now is that Britain is doing better than other member states of the EC. Unfortunately, we can do nothing about that because the main reason for it is that we were chucked out of the exchange rate mechanism.
I urge the Government to abandon their policy of make-believe and optimism, and tell people the facts. First, people should be told how much being in the EC costs the average Scottish and English family. The information that I have received from the Government is that we are £32 a week worse off. Of course, there is the question of extra unemployment. If we forget about the unemployment, it seems that the cost is £32 a week. The Foreign Secretary kindly wrote to me to say that the cost of the common agricultural policy to the average family was an extra £28 a week. The cost of our contributions works out at £4 a week, so we can say to people in Canvey Island and elsewhere that the cost to them is £32 a week. That is factual and clear, and people should be told.
Secondly, people need to know the facts about our trade with the EC. I have read articles by Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers in which they have said that one half or three quarters or two thirds of our trade is with the EC, but the Government must tell people the facts. My understanding is—I am subject to correction—that, since we joined the EC, we have had a trade deficit of £100,000 million, or £2,000 per person. The Government simply have to tell people whether that is the case. There is nothing worse in the world than seeing politicians on the screen arguing about what they think about things. We must tell people the facts, and let them draw conclusions from them.
Thirdly, if the European Court makes decisions which have serious consequences for this country, the Government simply must tell people. As an hon. Member who has been here for a long time—probably too long—I find it almost embarrassing that when something fundamental happens in Europe, it is almost impossible to find out about it.
Take, for example, the recent and rather embarrassing court decision that an Army officer who became pregnant could, apparently, get up to £300,000 in compensation.
596
That was acutely embarrassing, because soldiers who had lost two legs while serving in the Army were getting about one fifth of that sum. People said that that was terrible, silly and odd. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) said that it was terrible. Unfortunately, there is nothing that we can do about it. The crucial thing is that we should be told what is happening.
My understanding is that, since that decision was made a short time ago, the Government have agreed to hand over a total of £7 million to women in that position, and I am told there is a lot more money to come. It is appalling, because it basically upsets the former pattern whereby there was a limit of £11,000 on compensation. That has now gone out of the window.
Why should not people be told? The Minister is certainly one of the decent guys, and he is a straightforward man. I ask him: why cannot people be told what is going on?
Let me refer to a situation in Southend-on-Sea. I do not know whether any hon. Members represent areas which have experimented with something called privatisation, but we have led the field in that in Southend with our cleansing department. It has been a great success. Costs are very low, workers are happy, and the standard of cleansing is high. Unfortunately, the EC has said that the Government have applied something called the acquired rights directive wrongly and, therefore, someone must pay.
Apparently, when a firm is taken over, one must guarantee jobs, wages and working conditions. However, the Government were told by their top legal advisers—there are many of them—that they should not worry, because the directive did not apply to local authorities or to health authorities. Southend, which is a very good council, went ahead with privatisation. It has now found to its horror that the Government were wrong.
Mr. Brian Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the directive applies to Britain only because a good Labour Government signed up to it in 1977, and his party has spent 14 years trying to avoid its legal responsibilities. If we had never had that good Labour Government to sign it, the directive might not have applied.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. The directive came through at the end of the Labour Government. Labour and Conservative Governments were told by the legal experts that it did not apply to local councils and health authorities, but now it does. What will happen? The Government must tell me, because someone has to pay compensation. Lots of money must be paid, as every worker who was not taken on and did not have his job guaranteed and every worker who joined and had his wages reduced or his conditions not met must be compensated. The Trades Union Congress—a wonderful organisation which looks after the interests of workers—has initiated 500 claims.
I should like to find out how much this will cost and who will pay. I am trying to find out.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Sir Teddy Taylor: I have said that the hon. Gentleman was right—he is always right. The hon. Gentleman should listen to this.
Basically, someone has to pay. Employers in Southend are worried about it and are asking whether they have to

597
pay. In addition, employees are asking from whom they should claim. I say that the TUC will look after them because the EC has sorted it out. We want to know who will pay, and how much. That is the kind of thing which the Government must tell us.
Those who deliver papers are called newspaper boys. I do not know whether any other hon. Member present has his papers delivered, but it is a way to make sure that one gets the paper bright and early in the morning. I have said in public meetings that newspaper boys should not worry because the Government would sort it out so that they would not lose their jobs. I have found to my horror that that is not happening at all.
The Government apparently got what they called a four-year exemption, and something called the European Parliament then said that it would have to take out that British. opt-out. It seems that, under something called the Maastricht treaty—most right hon. and hon. Members voted for the treaty, but I did not as I was rather suspicious of it—if the European Parliament wants to change it, it cannot do so unless there is unanimous agreement among Ministers. This is happening all the time, and nobody notices. I wish that I had noticed that. If I was as clever as other hon. Members, I would read the treaties and find out.
It seems that we are in a terrible position. The newspaper boys in Southend, despite all the assurances given to them by the Conservative party, seem likely to lose their jobs unless we stop the directive; and, apparently, we cannot do that because it would require a majority vote.
These are important and complicated matters which people such as myself, as well as Ministers, do not understand. The Government should tell us what is going on, and I hope that they will.
Dr. Robert Spink: Before my hon. Friend gets away from presenting the facts, may I say that he has concentrated so far on the deficit side. Will he also address the benefit side? We know that newspaper boys are important, but they are not the be-all and end-all. Has not the greatest benefit of our membership of the EC been that we have had peace, strength and democracy for 45 years? Is not that a great benefit which is worth paying for? Will not my hon. Friend seek to strengthen our trading links with Europe? I accept that we must resist federalism and political union.
Sir Teddy Taylor: That is what worries me. The Conservative party says to newspaper boys that it will sort out the problem, and then the newspaper boys find that, when things go wrong, Conservative Members say that they do not matter so much, and they talk about peace.
My hon. Friend is a talented, sincere and upright man—so I am told. He talks about peace. He should read the treaty of Rome. I know that he is very young and that he was not here at the time the treaty was signed, but the only thing that the treaty said we could not deal with in the EC was defence. Defence was guaranteed by something called NATO, which is a splendid organisation because the Americans are involved in it.
On the matter of trade, I hope that my hon. Friend will ask—he will not get an answer if he tables the question, as they have now stopped such things—what our deficit with the EC has been since we joined.
598
I do not want to waste time, as I want to talk about Southend. If the Government were willing to listen to talk about the damage done to Southend-on-Sea by the EC, they would be horrified. First, Southend has a lot of unemployment—14.5 per cent. Despite that, the Conservatives did quite well in the local elections because people were hopeful for the future. We lost only one seat —and I did not like us losing that seat.
The Government said that they were aware of the level of unemployment and that they would give the Southend area assisted area status. I am not a great one for subsidy, but local people said that it was a great idea. They said that other people thought that it was good, and they wanted it also. The Government politely explained to me that they were very sorry but under the rules they had to go to Brussels before they could give their money. They said, however, that it should be okay.
So they went to the bloke in charge called Van Miert. He saw the long list, and, before he even looked at it, he said that it was too long and that the Government had to cut off 10 per cent. Southend, unfortunately, was in the bottom 10 per cent. He had not looked at the name Southend, nor had he considered it. I went to the Government and said, 'Surely he cannot do this. There was not a meeting, nor was there a committee.' They said, 'Sadly, no. Mr. Van Miert decides.' He decided that Southend had lost, and we felt upset about that. I have asked the Government whether there was anything they could do. They have said, 'Sorry, too bad.' The Government were very nice and said that they would put Southend forward for a Euro-grant. Mr. Millan, another Commissioner, apparently said that London had bigger problems, so we could not get a grant.
MK Electric, an excellent firm in every respect, employs many people in Southend and Essex. I met the firm's directors last week. They are horrified because we are to have something called the Euro-plug. They said that it is terrible—it will destroy jobs. They also told me that people in England and Scotland will have to spend an extra £1,000 on their house, first, on taking out the plugs; secondly, on taking out the sockets; and, thirdly, not on replacing the wiring but on making changes to it. Those three things will cost each householder about £1,000.
The employers' organisation had a meeting and said that it was absolute rubbish—they did not want it. Unfortunately, the Commissioners told them that the EC will do it anyway; if the organisation does not put forward a plan, it will go through. PMS is one of the nicest firms on God's earth. A chap called Paul Beverley runs it. He is a super-duper business man. He employs 200 people from my constituency. Last year, he exported £8 million worth of goods. If the Government want to increase exports, they should think about that. Is not £8 million of exports great?
What has happened to Paul Beverley? Six weeks ago, he received a note saying that the European Council had decided to slash trade with China. I asked why. The Minister, who is a brave man and a super guy, voted against the decision because it was rubbish. However, the decision went through. PMS imports lots of furry toys—they are lovely toys of a high quality—from jointly owned factories in China and then exports them. It employs many other firms. It has been told to cut its business to one quarter of what it was. That is terrible.
What can the firm do? It has proceeded—I know that hon. Members will not understand this—by way of a complicated processs known as letters of credit. That means that firms pay money for goods to be delivered later.

599
They have paid out lots of money but they cannot get the goods in. They have asked what they can do about it. I am afraid that the answer is nothing at all.
A super firm called Hi-Tech is a big employer in Southend. It is a good, upright firm. It pays big wages and it is a good employer. It looks after people well. It sent me a fax today saying that, unfortunately, it had been affected in the same way. It explained that it has 50,000 items waiting in the ports, which is in excess of its annual allocation. The company has paid for the items, but they cannot come in. That is not funny. It is appalling when firms, which are fighting in a competitive world, employing people, exporting and making profits, are banged on the head by stupid Euro-rules.
One might ask why the rules are coming in. Apparently they are coming in because some countries in Europe had restrictions and some, such as ours, did not, and it was decided to have harmonised restrictions. Rules are put through by majority vote—with Britain voting against them—and we are now in the soup.
We are suffering a great deal. If we examine the facts properly, people will realise that the whole of Britain has suffered immensely. The people have suffered most of all. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rotherham, whose speech I enjoyed, will think about what the EC has done to the poor people of Britain. They are the ones who have suffered the most. It is the poor who suffer from outrageously high prices for food. It does not matter so much to me because I can afford to buy food; it does not worry me. Poor families suffer most of all.
We have the appalling value added tax. It is the most cruel and nasty tax which hits the poorest people hardest of all. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the tax-free test, we are obliged to extend VAT to almost everything. The poor are suffering and jobs are suffering. The saddest thing of all is that, despite all the talk about how we would have expansion, growth and development, Europe is a very sick place, with mass unemployment and massive borrowing.
We must ask ourselves what on earth we will do about it. It is crucial to abandon all this silly talk about sitting around the table and reforming the organisation. It will not happen. Year after year, we kid ourselves that reform is coming. We are told every year that the common agricultural policy is changing and that things will get better. Ministers say that expenditure will be cut. I wrote a letter asking whether expenditure would be cut, and the Minister wrote back saying that it would not be cut; it would increase by less than it was going to increase before.
The plain fact is that there is no way that we can control the constant increase in the authority of Brussels. It goes on and on every day. There is no way that we can curb it—the example of the common agricultural policy is there for all to see—and there is no way that we can secure jobs in the EC. We must ask ourselves what on earth we will do about it. The crucial thing to do is, first, to tell people the truth. The Government must tell people the costs, tell them about the trade, tell them all the facts, not propaganda, and tell them the figures.
Secondly, we must give people a voice. To be honest, nothing has been more shameful in the history of our democracy than the fact that vast areas of freedom, liberty and sovereignty have been passed over to outside bodies without consulting the people. It is wrong in principle, it is
600
contrary to democracy and it is contrary to all that people in the Labour party and the Conservative party should stand for.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham, who made a great speech today—it was one of the best and most talented speeches that I have heard—will think, just as other new Members have, about democracy, his rights and the rights of the people of Rotherham to influence things and ensure that things happen as they want them to. The sad fact is that as they look ahead to elections, whether European or national, many of them will wonder what on earth is the point if the same things happen, no matter who they vote for.
6.35 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I cannot hope to compete with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in terms of touching every popular strand that is going. I made notes as he went through them—from pregnant women to local authorities, newspapers boys and electricians, and ended up with furry toys. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's points were important—he made them consistently.
At the end of my speech, I shall come back to the point on which the hon. Gentleman finished because a criticism that is often made of those in his party who come from his direction in this argument is that they do not set out what would be their alternative. Simply setting out the option of a referendum—I think that is what he was hinting at—or some sort of better level of consultation than he feels we have had is not enough. There was a referendum in 1975 which made the position clear. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have lived with the consequences of that. I therefore think that he must go a bit further and be clear on what he would do, given the consequences of a future referendum.
Like other hon. Members, I refer to the fact that this debate takes place in the long and dark shadow of the death of John Smith. Within the village that is Westminster on occasions such as this, the House will appreciate that Scottish Members feel something of a close-knit family right across the parties, whether we sit for Scottish constituencies or represent seats elsewhere, as the hon. Member for Southend, East, who once sat for a Scottish constituency, does.
In paying tribute to the late John Smith, and as I represent a highland constituency, I pay a particularly warm tribute to the affection and strong sense of Celtic being that he felt in being a west highlander. He was born in Dalmally and was then brought up and educated in the earlier part of his life in Ardrishaig. Indeed, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), in whose constituency both of those communities are located, is beside me.
As well as absent friends, I welcome, if not a parliamentary friend in the strict sense, none the less a first-time contributor to the proceedings of the House today—the new hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I very much endorse all the warm sentiments that have been expressed about the excellence, fluency and force of his speech. I congratulate him on it. Given the sudden death of the Leader of the Opposition, it has been noted that the debate this afternoon has proceeded in a slightly less partisan and slightly more measured context.

601
Noting the documents which have been issued to accompany the debate, I was amused to see the covering letter of 29 July from the Prime Minister on Downing street paper to Mr. Delors enclosing the Government's White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment in the European community, which was part of the discussions going towards the summit at the end of last year. In that letter, the Prime Minister, in a characteristically friendly and personal fashion, added a handwritten note to Mr. Delors saying:
'I hope your back is recovering—I do sympathise!'
I do not know whether the Prime Minister has been suffering from a bad back, but as that was written on 29 July, I think that it possibly refers to the knives that were sicking out of it—most of which came from his side of the House. Indeed, most of the hon. Members whose fingerprints were on those daggers I can see before me this afternoon.
The Minister of State, in opening the debate, spoke about competitiveness and unemployment. There must be no doubt in anybody's mind that, with 19 million people unemployed across the member states of the European Union, that must be the No. 1 political priority. The broad thrust of the Commission's White Paper that was tabled for the Brussels summit is welcome not least because it dwells on the need for a Europewide recovery plan to tackle the problem. Although we have our differences in the House about economic policy and the approach to take, we must never lose sight of the fact that we are inextricably bolted to a European Union-wide economic unit. It is on that level that much can be done to tackle the glaring social and economic problems generated by the appalling levels of unemployment across the Community. In particular, the Liberal Democrats would argue for the need to generate new public and private investments, not least in cross-border infrastructure projects.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to the channel tunnel and the rail links on either side of it. In a sad way, they are almost a physical embodiment of all that is wrong with Europe: they are moving at a faster speed on a better quality track on one side of the English channel but at a slower speed on a poorer quality track on our side. That is something of a metaphor for all that is wrong with too many aspects of Europe, not just the approach, but rail links on either side of the channel tunnel.
Mr. Giles Radice: It is not wrong with Europe.
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not wrong with Europe, but wrong with us. I would very much subscribe to the construction that he puts on it.
Secondly, looking back to the end of the second world war, or one aspect of it, as we will be in a week or two, surely the far-sightedness of that period in the Marshall plan, which was introduced to deal with the debris of much of the European continent, could and should be emulated now by the developed economies of western Europe—as it was known before the collapse of the Berlin wall—to help the countries of central and eastern Europe to upgrade and improve their economies and, we hope, reach the stage where they, too, can accede and become full members of a wider and deeper European Union. It would be in this
602
country's economic interests if that happened, as we would benefit from the increased trade and increased flow of goods, material and people.
Thirdly, we should increase investment in science and innovation generally. That means giving greater priority in this country as well as increasing the pressure at European level towards a greater emphasis on scientific development and education and skill training generally. Fourthly, we should try to establish common guidelines for training throughout the European Union, again helping the free passage of labour across the existing member states of the Union. Fifthly, on the economic side, we should look for ways to give further incentives to employers to recruit new employees. Perhaps some aspects of the benefit system could be transferred directly to employers to encourage them. All those things should be considered.
In the economic context, I shall make a couple of brief points from the vantage point of the highlands and islands of Scotland. The Government's document that accompanies the debate makes it clear that, along with Northern Ireland and Merseyside, the highlands and islands of Scotland have qualified for objective 1 status—and very welcome it is too.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Lucky you are, too.
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman, who represents a Welsh constituency, says, 'Lucky you are, too.' We appreciate that fact. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, would agree with me and the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise that the whole point of getting objective 1 status is to get out of objective 1 status; that objective 1 status in itself is a reflection of comparative or relative poverty within the existing European Union; that it is not something to open the champagne about; and that it is not a status that we want to hold on to. We want to use it as a springboard to ensure that we never have to go back to that status again.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will address the concerns of the highlands and islands—I do not know about other places where objective 1 status has a role to play—that the advent of objective 1 funding from Europe is being used by the Treasury, or in this case by its instrument, the Scottish Office, merely as a way of reducing the other expenditure that would otherwise be devoted by central Government. In other words, the all-important additionality principle is being diluted and undermined simply by reducing existing roads budgets or other forms of infrastructure budgets. They are being reduced and additionality, through objective 1 funding, is coming in to take its place. That is not supposed to be the way in which it works. It is supposed to be genuinely new money additional to the needs of the area, and additional to the provision that would otherwise be made.
Also looking at the economy of the Scottish highlands and islands, I particularly stress to the Minister the very real problems facing—he mentioned it in his speech—the protection of fisheries. I draw his attention to a distinct but discrete aspect of fisheries: the fish farming industry. After tourism, it has become the second single largest employer in many of the most fragile communities across the highlands and islands. It is been a great success story and one that we pay tribute too.
However, the activities of Norway in dumping excess salmon on the European Union markets has distorted the

603
price of salmon and has had a disastrous effect on our domestic industry in fish farming. As the European Union reference price for salmon is now taken as the benchmark for salmon prices, the industry should legitimately look for more effective action from the European Union if prices do not reach that benchmark. That, of course, depends on the willingness of the UK Government to press home the case for the industry.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Who will buy it?
Mr. Kennedy: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene.
The Government, however, should go further than that. They should also give their approval—I do not understand their reluctance—for the setting up of salmon producers' organisations in the UK and, for that matter, elsewhere in the European Union. To date, they have been notably lukewarm in their attitude towards that idea. They have displayed a distinct unwillingness to give statutory backing, which is needed for such producer organisations to be effective and if full use is to be made of the reference price mechanism. I hope that the Minister will address those very pressing regional concerns from that part of Scotland.
I wish now to look to the longer term development of the European Union and to what might happen, not least in the context of the 1996 intergovernmental conference and what will follow after that. Surely the European Union needs to become more democratic. I do not wish to ruin his day, but while I share some of the suspicions and anxieties of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that there is not enough democracy, and certainly not enough transparency, in the Union, he and I part ways when we wonder how best that can be addressed.
We would like to see more co-decision-making at a European level: in other words, decisions being moved away from the Council of Ministers, or the Council of the Union as it will become known, where sovereignty is pooled. We want more responsibility and authority to go to the European Parliament, for we believe that sovereignty is a more authentic representation of the peoples of Europe. We do not believe in ceding more power. It is not an argument about ceding more power to Brussels from Westminster. It is an argument about taking the power that Brussels already has and making it more transparent and accountable to its relevant democratic institutions.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: I thought that that might provoke a response from the Conservative Benches. I happily give way.
Mr. Heald: I recently read the Liberal party document entitled 'Making Europe Work' which states that this country would no longer have independent armed forces but would become part of a European integrated army. Majority voting would be used to govern it, and in a sense Mr. Delors would be in charge of the direction of important aspects of British defence and foreign policies. If that is not ceding power from this place to Europe, what is?
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next set of arguments. If one wants to talk about a more democratic Europe, one must flesh out what is meant in terms of its institutions. I was speaking about the existing
604
situation, the current powers of the European Union and the relative powers of the Council, the Parliament and the Commission.
Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: I should first like to respond to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I do not know whether he is the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend on this issue, so perhaps I should say his nominal hon. Friend.
Existing powers should be made more democratic in the way that I have outlined. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North is reading our document. I shall make sure he is on our mailing list for the future. The hon. Gentleman properly looks at the long term. We take the view that, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir. E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, said, as we develop more coherent and concise economic and social policies, greater co-operation in areas such as defence and foreign policy will surely follow.
I part company with Margaret Thatcher's assessment of Bosnia. It is not that Bosnia proves that Europe cannot work; it is proof positive that on defence and foreign policy issues Europe must work better and more successfully than it has done in the past. The only way to achieve that is to evolve institutions that can give practical effect to defence and foreign policy decisions. If we cannot influence matters within our own perimeter in terms of the former Yugoslavia, it is a poor day indeed. That is the longer term issue going beyond 1996. I shall deal with the veto in a moment.
Dr. Spink: I should like to question the hon. Gentleman on the veto. Will he confirm that it is Liberal Democrat and Labour policy to abandon the right of a veto in the Council of Ministers? Is not that abandoning British sovereignty?
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman was commendably pro-European a few minutes ago, but he has obviously tried to row back towards the shores of the Treasury Bench and regain some of the good will that he may have used up with the Whips on this issue. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. What the Conservatives are doing, and will do increasingly when the European campaign proper gets under way next week, is portraying those of us who want more co-decision-making and co-operation at European level as people who are surrendering every last vestige of British interest.
We have not committed ourselves to the wholesale introduction of majority voting in the Council. For example, we are not recommending that for issues affecting common foreign and security policy, interior and judicial affairs or for Community matters such as economic policy where the Council acts like Cabinet Government. The distinction that must be made is in the document from which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North quoted. The document says that our Council voting commitment is to European Union legislative and not executive matters. The document makes that clear early on.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said in a speech to the congress of European Liberal Democrats and reform parties in December? The right hon. Gentleman said:
'We want Ministers to make decisions without single nation vetoes.'
Mr. Kennedy: I think that the Minister was present when the Foreign Secretary raised that issue in our European debate on the day that my right hon. Friend was delivering that speech at the ELDR congress on the south coast. The Minister would have heard the exchanges in that debate, but if he did not I shall flesh out exactly what there was no time to explain fully on that occasion. The Minister takes the ELDR commitment to mean that in theory the UK can be outvoted in the law-making process, but I think that he would be the first to acknowledge that that could happen only when four subsequent conditions were met.
The first condition would be when the UK failed to build the 23-vote qualified blocking minority out of 74 in the Council. We have 10 of our own. The second condition would be when the elaborate built-in consultation procedure failed to produce a compromise and the third is when the Commission refuses to withdraw the legislative proposal. The fourth is that the European Parliament wields' an absolute majority of 284 votes against us, in which Parliament, of course, we will have 87 MEPs.
It would be a catastrophic failure of British diplomacy if with all those hurdles, following a proposal and an initial log jam or diplomatic difficulty, we could not find a compromise. As a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, made clear, the Foreign Office is in no position to lecture anyone on these matters, for the straightforward reason that it marched its troops to the top of the hill on the issue of qualified majority voting and had to turn them round. In an ignominious departure for British diplomacy, it had to march them swiftly down again precisely because the Foreign Office was not able to proceed in that way.
All those qualifications are to deal with a Government who would be instinctively hostile to sitting at the table in the first place and discussing the issue. They do not apply to Governments who would adopt a much more positive approach.
Obviously there must be more decentralisation in developing the European Union. I was fascinated by the speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He lambasted federalism without ever defining it. Subsidiarity now seems to be the name of the game and in the other member states it is seen as the flip side of federalism. Federalism is not a centralising, drawing in of power to Brussels but the decentralising of power down to the regions and nation states. The Government do not want to talk too much about that because they want subsidiarity to stop at the English channel and not be applied in the United Kingdom. That again distinguishes us from them.
We need a more diverse European Union that is wider but also deeper along the lines that I have outlined. If we are to take people with us, we will have to consider consulting them directly in the way mentioned by the hon. Member for Southend, East. As he knows, I voted for a referendum on Maastricht. I would do so again on the post-1996 intergovernmental conference—assuming that it reaches an agreement that represents a further major constitutional development for this country.
Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No, because I have taken too many interventions and spoken for longer than I intended and I now wish to conclude.
606
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup spoke about the need for more explanation and that was echoed and reinforced by other hon. Members. The best way to take people with us is for all of us who are, broadly speaking, on the pro-European side, and who form a cross-party majority of five out of six in the House, to get on the stump together outside when it becomes relevant and necessary and to argue the case along the lines that I have outlined. I believe that, as in the mid-1970s, we would receive a resounding and clear-cut yes from the good sense of the British electorate.
6.58 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I am pleased to be able to take part in this thoughtful debate. It is thoughtful because of the sad events of last week, but it is none the worse for that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his excellent maiden speech. It was not only unusual in that it was delivered within a week of his arrival but because it was delivered to a fairly full House. I am sure that he enjoyed speaking to such a full and distinguished Chamber.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke of referendums. It is worth remembering that in 1975, Mr. Harold Wilson thought that it would be a good ploy to hold a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain part of the then Common Market, to get himself off the hook with the left wing of his party. Some people thought that that referendum was about Britain's entry to the Common Market but it was really about whether Britain should remain in it.
As a lukewarm European at that time, I voted yes for two reasons. I thought that Britain's membership would be good, even essential for succeeding generations—for my children and grandchildren, if not for myself. My second and more insistent reason was the nature of the opposition to Britain remaining in the Community. That consisted of a bizarre coalition comprising Wilson's left wingers, most of the trade unions, a small but vociferous band—and they are still vociferous—of little Englanders in the Conservative party and the National Front. It seemed that anyone who espoused respectable and responsible politics—I was then chairman of Bexley constituency Conservative association—would vote yes, even if without great conviction or enthusiasm.
In a six-week campaign, the mainstream of each party urged a yes vote. The little Englanders suggested that if we escaped the clutches of the Community, food prices would magically fall and Britain would renew links with Commonwealth and EFTA countries as if nothing had happened in 1973. Even in 1975 that hypothesis was weak, and two thirds of people voted against the anti-European case.
If such a referendum had been held on the Maastricht treaty and its consequences, or were to be pledged and implemented on the outcome of the 1996 intergovernmental conference—the agenda for which will not be known for many months—I should have no difficulty voting again in a positive light. There can be no ambivalence as to the vital nature of our continuing membership of what has become the European Union. There can be no harking back to our historic economic links with the old Commonwealth. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all

607
want to weaken or finally to break their last notional ties with the United Kingdom, and large numbers of each country's population aspire to republic status.
Canada has formed new and logical relationships with the United States and Mexico through the North American Free Trade Agreement. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is inclined to pooh-pooh blocs in general. NAFTA will stand up. Australia and New Zealand recognise that their future lies in sharing the prosperity of the Asia-Pacific nations with Hong Kong, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan and China.
The suggestion that Britain might enjoy looser ties with Europe through an EFTA-type trading relationship has proven flawed by the enthusiasm of EFTA nations in their wish to join the European Union. Does anyone seriously believe that the remainder of the enlarged European Union nations—by then numbering 15—would allow the United Kingdom to retain and to enjoy the advantages of trading on the basis of the Single European Act while resigning its responsibilities for all other aspects of the Community? I think not.
I share the aspiration of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Britain playing a full part in the Union. One of the most important ways that the United Kingdom is already at the heart of Europe is in its status as an attractive location for the European headquarters of companies outside the European Union. The EU has a 344 million population and on the successful accession of the four aspirant nations, that figure will rise to more than 360 million. The Union is already the world's largest trading bloc, accounting for two fifths of world trade. It is no surprise that American, Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean companies want European bases that allow them to trade within the EU on the same terms as their European competitors.
It is no coincidence that 40 per cent. of American and Japanese investment in Europe has come to the United Kingdom. In my constituency there is a major Australian insurance company headquarters employing 800 people; American, German and Dutch companies; and three Japanese company European headquarters. The latter were attracted to Gillingham by exploiting our unique relationship with Japan based on the 'Shogun' story, because the English sailor who was the model for 'Shogun' was born and brought up in my constituency. We have been able to exploit that by twinning with two Japanese cities.
In Kent generally, there are 200 foreign-owned companies from many countries. They include such important employers as Pfizer in Sandwich—for which I have the honour to be an adviser—with 2,500 high-grade research and development production jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. It is worth noting also that the American pharmaceutical industry has overwhelmingly located its European headquarters in this country. I caution that if we weaken our ties with Europe, such companies would think hard about maintaining their production facilities here. There is an over-supply of pharmaceutical production within Europe. There will be rationalisation, which—with the access that we ought to have through the European Medicines Evaluation Agency—should come to the UK, but it may not if we weaken our ties.
Foreign-owned companies choose Britain for their European headquarters for various reasons. We speak English, which is undoubtedly the first-choice international
608
language, and the first-choice second language for children to learn throughout the world. English is the language of commerce and industry, science and the air. Above all, it is the language of the United States, and we must hope that it remains so.
Our corporate taxation and, yes, individual taxation are more attractive than those of our European partners. Foreign investors are warmly welcomed and receive equality of treatment with British-owned firms. Foreign investors discover that we have a skilled and flexible work force, with an industrial relations record in recent years much better than that of many of our European competitors.
Contrary to the remarks by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ms Quin), the fact that we have not signed up to the ruinous non-wage costs involved in the social chapter produces labour costs that are 40 per cent. lower than Germany; 20 per cent. lower than Italy, France and Japan; and 18 per cent. lower even than low-tax deregulated states. I do not notice my Taiwanese, Japanese and Hong Kong friends telling me that I must sign up to the social chapter.
Mr. Enright: I have heard those statistics before, and I am interested to know the formula by which the hon. Gentleman arrived at them. It is obviously complicated and he may not be able to explain it now, but if he will put the formula in writing to me, I shall be grateful.
Mr. Couchman: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's request and I shall try to oblige.
As the City of London is vital as a financial market and has worldwide links, it is no surprise that foreign-owned companies choose the UK for their European base, but the City alone would not hold them here if we weakened our ties with Europe—let alone attract new investment. Our status as an enthusiastic and aggressive participant within the EU will allow us to attract investment, remain the maker of 50 per cent. of television sets in Europe, become a net exporter again of motor cars and maintain our position as one of the three or four most important research-based pharmaceutical industries in the world.
Our position at the centre of the Union will allow us to remain a great manufacturing and trading nation, whereas sitting on the fringes contemplating our navel clearly would not. My reasons for voting yes in 1975 probably were not so daft. The Opposition had a total lack of credibility. Our membership of the European Union will benefit my children and grandchildren. I should be just as right 20 years on to support our wholehearted membership of the Union in any referendum that might follow the agreements that we hope to be reached at the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
7.18 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: Apart from the remarks by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) about the social chapter, I much agreed with his vigorous defence of the European Union. It was somewhat unusual these days, coming as it did from the Conservative Benches, but I welcomed it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his fine, vigorous and—dare I say?—bold speech. I would certainly not have dared to make such a maiden speech. He will not be surprised to learn that I much appreciate the strength of his European

609
convictions. That, indeed, is part of the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who was hoping for a change of fashion in the Labour party. I do not think that he will get it; indeed, I believe that very soon there may be more anti-Europeans in the Privy Council than in the parliamentary Labour party.
I want to devote some of my speech to paying tribute to John Smith, whose tragic death shocked us all, and to his position as a European—for he was indeed a European. I first met him in 1962, at a young Königswinter conference in Berlin a few months after the wall went up. I have a snapshot, taken then, of Smith as a 24-year-old, looking all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, very much the rising young politician. I remember that we were all extremely impressed by his remarkable self-confidence and maturity. For both of us, Berlin was an important moment: it not only confirmed the evils of totalitarianism, but convinced both of us of the value and strength of the great European project and the necessity for Britain to be part of that project.
John Smith had a fine record as a convinced European. In 1971, he was one of the 69 Labour Members who voted—against the party whip—for British entry. For him that was a very big step, for John Smith was nothing if not a party loyalist. I think that the strength of his European convictions was demonstrated by the fact that, as a very ambitious young politician, he was prepared to put his career on the line.
In the mid-1980s, with my right hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), John Smith played an important part in Labour's conversion to the main pro-European party in British politics. I might add that yesterday his support for British membership of the exchange rate mechanism, and for the principle of a single currency, was criticised—with his usual impeccable taste —by Lord Tebbit.
I know that John Smith had private doubts about the rate at which we went into the ERM. Certainly he did not discourage me when I said in the House, immediately after the decision, that we had entered at the wrong time, for the wrong reason and at the wrong rate; and when the crisis came in 1992, he put the case for devaluation within the ERM rather than leaving it. It could be argued that that was the wrong choice, given what happened to the ERM in 1993. I note, however—along with, I believe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore); certainly it was some anti-European who spoke earlier—that since the introduction of the new flexible bands, the ERM has worked extremely well. I think that John Smith was right to argue for stable exchange rates: they are what business men want, and what my constituents want.
As for the single currency, John Smith saw it as the likely and desirable long-time concomitant of a single market—although not necessarily the inevitable consequence—but did not believe that it would come about without a far greater convergence of the national economies. Certainly it could not come about in the middle of a recession. I think that his position was consistent. All Opposition Members had to congratulate him on his handling of the Maastricht proceedings in the House: he kept his party together and harried the Government, yet
610
—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney just complained—he never voted against an issue of principle, with the single exception of the social chapter. In that instance, the Government had opted out of the treaty. It was a very skilled performance by a very skilful politician and political leader.
The principles behind John Smith's stance on Europe can be characterised thus. First, he believed passionately that Britain's destiny lay on the European continent. Britain, he thought, was now a medium-sized post-imperial power, linked to the continent not only by geography, history and culture but by economics, politics and security. More positively, he saw that the common market—the European Community, now the European Union—had made war impossible in our half of the continent.
Some speak as though this were just a question of the age-old quarrel between France and Germany; but next year we shall celebrate the end of the war in which we were involved. Indeed, Britain was involved in two world wars, and Anglo-German antagonism was certainly an underlying factor in the outbreak of the first. I rejoice—both countries rejoice—in the fact that Britain and Germany are now partners in the European Union, and good allies too.
John Smith was also strongly in favour of the prosperity that the European market—the single market and the customs union—has brought to the continent. He thought that we could not afford to be left out of that. Hon. Members may talk of our balance of trade with the rest of the European Community, but the fact is that Germany is now our biggest single trading partner. We cannot be shut out of a market that contains our main partner: that is the reality that John Smith understood so well.
John Smith's second principle was that Britain had to be a positive member of the European Community, not a negative, carping member. He believed that the best way in which to secure British interests was to be positive rather than negative, whole-hearted rather than reluctant. His strategy—the strategy that I think Britain should adopt—was that we must win friends, build coalitions and gain concessions. We need not always opt out, oppose or try to block other countries from taking action, as we have done too often over the past 15 years.
Being positive means accepting, in many cases, that we must co-operate with our partners. A medium-sized European power like Britain cannot go it alone. Over foreign and security policy, we must get together with other countries. All right, Bosnia is a ghastly failure; but that makes the case for better co-operation, rather than the case for no co-operation at all.
In some instances, we must integrate more with our partners. We integrate in the context of trade, competition policy and, for obvious reasons, the environment: the environment is an issue that spills over national boundaries. We also integrate in regard to aspects of social and labour policy, although there is an argument between the two Front Benches, and the two main parties, about the extent to which we should do so. I believe that, eventually, we should also integrate in terms of monetary policy, but that is an argument between a number of us.
We agree that we should have a more democratic European Union, but how we can achieve it is a different matter. We hear from the Conservative party that it is terrified of a centralised federal state, but a federal state is not centralised: that is the whole point. We are talking about power being devolved downwards.
Mr. Shore: And upwards.
Mr. Radice: And outwards, yes.
I think that there should be more powers for the European Parliament, and more effective national scrutiny; but subsidiarity does not stop at national boundary level. As John Smith said so often, power needs to be devolved downwards to the regions. That is a strong case, and the subject of a strong argument between the two Front Benches and the two parties.
Finally, we need a bigger European Union—an enlarged European Union. There is an important question for hon. Members who are always criticising the European Union. It must be a pretty odd club if it is so terrible that everyone wants to join it—four new members are about to do so. I see the hon. Member shaking his head, but he has not yet addressed that argument. I hope that the EFTAns will join us.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At a crucial moment in his speech, the hon. Gentleman appeared to point in my direction—although he may have been pointing at someone else—and to suggest that, somehow or other, my hon. Friends and I oppose enlargement. I have checked and not one of my hon. Friends sitting next to or behind me indicated dissent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for me. I assume that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will put the matter right.
Mr. Radice: I was saying not that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) opposes enlargement but that he had not addressed the argument. He criticises the European Union all the time, but it is a club that everyone wants to join.
I hope that enlargement is ensured, although it was endangered by the absurd and appalling diplomatic fiasco caused by the Government's policy on the blocking minority. They almost derailed the enlargement process because the Prime Minister was concerned about Conservative Back Benchers. We must make it our top priority to have Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the European Union. I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham that that is important.
Enlarging the Community will involve a number of changes, which some people have not faced up to. It will mean more majority voting, because a new Community with more members will work only with more majority voting. Those who argue for enlargement have to face up to that, but they do not.
The Government were right to raise the issue of the weighting of voting, but they chose the wrong time to do it. Again, changes will have to be made to European budgets if those other countries enter the European Union.
In an entirely non-partisan way—in the spirit of this debate—I look forward to the European elections. Having listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), I am very confident that my party will fight the election as the main pro-European party in British politics, presenting a positive agenda agreed with its sister parties in Europe. That is a commendable innovation and I delight and rejoice in it. With respect to the Conservative party, I hope that it will also fight a
612
positive campaign without spending all its time looking over its shoulder at the so-called Euro-sceptics, many of whom are not sceptics but antis.
Mr. Cash: That is totally untrue.
Mr. Radice: That may be untrue of the hon. Gentleman, but a number of his hon. Friends have told me that, once the European elections are over, they will come out in their true colours as anti-Europeans, although I hope that that will not happen.
The case for the European Union needs to be made by both major parties, which, of course, will have differences of emphasis on how the Union will develop. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Stafford, who fought against me in 1979 in Chester-le-Street, advancing that argument. We cannot afford to be left out, left behind or to become even semi-detached. It is in Britain's interests that we are not only part of the European Union, but a positive part of it, not a reluctant part.
Being positive about the European Union is one of John Smith's legacies to my party. It is something that the Conservatives should heed as well.
7.23pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: In harmony with the spirit of concord that survives in this place following the sad death of John Smith, I say that I am in broad agreement with the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), just as he said that he was in broad agreement with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman); that is a good place from which to start.
I join those who paid tribute to the impressive maiden speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I hope that it will not offend the tradition of gentleness to the hon. Member who makes a maiden speech if I say that I know Rotherham fairly well—my wife's aunt taught Brian O'Malley at Mexborough grammar school—and that I did not recognise one or two of the hon. Gentleman's descriptions of the recent history of Rotherham. Perhaps we can compare notes over a drink on some other occasion.
This is an important juncture at which to consider the affairs of the European Union. We face the elections on 9 June and it is right that the parties, in the spirit of amity that prevails, should set out their stalls and offer to the British electorate their recipes for and concepts of the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was right: the important thing is a high turnout, although we hope that the high turnout will be on the right side. A significant debate is being held nationally. A high turnout is important not only for the election next month, but so that Britain's contribution to the intergovernmental conference in 1996 may be constructive and profound and may shape the development of the Union as we want it to.
Opinions differ on how we should shape that development. We resile from many elements of the socialist manifesto, which the Labour party has signed. The attitude of the Liberal Democrats has a centralising thrust and deserves to be set before the British people so that they can be clear about it and can make their judgments. Some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) deserve to be studied carefully and should be compared with those of the leader of his party and the contents of Liberal Democrats'

613
documents. Some interesting lessons may be drawn from that. I doubt whether some of those propositions will prove acceptable to the British electorate.
The Chamber and the nation should be debating those matters, not the two outdated propositions that have been around for two years, on which the debate has centred and which fail to understand what has happened in the world. The first proposition is that Britain should leave the European Community. The second, which is heard more often because there seems to be a reluctance among those who present it to support the first, is that we should form a revised free trade area. That proposition has been tackled by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House but, for many years, it has not been relevant. As long ago as 1975, Baroness Thatcher said:
"The Community gives us a chance to influence world affairs. Britain's instincts have never been isolationist and membership of the Community enables us to play a full part in the counsels of Europe and a continuing role in the affairs of the world."
That remains true today. As has been said, at a time when the former EFTA countries are clamouring to join the European Union, the idea of Britain moving back, seemingly alone, and re-creating a European free trade area does not bear a moment's examination. It is odd that that proposition should have been considered for more than a moment; in fact, it has received two years' worth of intense attention from the media. It is baffling to people outside this country that two such untenable propositions should have been taken quite so seriously for quite so long, especially by people in the media who take themselves so seriously.
We are accustomed to the fact that some parts of the tabloid press suffer from the little England syndrome, and no one bats an eyelid at that. Most countries have their own home-grown chauvinists, but it is depressing that so much of our serious press has given house room to such outdated—indeed, dead—propositions. They have, of course, come from the stables of two non-British—one is tempted to say "colonial" but that would not be politically correct—newspaper owners, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Black, who seem to have decided firmly that they do not want Britain to be at the heart of Europe and who use their press influence to that end, aided and abetted by people who I believe should know better, such as the editors of The Times and The Sunday Telegraph.
In a letter to the editor of The Times, whom I used to regard as a friend, I made so bold as to suggest that, since he took up his distinguished chair, he had expressed views that were
"negative, muddled and alarmingly out of touch with current European realities."
The letter was not published; I suffered censorship at the hands of the letters editor. When I protested, I was told that the letter was a personal attack on the editor of The Times —which, in view of the usual content of editorials in that and other newspapers, struck me as strange.
The approach that I have outlined may be baffling, but I believe that it explains why two wholly outdated concepts have been given such an airing. I desperately hope that they have come to the end of the road and that we can now seriously debate how Britain should collaborate with our European partners.
The Conservative concept of the European Union is of a grouping of nation states that co-operate and collaborate
614
when it suits their interests to do so. Despite what has happened in the past two years, the latest poll by The Economist reveals that, when asked about their attitude to membership of the European Union, the British electorate consider it "a good thing" by a majority of two to one. Interestingly, that is the same result as in 1975, when the electorate voted for continuing membership. If they still hold that view after being subject to a barrage of comment, I am confident that, as we move into what I hope is a more constructive and positive phase of our relationship with our European partners, their understanding of where Britain's national interests lie will deepen.
I ask my hon. Friends and those outside who appear desperately frightened of membership of the European Community to have courage and to believe in this country. Very few people on the continent of Europe fear that they will lose their German-ness or their Frenchness because of their membership of the European Community. Mr. Séguin and Mr. Delors have two very different concepts of how they want the European Union to develop but neither believes that the Frenchness of France will be threatened by France's membership of it and—my goodness—I have not the slightest doubt that our country will preserve the essence of Britishness of which we should all be proud. I therefore call on some of my hon. Friends and other doubters in the two camps that I have described to have more courage and more national self-confidence.
I also remind such people of Britain's role and the contribution that we still have to make, of our long democratic history and our deep sensitivity to and understanding of how the world works. I do not want to make too much of it but I still believe passionately that we have a contribution to make. As the Foreign Secretary is fond of saying, we still have the ability to "punch above our weight", not only in military and defence matters but in diplomacy and world politics. One of the ways in which we have a contribution to make is through our relationship with the United States. I shall not mention the special relationship but it is important none the less.
Ray Seitz, the recently retired American ambassador to Britain, is known to many hon. Members. No one would challenge his commitment to his country or his knowledge of Britain and the world. He said:
"if Britain's voice is less influential in Paris or Bonn, it is likely to be less influential in Washington. So while Britain's role in the Union is indisputably complicating to our relationship, it is also indispensable to the relationship. And this is perhaps truer today than in the past when economic issues have come to define security as much as defense issues."
That, too, is something that we should all ponder.
Let us not deny or challenge the fact that it is right for Britain to be at the heart of Europe. We can now debate legitimately what type of Europe we should fashion. I am sure that the Conservative vision of Europe is the one that will appeal to the British people and respond to their instincts.
7.36 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: John Smith's is a lively presence here tonight because it has informed much of what has been said. I mention in particular the fact that he was a sea of certainty here when I was beleaguered in Europe. We pro-Europeans in the European parliamentary Labour party felt that we were not wholly isolated at that time because of people such as John and my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) who spoke so well this evening.

615
The fact that John cannot pursue what he was doing is a great shame. I regret very much that he cannot finish the series of speeches on which he had embarked and his articles on the reform of international financial institutions and other international bodies, examining them in the context of the European Community. I hope that other members of the party will take up the torch.
Much of what I have to say has already been said supremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I shall recall the roots of the European Community. Let us not forget that a number of fortresses were set up after the 1939–45 war. There was the potential for a huge number of countries —not least this country—to become inward-looking because of severe economic problems. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) is beginning to look cynical.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman referred to my looking cynical. The reason is that I seem to have heard this speech endlessly, endlessly, endlessly. I thought that the purpose of this debate was to look forward and to see what was being proposed as the direction for Europe. We endlessly go back to turgid history; whether it is two years ago or 40 years ago, it is endless. When will people get on and discuss what will happen in future?
Mr. Enright: The hon. Member for Chingford must understand his roots. From his many pronouncements, it is clear that he does not, and that he does not know where he is going. He must know where he has come from to know where he is going. He is precisely the sort of person who says, "I would not have started from here." Unfortunately, he did start from there.
It is worth recalling that the continent was starving and that children had rickets at the end of the 1940s. It is worth recalling that we had meat rationing and that we were held to ransom by Argentina in terms of beef sales. It is important to remember that. Some flavour of that was given by the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who made a very fine maiden speech. I am sure that he will remind the hon. Member for Chingford about the roots and origins of the ethic that brought about Europe.
Neighbour states in Europe that had always been at war were intent on settling their differences. They were intent on doing that even though, most recently, they had grievously wronged each other. That is why they wanted an ever-closer union. That is why they said that they would not have starvation again on this continent and that they would not have war again on this continent. That is why the institutions were started.
It is true to say that we depend on people for what we do. It is also true to say that we depend on institutions to continue the actions of those people. As we know only too well this week, people pass away. It is the institutions that must continue the good that is in them.
The institution that started the European Community was the Coal and Steel Community. As has been said today by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East, in the middle of that is not just economics.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) regularly talks about economics; he likes the economics of the marketplace, but he does not like everything that goes with
616
that. He once said in the House that the Single European Act was okay because it was just about the marketplace —that it was not about all the other fripperies. However, if he went back in history and read closely the Coal and Steel Community treaty and the Euratom—European Atomic Energy Community—treaty, he would see that they were about the consumer, the worker and the individual who lives in Europe and is a citizen of Europe. It is from those roots that the present position has grown.
We must not forget the morality of Europe. If Europe is just an economic concept, it is not worth defending. It is more than that. It is an economic, social and spiritual concept; that is what we must decide to follow and cherish. We must decide whether to follow, as the hon. Member for Stafford does with commendable rapidity, whatever Alan Walters says—if the hon. Gentleman has not said it before. We must choose between the sort of Europe that Alan Walters wants and the sort of Europe that St. Francis of Assisi wanted. The hon. Gentleman must decide which side he is fighting on. He should consider St. Ignatius Loyola, who fought valiantly for the rights of working people.
When we discuss the social contract—I think that I can talk about this here without causing a fuss—we are talking about a just wage. The hon. Member for Stafford prefers to call it a minimum wage because he wriggles out of things like that. We are talking about a just wage. A just wage in the European Community is what the Church to which he and I belong has fought for. It has fought that battle for more than a century, going back to Rerum Novarum and Quadragesima Anno, and coming through to encyclicals of this century and the Low Week pastoral, which the conference of Catholic bishops issued. There is support for the social legislation in the European Community.
Mr. John Butterfill: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right to stress the ethical basis on which the Union was founded; that is important. However, is not it equally important today to resist protectionism, which beggars our neighbours and will diminish the ethical basis on which the Community was founded?
Mr. Enright: The hon. Member is absolutely right. What the European Union has been about, and what it was about as the Coal and Steel Community, was a balance between getting an organisation of Governments and free trade and a free economy. There are all sorts of arguments about how one defines free trade. We can get off the hook of free trade in a number of ways, as the hon. Gentleman knows well. However, we must ensure that that free trade —that free market—is properly regulated so that it behaves in a moral way.
It is not self-evident to me that all businesses behave in a moral fashion—far from it, in fact. We regularly read in the financial pages of the misbehaviour of individuals and of whole firms. Even British firms misbehave on occasions; we are not talking just about these continental chaps who come in from over there.
Trade unionists have told me that they were pleased to be taken over by BMW because they had looked at the agreements in Germany between BMW and its work force. They realised that those agreements were much better than anything that they had had in Britain until now. As has been said, we should remember that all the firms involved in the inward investment that has arrived have lived up to

617
the social chapter and beyond it. I challenge any hon. Member to tell me of a firm that has come to this country from outside which has not lived up to the social chapter in its entirety, including consultation with its work force.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) mentioned IBM. I was sorry that he used IBM as an example, because I believe that he got it wrong. One of the reasons why IBM went under was that it guaranteed a job for life. It said to its people throughout the world, 'We will not sack you. We will make sure, as long as you behave and as long as you try to do your best for us, that you have your job.' There was real security of tenure there. The company said, "We will make sure that we consult all the work force." Real consultation went on, not always through unions, but in a variety of ways. The result was that some of the small firms and some of the fly-by-night boys pinched part of IBM's market, and the company had to respond.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli was right to say that the company had to look again at what it was doing and at its policy of no sacking. That no-redundancy policy had to be reviewed. The company had to give up the policy and to say publicly, 'We are sorry.' After more than 70 years—I do not know how many years exactly—the company gave up that principle. However, it said, 'Even though we have given up the principle, in practice we shall try to continue it even though the firms that we oppose are playing fast and loose with their work forces.' With voluntary redundancies in this country, IBM has kept its promise and has started to build up again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli is right to say that we must review the workings of the European Community from time to time and that we have to ensure that it is ticking over properly. That is precisely what 1996 is about.
Now I shall come to the moment which the hon. Member for Stafford has been sitting on the edge of his seat waiting for—to say the sort of things that should be happening in future, with which, I am sure, he will agree on each occasion. First, the European Parliament must be given more power. There is no doubt about that.
The dreadful phrase "democratic deficit" is terrible, but it means that we are not doing, democratically, what we ought to be doing. What we certainly should be doing, for example, is giving powers of co-decision making to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. We have our input into the latter—except that we do not. I am bound to say that, when I was in the European Parliament, I had more control over the Council of Ministers and the Commission than we have in this place. It is quite extraordinary.
We can ask Ministers questions and they can give answers, but we do not know whether their answers are true and we do not know whether what they say in the Council of Ministers is consonant with what they say here. They tell us sometimes that that is so, but they will not open up to us about the debate that goes on, which is extremely important.
That is a reform for which I shall certainly push in 1996, as, indeed, will the European Movement, that dreaded creature of whose board I am proud to be a member. It will
618
be pushing very hard for transparency, to reveal who votes for what and how the argument goes on important legislation.
The European Movement will be pushing for—I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford will also want it —a constitution for the European Union. On top of that —I am absolutely certain that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on this point—once we get that constitution, we should go round all the member countries and have a referendum on it. I agree entirely with having a referendum at that point. That is the appropriate point at which to have one.
It is also true that we should have a reduction in the number of members of the Commission with enlargement of the EU, which, please God, will come soon and be confirmed by the peoples of the countries that are applying. With enlargement, the Commission will become too cumbersome and we must work out a new method of appointing Commissioners, to be approved of by the European Parliament, with the Commissioners being appointed, as are candidates from the House, with the approval, perhaps, of the House of Commons. That has never happened before and it is about time that it did. It seems very important that the House should be caught up in that process.
We desperately need before 1996 a reform in the House of the way in which we scrutinise European legislation. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) is not in his place, but I would have made the following points had he been here. It seems that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has been totally the wrong place to examine European policy, and European wrong-doing in some cases. The job would have been done far better by the Select Committee on European Legislation.
Standing Committees A and B on European matters should be given different powers in different forms. We need to consider all those points and ensure that we put our own house in order, instead of sitting upstairs in Committees for a few moments, and then having the Whips on both sides getting together and deciding that an item will be referred to Standing Committee B when we have recommended that it goes somewhere else, or vice versa, or even that it be considered on the Floor of the House. All those reforms should be made.
Of course, as I have already said, we should sign up to the social chapter. We should also certainly sign up to monetary union. I am not in two minds about that. The Benelux countries, Germany and France are going to take the route of a single currency and we have, at the very least, to decide our response to that.
I was greatly encouraged by West Germany when it took on the ostmark. It did it at a blow and it did it at parity. It was a most remarkably courageous act, by a Conservative Chancellor, admittedly. It was rash, but it has come off. It caused real suffering in East and West Germany for a time, but we have now seen the fruits of that daring and constructive move.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know as well as anybody else that I represent an area which has been ravaged by unemployment and has seen its principal industries wiped out at a blow, not by anything done by the European Union, but by the short-term actions of the Government. I should like to take the coal industry as an example of what we should not be doing in relation to Europe and of the positive harm that it does us if we do not take into account the European dimension.

619
Energy should be at the forefront of our debate in Europe. It is important not only for now or for next year, but for way into the next century. When the Government were allowing the coal industry to go into decline and, in some cases positively destroying it, people in the Commission were asking why we did not put the coal industry into a European energy policy and why we did not ensure that we had the necessary indigenous supplies, which would not leave us to be ransomed by others outside the Community. We did not heed those voices. The result is that many people in my constituency are unemployed and we do not have the security of energy supplies going into the next century. It is those areas of policy that we should start to debate to see how we can put right, in a European framework, what we have hitherto got wrong.
I am optimistic. I hope that people will vote in massive numbers in the European elections, but I shall not say which way I want them to vote, because the debate is bipartisan today.
7.56 pm
Mr. William Cash: I am certainly not bipartisan and I sincerely hope that people will vote Conservative in the election.
I enjoyed enormously the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), although I think that he may—I hope—in due course, come to refer to those of us who espouse the Euro-realist cause as Euro-realists and not Euro-septics. It was a good speech and I felt very much at home during it because I lived for 25 years very near where the hon. Gentleman comes from, and the experiences of seeing the steel mills of Sheffield being destroyed and the coal industry around that area disintegrating had a powerful impact on bringing me into politics. I took a different route from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he appreciates that we may arrive at different conclusions from similar motives.
With respect to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who spoke about the coal industry, the massive £6 billion subsidy paid to the German coal industry has had a significant knock-on effect, I dare say, in his constituency.
With respect also to the hon. Member for Rotherham, the £25 million fine imposed on British Steel was substantially the result of an increase in the volume of steel available in the Community, as a result of the over-subsidisation in Italy, Spain and other countries. Therefore, from that point of view, I am looking for a constructive and new landscape for Europe.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in an intervention, what we are seeking to do as Euro-realists is bring back into the Community a sense of purpose, which is relevant to the third millennium and not to retread the old, obsolete policies; they were well intentioned, but they were based on the 1950s and 1960s. Certainly, since the wall has come down, those policies have become increasingly irrelevant, not only in terms of the new development in the Pacific rim and the far east, but in respect of eastern and central Europe, because the ball game has changed, as Bosnia and the tragedy that we have witnessed there testifies.
We are looking for a constructive and purposeful European Community. It is with deep regret that I have to say that the Maastricht treaty is part of the background to
620
the debate. The treaty reflects implicity the developments that took place before it was completed and signed, which are within the framework of the White Paper.
There was a great Foreign Secretary in the 19th century —Palmerston—who put British foreign policy in a fine context when he said that it was a narrow policy to suppose that this or that country was to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England:
"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal … and those interests it is our duty to follow."
It is regrettable that the context in which developments have taken place since the 1950s, which have changed the world so much, have taken us to a point where we are locked into a legal framework, which means that we are not able to choose the alliances that we need to establish from time to time to be certain of the degree of stability that is needed for the next millennium.
The failure of the Western European Union, the European Union and the rest in respect of Bosnia is a testament to the overall failure that I have described. The fifth title of the Maastricht treaty, riddled as it is with confusion, will create the foundation for more trouble as we move forward over the next five to 10 years.
The concept of the single currency is already obsolete. It is still being peddled by the CBI, however, as we read in the newspapers today. It is a concept which will destroy the very morality to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth referred, which is based on the freedom of people to vote —the freedom of democracy in their national parliaments and in their nation states. We should be fighting for the sustenance of that morality and the democracy that goes with it.
Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cash: I shall not give way, because I know that others wish to speak. I promised that I would not speak for long.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) says continually that he believes that if those of us who are Euro-realists were, as he puts it, to be honest—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who is interrupting, has said much the same, but has had to withdraw. My right hon. Friend says that, effectively, the Euro-realists want to leave the European Community. That is entirely untrue. Such a policy would not lead to the stability that we need.
We need to be in both Europe and the world at large. That is the key point. The idea of a single currency, which has been vaunted and advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and by the CBI and other organisations, has today been repudiated by the Institute of Directors. From now on, my right hon. Friend will be unable to state that it is the will and the wish of the business men of England, or of the United Kingdom, to have a single currency. It is made clear in the document that I hold before the House that that is no longer the position of the Institute of Directors. Indeed, I do not believe that it ever was.
Against the background of the tragic circumstances of the death of the Leader of the Opposition, the debate has been conducted in more measured terms than I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have expected. We are looking to a new landscape for a new Europe. I am talking not about the brave new Europe that is being devised by the Commission and the adherents of the

621
Maastricht treaty but about a new Europe that will involve the renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty, the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome. We must not be negative about the good things that are contained in those documents, but we must make them relevant to the requirements of the new century, to which we should be looking now.
It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that there is so much untruthfulness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup indicated, that the treaties have passed through the House by stealth. People have not been informed of what they really involve. They have not been told the truth about where they are going.
I should like to see fair and open trading with the European Community that is based on democracy, with the people of this country being given the information that they need so that they can form a judgment. It is because they have not been given that information that I believe that we must have, and will have, a referendum.
8.5 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his excellent maiden speech. The confidence and fluency that he displayed was a credit to any new Member. He has certainly launched himself well in his political career in the parliamentary Labour party.
This weekend, ex-service men recalled the battle of Monte Cassino in Italy. I had occasion—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was with me at the time, when we were both Members of the European Parliament—to visit the British Commonwealth cemetery at Monte Cassino. I am not known as a person with great emotions but I was moved on that occasion to see the acres of headstones.
It was especially moving for me, coming as I do from Northern Ireland, because as I entered the cemetery I saw that all the headstones in the immediate area were for soldiers in regiments from Northern Ireland. At the entrance are the headstones of members of families that are well known throughout County Fermanagh, such as the Wests, the Cathcarts, the Wilsons and the Farrells, who were all members of the Royal Inniskilling Regiment. It was even more tragic when I read that those who died were 17½ years of age, 18, 19 and so on. They lay there with their colleagues from Scotland, Wales, England and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland. That brought home to me the fact that we are part of Europe in peace and in war.
We in Northern Ireland feel that we are Europeans. The first people who came to live on the island of Ireland were the Picts from Scotland. Sometime later, the Celts arrived. These were the Irish from France. They came in larger numbers, and that has been a problem ever since in the island of Ireland. It was the Ulster people who were there first, but we all came in one way or another from Europe. We feel historically, culturally, religiously and economically part of Europe. We are Europeans. We are certainly not Asians, Americans or Africans.
Being European does not mean, however, that we must automatically accept a united states of Europe. Similarly, it does not mean that we must automatically accept a single
622
currency. It does not mean either that we must accept the transfer of national sovereignty to unelected bodies in Brussels. As we prepare for the 1996 intergovernmental conference, we must be aware of where some people throughout Europe are trying to lead us.
We in the Ulster Unionist party welcome the enlargement of the European Union with the coming of the four new countries—the three Scandinavian countries and Austria. We welcome the Scandinavians because of their close identity with social democracy, their fair interpretation of international agreements and their implementation of those agreements. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hemsworth would agree that their Protestant work ethic will be helpful in establishing a balance in the European Union between the south and north of Europe.
We look forward to future enlargement of the Union —the Minister referred to the possibility of Malta and Cyprus becoming members. The membership of Cyprus intrigues me because it is an island that is now made up of two states and two Governments. There is no free movement of people, trade or services within it. It is therefore difficult to understand how it could become part of the European Union until its internal problems are overcome.
If the Minister watched the recent Eurovision song contest he will know that the only country that gave Cyprus the maximum 12 points was Greece and that the only country that gave Greece the maximum 12 points was Greek Cyprus. If Cyprus became a member of the Union we could end up with two Greeks on the Council of Ministers rather than one. Terry Wogan himself pointed that out during the television coverage of the Eurovision song contest.
In the next few years, the issue of a single currency will be further debated, as it must, in the House. We already have a single currency in Luxembourg and Belgium and its use may be extended to cover the Netherlands, France and Germany. They could go it alone. If we have a single currency for all Europe, the ecu, it will still have to have an exchange rate against other external currencies such as the Japanese yen and the American dollar. The value of the ecu in the international exchange markets will have to be supported by the central authorities in Europe.
That means that those authorities will have to introduce greater uniformity in the taxation systems throughout the 12, soon to be 16, members of the European Union. Those authorities will also have to exercise some control over public expenditure within those 16 nations, in the same way as the United Kingdom Government controls the public expenditure of local government. Brussels will also have to impose some restrictions on the public sector borrowing requirement of the 16 member nations. All that suggests that, by necessity, government will have to be transferred from London to those central authorities in Brussels.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth said that he did not like the phrase 'democratic deficit', but I believe that it speaks for itself. There is a lack of democracy within the European Community's institutions; I am thinking not just of the Commission but of the European Parliament, of which we were both Members. People speak about giving greater powers to that Parliament, but we must first ensure that it is a democratic institution.
Oh yes, people may vote, but they do not do so in a uniform electoral system. A system of one man, one vote may operate, but one vote is more equal than another,

623
because the member countries are not fairly represented within that Parliament. It is weighted in favour of the smaller countries and against larger ones, such as the United Kingdom and Germany. Countries of that size do not have a fair say in that Parliament, because it is not democratically elected on the basis of one man, one vote of equal value.
The Minister may be unable to reply to the comments that I wish to make about Northern Ireland, but I want to place them on the record. In the early 1970s, when we were negotiating membership of the European Community, the then Northern Ireland Government at Stormont were involved in discussions with the Home Office and the Foreign Office in London to ensure that certain matters relating to Northern Ireland were taken into account before the Act of accession.
One of the things on which an understanding was reached was that a civil servant from the Northern Ireland civil service would be a member of the United Kingdom representation in Brussels—the UKREP. For many years, there was a civil servant from England, one from Wales, one from Scotland and, until recently, one from Northern Ireland at the UKREP. That helped to ensure that matters particular to Northern Ireland were not overlooked when the United Kingdom negotiated certain matters in its relationship with the EC.
A Northern Ireland civil servant no longer serves on the UKREP and recently we have observed that, when decisions have been made in negotiation between the United Kingdom and the Commission, the special problems of Northern Ireland have been overlooked. I shall give three examples, the first of which relates to the beef processing industry.
The EC Commission has now introduced a scheme called the de-seasonalisation scheme. It has created a situation within the island of Ireland whereby the dead meat plants in the Republic of Ireland are able to give £56 more per animal than the dead meat plants in Northern Ireland. As a result, there is now a massive flow of beef cattle, store cattle and even calves from Northern Ireland to the Republic. Cattle from Great Britain are also moved through Northern Ireland down to the Republic to be killed in the southern Irish dead meat plants.
Apart from the incentive of £56 per animal, a further attraction of the Republic of Ireland is that it sells beef to certain countries in north Africa, such as Libya, and in the middle east, with which the United Kingdom does not trade. The scheme is causing serious problems for the dead meat plants of Northern Ireland, the throughput of which has declined month by month. The employment of many workers in our dead meat plants is now under serious threat because the implementation of de-seasonalisation scheme in the Republic is proving disadvantageous to the beef industry of Northern Ireland.
My second example also relates to agriculture. I will not go into great detail on the EC cereal compensation regime except to say that, once again, it works against the interests of Northern Ireland. They may well have been overlooked when the scheme was negotiated by the Government. The cereal aid in 1994 will be as follows: in England, £191 per hectare, in Scotland, £182 per hectare, in Wales, £167 per hectare and in Northern Ireland, £152 per hectare. I know that people in Wales share our great dissatisfaction with the present scheme. We recommend that England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated as one region. That
624
would mean that everyone would benefit from the European cereal aids compensation scheme in the same way, and we would all get £190 per hectare.
My final example of the way in which Northern Ireland has been treated disadvantageously because our problems have been overlooked within the EC relates to education. The EC has understandably agreed to a system whereby those in university education receive the same grant in the country in which they are studying as that which that country gives its own undergraduates. That seems reasonable. If a few thousand students from France go to Germany, they receive the German university grant, and if a few thousand Germans go to France, they receive the French university grant.
That system is okay where countries pay grants to their university students, and everyone agreed to it in the Council of Ministers, but what happens if one country does not pay grants to its university students? Such a country is the Republic of Ireland. All the students in the Republic of Ireland quickly caught on to that wonderful system. If one goes to the United Kingdom, one immediately qualifies for university grants from the United Kingdom Government and the education authorities. Now, people are even qualifying for the student loans scheme. That is okay for Great Britain—not many Republic of Ireland students will go there—but it is creating a serious problem for Northern Ireland, especially for the poorer section of our community, which is often the Catholic section.
I shall tell you how it works, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have only two universities in Northern Ireland and several colleges of further education. In the two universities alone, there are more than 3,000 students from the Republic of Ireland, and the number increases by the year. They all receive that grant from the Government, and every student at university in Northern Ireland costs Her Majesty's Government £5,500 per annum. That scheme therefore costs the United Kingdom Government about £15 million per year—British taxpayers' money being used to educate southern Irish students. However, if British students, especially in Northern Ireland, go to the Republic, they do not receive a grant because there is no grants system in the Republic. It is a one-way traffic.
Why do I say that it is hurting the Catholic community? My argument is supported by facts. Traditionally, Protestant undergraduates looked towards Great Britain because they felt British. Traditionally, most Catholic students stayed in Northern Ireland or went to the Republic. Now, as a result of the competition from the southern Irish students pouring in, taking advantage of the European Community scheme and obtaining grants from the United Kingdom Government, they cannot obtain places in Northern Ireland to the same extent as previously. The result is that, although in 1971 only 3 per cent. of Catholic students left Northern Ireland to go to England, Scotland and Wales, by 1991, the percentage had increased to 30 per cent. Catholic students are having to leave Northern Ireland because they cannot obtain places in the Northern Ireland universities.
I conclude with another short argument. We speak about a single currency. I have given three examples of ways in which the European Community, by ignoring the special problems of Northern Ireland, is creating an imbalance or unfair competition or distorting the market. Given the single currency that already exists in Belgium and Luxembourg, is it not time for Her Majesty's Government once again to consider, in consultation with the

625
Government of the Republic of Ireland, having a single market—a single currency—and the fair implementation of common policies such as the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy in the British Isles as a unit?
There was a time when we had a single currency in the British Isles. As we progress in Europe, step by step, we should, in the context of the British Isles, begin to think in terms of all the islands being one country again—in the Community, naturally. They would be sovereign states none the less—I am not suggesting the abolition of the Republic of Ireland. If we had a common currency, greater uniformity of tax systems in the British Isles and fairer administration of the common European Community policies, the disparities and the unfair competition across the border within the island of Ireland to which I have referred would be overcome overnight.
8.23 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I should like to add my own congratulations to the many congratulations that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has received on his maiden speech, and to give him my best wishes—at least, personally—for his continuing career in the House.
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who speaks with the greatest lucidity and mastery of his brief whenever he speaks on behalf of his constituency and his Province, as was the case tonight. He persuaded me, at least at first sight or at first hearing—this was my first knowledge of the existence of the problem—that there might well be a case for having a permanent representative of the Northern Ireland Office in UKREP, and I shall listen with interest to the reply that he will no doubt receive later to that question.
I did not agree with the right hon. Member for Strangford in the rest of his analysis. I found it slightly surprising that the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should suggest that the establishment of a single currency in the European Union would subvert the political independence of the individual members of that Union. As the right hon. Gentleman said, a good example of a single currency area is the one that existed, for the 50 or 60 years following 1922, between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. We in the United Kingdom were certainly not governed from Dublin during that period and I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman seriously would suggest that the Republic was governed from London during it. He adduced an interesting example which, I am afraid, runs counter to the conclusions that he wished to draw from it.
I should like to mention two arguments which have been central to the debate and which have formed a major part of the discussion in the country; then I shall refer to two issues which, remarkably, have not featured in this debate or in other recent debates on the European Union and which have also been strikingly and, I think, unfortunately, absent from the general public discussion of European matters.
A great deal has been said about the single currency. My reaction is that more has been said on the subject than it is worth while to say at the present juncture, given that, during the intergovernmental negotiations that led up to the
626
treaty of Maastricht, the Prime Minister negotiated an option for this country—the option to join a single currency if we wished and if our economy met the convergence criteria, which is an objective that we are pursuing for its own sake anyway. Unlike the other members of the Union, we have no obligation to join that currency automatically after the turn of the century, even if our economy meets the convergence criteria.
In politics, as in other areas of human life, a free option is a valuable instrument and no one in his right mind should throw it away by determining in advance whether or not he will exercise it. Many people—some, I fear, in the House and some, I fear, in the media—have reasons for not wishing to draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister scored a remarkable diplomatic success, extraordinary by historical standards, in enabling us alone of the members of the Union to enjoy that option.
As we have that valuable asset, which has been handed to us by the Government and by the efforts of the Prime Minister, why throw it away? Discussion of the subject should properly wait until the time when we have to decide whether to exercise the option. Obviously, we shall do so in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time; and in any case we shall need to consider the matter only if a single currency has emerged on the continent.
A second theme that ran through the debate was perhaps the most striking one of all because it was mentioned not only on both sides of the House but on both sides of the European controversy—if I may call it that—within the two major parties and by the Liberal Democrats. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and in remarkably similar terms by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and by many other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is the fact that the European Union, as it exists, is insufficiently democratic and unsufficiently accountable and therefore is insufficiently understood. Given the great importance of decisions taken in that context, the public do not follow them thoroughly enough. That is unsatisfactory.
I hope that all hon. Members can agree on these matters, and also that we can agree with our European partners, because the fundamental impetus behind the establishment of the European Economic Community, as it then was, was the desire to create a vehicle to nurture and defend democracy. Democracy is the great principle that has emerged from centuries of European political traditions, which we all share; yet we have created institutions within the European Union which, in many ways, remain a travesty of democracy.
Until the Maastricht treaty, exclusive rights of initiative were in the hands of the unelected Commission. That was an affront to every principle of democratic legitimacy and electoral accountability and represented the essentially technocratic nature of the original European institutions when they were created back in the 1950s. I am glad to say that the Maastricht treaty made some inroads into the monopoly of initiative held by the Commission; and at the Edinburgh summit, which followed the signing of the Maastricht treaty, we made considerable progress—at the behest and initiative of the British Government, let it not be forgotten—in opening up the Council of Ministers. For example, we can now see the voting record on legislative

627
decisions taken in the Council of Ministers, which is extremely welcome. Nevertheless, a large part of the Council of Ministers' activities takes place behind closed doors. It is like being back in the 18th-century world with Ministers meeting in cabal behind the green-baize door, then coming out and telling the people what has been decided on their behalf.
Unless those doors are opened, we shall never have the democratic accountability in the Community or the public participation in the detail of debates to which all hon. Members, to judge by this debate, clearly aspire. We need to know not only who voted how on the relatively unusual occasions when votes are taken, but what arguments were adduced, by whom they were put forward, and what alliances were forged. Ministers who take decisions in the Council of Ministers on behalf of the peoples of Europe owe that elementary duty of accountability and transparency to their electorates, and I hope that we shall achieve a measure of those values in any constitutional changes in 1996.
We still suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability, despite the improvements to which I have already paid tribute, which make it impossible for the public to exercise their function as a democratic electorate. I must emphasise that it is equally impossible for national Parliaments to fulfil the function, which all of us would like to fulfil, of holding our Ministers accountable for what they do in Brussels. Unless we know the detail of what they are doing, the arguments that they are putting forward and what has taken place on our behalf, the whole structure of scrutiny of Brussels in this place and the rhetoric about democratic legitimacy and national parliamentary sovereignty will remain hollow.
I said that I wished to touch on two subjects that had not been mentioned in this debate and which had been unduly neglected in the public discussion: they have in common the fact that they involve a profound British interest in ensuring that the European Community moves forward in a positive direction. First, we need to complete the single market. It is a major national priority and should be a major political priority.
Someone is bound to say, 'We have already completed the single market. We got the 300 directives through by 1 January 1993, so what is he talking about?' But the single market has not penetrated three extremely important areas —areas where we may as well not have had those 300 directives. What is particularly galling and should attract the attention of the House is the fact that, in those three areas, British industry has the greatest contribution to make and stands to gain most from opening up a single market. The three areas are energy, telecommunications and airlines.
Everyone who has read the papers in the past few days knows about the airline problem. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who, after tremendously hard work, subtle diplomacy and sheer persistence—persistence was vital in making progress—has made a significant breakthrough. But we need to go further and open up the airline market in the European Union. We need a genuine single market there.
Individual Governments should not be able to subsidise lame-duck airlines, as far too many of our European partners have done and as the French propose to do to the tune of 20 billion francs in the case of Air France. That is a distortion of resources and competition; it is a weakening and a distortion—indeed, it is a travesty—of the single
628
market; and it is not even in the interests of French taxpayers, because that money will be drawn from taxation from other more productive sectors of the French economy and disbursed on the loss-making bureaucracy that calls itself Air France.
Had the French had the courageous deregulation policies that the British Government have had the guts to put through in the past few years, there is no reason why Air France could not have been the shining success story that British Airways has been. Inherently, in terms of its route structure, Air France began with all the same advantages, possibly even more.
Privatisation and deregulation have created in this country not only an extremely successful British Gas, which is now a major player in the world energy markets, but independent gas companies. So far, we have deregulated the gas market. Above an annual consumption of 2,500 therms, customers can contract with any gas supplier they wish. We are now moving towards complete deregulation. On the continent, however, nothing has happened.
When will British Gas or the independent gas companies be able to contract with customers elsewhere in the single market? What does a single market mean if they cannot do that? When will we stand up to those monopolies, which are often state-owned, such as Gaz de France, Ruhrgas and Gasunie, which consistently and resolutely decline to open up their distribution networks to competitive suppliers on an arm's-length basis? The interests of important British industries are at stake and we should take the single market to its logical conclusion.
The same applies to telecommunications, where we have not only the successful BT and Mercury that emerged from privatisation, but the world's most successful and competitive cable industry—more successful and competitive even than similar industries in Japan or the United States. Those companies, too, should be allowed to ply their trade on the continent and, if they have the makings of a sector of industry that can become a power throughout the European Union and the single market, they should have every opportunity to achieve that. I hope that the Government will continue to pursue those objectives. I am grateful for the progress that they have made but they must continue to pursue the objectives with the greatest possible vigour and forcefulness. They can be confident that they will have everybody—at least, all Conservative Members —thoroughly behind them when they do so.
Extraordinarily, defence has been a great lacuna in our debates. It is in defence perhaps more than in any other area that it is vital that we make progress with implementing the Maastricht treaty, particularly with regard to the development of effective common defence policies.
There are two central impulses for that: one is the increasingly insistent American pressure for the European allies, as they call them, to develop a viable pillar to the Atlantic alliance. That pressure is being diplomatically and often subtly delivered, but it is unmistakeable. The Americans have made it explicitly clear that they envisage that situations will arise in future close to Europe in which they will expect the European allies to take either the great bulk of or all the responsibility for physical and military intervention—if that is decided upon—while they give full diplomatic and political support. Frankly, that is the world in which we shall be living in the 21st century.
The other impetus that lies behind the need to put some content into the provisions of the Maastricht treaty is that

629
we live in what is clearly—it has become almost a clich' to say it—an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world. We are all concerned about the instability of eastern Europe and the Balkans. We all realise that we must take seriously the prospect of Russian revanchism under Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Rutskoi or whoever. That might lead to attempts to take back the Crimea, to a war with the Ukraine or to attempts to subvert the Baltic republics, which we never recognised as being part of the Soviet Union, even when they were occupied by it.
We all share the concern about the instability in the Maghreb, and about the destabilisation of Algeria and, potentially, of Egypt. Those countries are pretty close to home. Most of all, the House should be profoundly concerned at the prospective breakdown of nonproliferation after 20 years. It is all too likely that, at the turn of the century, there will be six, seven or perhaps eight new countries around the world with nuclear weapons. Libya, Syria, possibly Iraq—despite our best efforts—Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea. Some of those countries—particularly those in the middle east and the Maghreb—are uncomfortably close to us.
Against that background, it is becoming increasingly difficult on economic grounds for us to maintain a full-range independent defence capability. It is becoming increasingly difficult for us even to maintain the reduced defence establishment which resulted from the original 'Options For Change' cuts. There is continual pressure from the Treasury for further effective cuts.
During the past year, it has been announced that several weapons programmes have been abandoned, including the tactical air-to-surface missile for the RAF and the MSAM system. We are told that there is a whole range of very desirable capabilities, such as attack helicopters, which we simply cannot afford.
We shall have to take difficult decisions as we go into the new century, as will the French, about the future of our nuclear deterrence. Are we to abandon it in a world in which there is not only increasing instability but an increasingly wide availability of nuclear weapons? Are we to renew them and to maintain their operability? Will we go for a fourth generation nuclear deterrent?
Frankly, it seems extremely unlikely that the taxpayers of Britain alone, or of France alone, will be prepared to carry those burdens. There is already legitimate concern about our conventional defence capability. People are saying that perhaps we no longer have the means available to us to launch another Falklands campaign or to take part in another Gulf war. I hope that that is not the case, and the Government have given reassurances on that point.
Whether or not that is the case now, it is clear that it will be difficult for us alone to provide the kind of defence capability which all of us—at least those on this side of the House—set store by maintaining. Therefore, economic logic as well as geopolitical logic leads towards the only possible alternative—increasing defence co-operation and integration with our partners in the European Union.
As a first step, I hope that we can go further than the individual procurement co-operation that has yielded such excellent results as Jaguar, Tornado and now the European fighter aircraft. I hope that the Government will take up the possibility of extending to defence procurement the public procurement directive. That seems once again to be in the
630
interests of the whole Union, but particularly in the interests of this country. The Union would gain lower procurement costs as a result of the competition which would flow from that and, since we have probably the strongest defence industry in the European Union—the French, I know, have a strong one, but ours has been rather more succesful recently—we have a disproportionate amount to gain industrially.
Beyond that, we cannot put off for very long the need to contemplate a very real degree of defence specialisation and therefore to look at the co-ordination of policies which will be required if we go down that route. This is all about what it has been all about all along: it is about creating a framework in which we can preserve democracy, prosperity, freedom and hope for the future of our civilisation in this part of the globe, not only in the next few months or years but well into the next century and beyond.
8.46 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I was not fortunate enough to be in the Chamber on Thursday, and I am glad of the opportunity to express my great sadness at the loss of John Smith and to express to his Labour colleagues and to his family every condolence. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his excellent maiden speech, which now seems several hours ago?
I would like to go straight into the main theme of this debate. I have always been a believer in a united Europe; not for economic reasons, but for political reasons. Twice this century, this continent has torn itself apart, and people who say that that could never happen again need only look and see what is happening in Yugoslavia after structures disappeared.
I want to see a united Europe, and a Europe of the people which recognises the rich variety of cultures and languages within the continent. I want to see a Europe which has a stronger social dimension. It is a scandal that 25 per cent. of the poor people of Europe live here in the United Kingdom. We want to see a Europe united in its diversity. The last thing we want is a centralised and monolithic European Union, and we need to strengthen mechanisms to protect decentralisation.
That takes me on to the question of subsidiarity, and the papers which we have before us. Subsidiarity came into force on 1 November, and it is something that we welcome. But the Maastricht treaty talked about taking decisions as close as possible to the people they affect. Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that subsidiarity should not be a dipole between Brussels and Strasbourg. It should be a process which goes throughout the whole community so that decisions are taken as close as possible to the people.
Decisions should be taken at district or county level, and should not be taken at an all-Wales level or an English regional level. If the decision can be taken in Cardiff, it should not be taken in London and certainly not in Brussels or Strasbourg. We want to see the strengthening of local government side by side with the development of the concept of subsidiarity. We believe that that should involve the creation of a democratic tier of government on a regional level in England and, of course, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

631
Constitutional developments are now taking place which have a considerable significance for the future. The European Committee of the Regions had its first meeting in March. I was lucky enough to be there as a guest witness of the first session. I would like to see that body developed into a second chamber of the European Parliament, analogous, perhaps, to the structure in Germany where the upper chamber representing the Länder can act as a block on the centralising tendencies of the first chamber. That argument is bound to be heard very much over the coming years.
On the question of the Committee of the Regions, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what will be the position of the councillors who lost their seats in the local elections. Will they continue be able to sit as representatives, deputies or alternates on the Committee? Sadly, that incidence arises in Wales. Mr. Bill Hughes, who is an ex-councillor in Swansea, is in that position. Although I disagree with his politics, I have a lot of respect for him as an individual. That matter needs to be cleared up.
We welcome the extension of the European Union. The Scandinavian countries and Austria will undoubtedly strengthen the social dimension. But as Europe grows, so must there be a question as to the appropriate structures for Europe. Will Malta have a Commissioner and a seat on the Council of Ministers? If Malta can have one, why not Wales and Scotland? If Luxembourg has a voice on the Council, with a population the size of that of the county of Clwyd, surely Wales is entitled to a seat as well. A moment ago, the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to discrepancies in the way in which the European Parliament is comprised. Ireland, with about the same population as Wales, has 15 seats in the European Parliament; Wales has five. Clearly, we need a root and branch review.
I shall refer to regional policy for a moment. Clearly, if we are moving towards a common currency, there must be a much stronger regional policy; otherwise, one of the tools that is available to fine tune the economy between the areas of depression and the areas which are very successful will disappear. That will have to be made up by a stronger regional policy.
If we look at last year's changes in the structural funds, Wales did not do quite so well as some other areas—the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned that earlier. The highlands and islands of Scotland were lucky in getting objective 1 status. Northern Ireland and Merseyside have objective 1 status, but Wales missed out. We did not even succeed in holding on to our objective 2 status in north east Wales shortly before Christmas when the review took place. As a result, resources that could have helped in vital infrastructure development have been lost, and that makes the competition against neighbouring Merseyside even more difficult. We want to ensure that we have regional policy that works effectively for Wales.
I shall turn for a moment to objective 5b and put a point to the Minister. Objective 5b is important for rural Wales. But what is the timescale for the resources from this tranche of objective 5b to come on stream? Originally, it was meant to be on 1 January 1994; clearly, we missed that. I believe that the Welsh Office strategy was not available until April, and it will take about six months for the Commission to respond to it. In other words, it will be
632
October before we get any semblance of objective 5b funds coming through. That will virtually sterilise the fund for 1994.
There are many valid and valuable projects waiting to take advantage of the funds. Many of them are training projects. I believe that unemployed people, and the development of the economy in those areas that are justified in having objective 5b money under the criteria laid down by the Community, should certainly be getting the funds quicker. I hope that the Government can do something to speed that up.
There is also the question of the regional challenge. I refer to a reply that I received last week from the Secretary of State for Wales. The regional challenge approach, with a top slicing of objective 5b resources, seemed to be singularly inappropriate for rural Wales. There is a danger of having only a few large schemes, ignoring the needs of many areas that have valid smaller projects that would come under objective 5b. It is a constant complaint that the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency have a tendency to go for flagship projects and the small projects—the few thousand pounds here and there—which could help small businesses and help to overcome problems in the local environment are ignored. I hope that top slicing will not lead to that.
I hope for clarification aabout who will be taking decisions on the regulations. The Secretary of State's stance is directly contrary to the regulation which states that the partners should decide on these matters. The Secretary of State has taken the decision himself. The public bodies should have been involved in that. That matter needs to be cleared up as well. The Government believe that there can be some leverage with the big boys investing, but that is unlikely in areas such as rural Wales. I urge the Government to think again. It may be appropriate for urban areas but it is certainly not appropriate for our type of areas.
I also draw attention to the question of objective 4. What is happening with the new objective 4? Will the resources that are available under objective 4 be used by the Government? Will they be used to adapt to industrial change and changes in production systems? That could enable many small companies to improve their performance. It could improve relationships between suppliers and the forces of demand. It could improve partnerships between large companies and subcontractors. They are important aspects. I should like to know the Government's latest position vis-a-vis objective 4. Are they persisting in not implementing objective 4 fully in the United Kingdom? Do they not accept that objective 4 funds could be valuable in reskilling the work force—something that is very important?
I shall touch on agriculture. Clearly, farmers in Wales depend on the support that comes from the European Community. They are worried about the effects of GATT and future changes to the common agriculture policy. Welsh family farms are especially dependent on getting appropriate support, and rural Wales depends on family farms. If agricultural support is not related to production in the future, I hope that it will be replaced by a relationship to agri-environmental projects. After all, farmers are the custodians of our rural environment and they need to be given the resources to maintain their livelihood.
There are questions arising which relate to the GATT agreement. Can the Government say what will be the effect of GATT on United Kingdom agriculture, especially on

633
upland farmers and on the livestock and dairy sectors? Can the Minister tell the House whether the House of Commons or the European Parliament will ratify the agreement? That is an important question. I am interested to know whether there is any indication of the thinking of the European Court of Justice on this matter, which I believe is currently under consideration. If there is to be a new world trade organisation, we must ensure that it does not become a super-quango but has some answerability, and not only answerability to the forces of supranational corporations.
Fishing is important in many areas around our coastlines. It is not as large an industry as it used to be in Wales but it is still important in some parts. We are concerned about the lack of transparency at Fisheries Council meetings which has led, frankly, to a loss of confidence in the procedures of the Council. No one seems to know what is being argued on behalf of our fishermen, and communities where the economic welfare depends on fishermen, such as parts of north-east Scotland and areas like Milford Haven, want to know what is happening.
If I understand it correctly, the next Fisheries Council meeting is in June. Can we have a clear statement on the accession of Spanish and Portuguese fishermen to British fishing waters? Our fishermen deserve that and need it. Perhaps the Government could clarify whether there is a need for an adjustment or amendment to the treaty to safeguard the position of fishermen. Have they clarified the position in relation to that?
The trans-European networks are important. They designate the route Dublin-Holyhead-BirminghamFelixstowe-Harwich-Benelux. That is one of the main routes that needs priority. I press for the resources available through trans-European networks to be available to upgrade the A5 across the island of Anglesey. That is part of the Welsh Office rolling programme, but it needs to be treated with greater urgency.
In the trans-European network exemplifications given in the document before us, I note that a large proportion of the projects are railway projects. I certainly support, as does my party, projects which aim to move freight from road to the railways. I believe that the trans-European road network needs to be sensitive to environmental factors. I note that chapter 3 of the White Paper says:
'Only projects that have passed the environmental impact scrutiny are eligible.'
I hope that that will be borne out in practise.
On electricity networks, I see that reference is made to the possibility of connections between the UK and Ireland. I ask whether an interconnector could be built on the Gwynedd or Dyfed coast. I imagine that Gwynedd is the closest to Dublin and would be a singularly appropriate place for that to happen.
The UK was found guilty by the European Court of Justice of failing to comply with the bathing water directive in regard to Blackpool and Southport. I understand that the 10-year period of compliance runs from the date of notification. That might cause bigger problems. Clearly, there is a major cost implication of upgrading and maintaining environmental standards, but I feel that it is wrong that that burden should fall on the water rate payers in those maritime areas. It should come in its entirety out of central Government funds, or it will be greatly unfair.
I am delighted that progress has been made in ensuring that the links between Wales and Ireland will be eligible
634
for Interreg funds, not only between Holyhead and Dublin, but between Pembrokeshire and south-east Ireland. I hope that the Government will give some idea of the time scale for the funds becoming available. Will they issue guidelines on the type of projects that will be appropriate? Who will be able to make applications? What will be the mechanism for doing that?
We are looking forward to a Europe that is progressively more united. We are determined that it should be a Europe that is as close as possible to the people and fully democratic. Wales is comfortable in a European setting. When we have our own Parliament to enable us to play an even fuller part in the debates in Europe, that link will be even stronger. In the meantime, we must make the most of the opportunities available to us. I hope that everyone in Wales intends to do so on 9 June.
9.1 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful for catching your eye at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting to do so right now.
I join hon. Members from both sides of the House who, since Thursday's sad events, have said that the loss of John Smith from this House is a sad loss. As a believer in the style of politics in the House, I believe that it is important to be able to listen and disagree with people's opinions and ideas while still appreciating the style, intelligence and wit with which they are delivered. In John Smith that was very much the case. It was always rather galling to watch him at the Dispatch Box, while making a point with which one disagreed, twisting the knife while making one laugh at the same time. That was a great skill.
I welcome the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and congratulate him on his well-delivered maiden speech. I also give him a small warning. Some two years ago, I made my maiden speech in a similar debate, and the path that I chose has allowed me to part company with the Government on one particular subject. My warning to the hon. Gentleman is that I read the treaty of Maastricht, which caused me all these problems. I suggest that, if he does not read anything, he will be an extremely compliant Back-Bencher and do very well in the future.
Tonight's debate is important. I am fully aware of the time and therefore will hurry my speech a little. As I listened to all the speeches tonight, it occurred to me, and it became quite aggravating in a sense, that so much is constantly about regurgitating vision after vision—competing visions, historical visions. That is the problem. The whole thing seems to be a mess as people try to vie with each other for a bigger or wider view of what the world should have been, or what it will be, while never wanting to differ from what was said 20 or 30 years ago.
I agreed very much with some of the points that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made about power blocks and a smaller and smaller global trading market. I believe that the world is shrinking at an extremely rapid rate. In the past six or seven years, we have seen so many developments out there that for us constantly to harp on about the way that Europe develops is immutable is to fly in the face of events: the cold war has ended; we have seen massive change across eastern Europe, with the Berlin wall coming down, changes in the relationship across the Atlantic, changing trading patterns, and a massively growing power base in trade in the far east. To reject all

635
those and continue saying that what was laid down as structures in the European Community would therefore deny the possibilities that come out of all of that change.
In some ways Britain is pivotal in Europe. We have a foot in both camps because we are a part of Europe and have a part to play in the rest of the trading and economic world. Historically we have been global and European traders for the past 300 or 400 years. It is in our interests to ensure that developments in Europe and in the rest of the world do not affect our stance on either position to such a degree that it is difficult for our business men and traders who operate successfully in all markets to proceed in that at which they excel—trading and exporting.
More than half our trade is with the rest of the world, and 45 per cent. of it is with Europe. More and more business men are choosing to take advantage of developing markets in the far east and the United States. Those markets have consistently been growing faster than markets in Europe and have shown less concern for massive over-heavy social protection. The absence of such protection gives a competitive edge. We must pay heed to that and try to ensure that that of which we are a part is shaped accordingly.
Too often in the debate it has been said that there is only one alternative to being absolutely compliant—to be absolutely out of the European Community or Union. I reject that view of how things will be in 10 or 15 years. I do not know exactly what position we will be in 15 or more years from now, but we are a part of Europe and want to continue to be part of Europe as long as it benefits us to be so. If it did not so benefit us, the arguments would be wholly against Britain being a member. The arguments for being as much a part of the rest of the world in a global trading sense are powerful.
Our businesses may end up strapped by higher and higher social costs and heavier protection inside Europe and may be unable to take advantage of developing markets. We must fight against that. The main question in the debate is what we do in 1996 because all else pales into insignificance in the intervening period. That is the crucial point at which the Community has to decide where it wants to be, whether it wants to continue to take a shrinking share of world trade or to make sure that its markets are deregulated and open to competition, giving businesses across Europe the opportunity to trade.
The European Community needs some major reforms, and I shall skip through them quickly. First, we must look carefully at Community social policy. The whole concept of a level playing field in social policy is absolutely mad. We should be united in understanding that the constant drive for a uniform level of social protection will not protect those who are holding down jobs but will make it more difficult for them to remain in employment.
Governments who are elected on whatever platform, whether socialist or Conservative, must decide on the level of social protection and must balance it against the costs and burdens to industry and the effect on their competitiveness in Europe and worldwide. We must try to repatriate that social area back to national Governments for decision. A legitimate way to compete is to balance all those costs against the trading environment, and we should do that as co-operating nation states within Europe.
There is no question but that the common agricultural policy is in huge need of revitalisation and reform. We cannot go beyond 1996 without any plan to change it. Much has been said about the CAP, but few proposals have
636
been made. We must strive to abolish subsidies on agricultural production and put subsidies—if any—on income, and eventually phase those out. That can legitimately be done within the national framework.
There must be transparency for all who elect Governments throughout Europe. They must be able to identify how much of taxation is spent on all sorts of mechanisms. One should bear in mind the fact that only 40 per cent. of the money ends up with farmers. It must also be madness to have a bureaucracy working almost for its own sake. If we can return to national control under a watchdog within the Community, that should be perfectly acceptable and would make a lot of sense.
As was said by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), we must be careful not to obliterate the market in the outside world of 4 billion people by an obsession that only one power bloc of 300 million people exists. We must invite others to compete with us on agriculture and lower the burden of cost on families, who it is estimated pay £1,000 more a year for the agricultural produce that they buy in the shops as a direct result of the CAP. That must be reformed and changed.
Clearly, an important time is ahead—1996 must be about institutional reform and change to the Commission, and trading and social reforms that will make Europe a deregulated, free-trading area governed by co-operating national Governments, but which identify those areas that they can best deal with individually.
I will conclude with the words of Francis Bacon:
"He that builds a fair house upon an ill seat committeth himself to prison."
Rigid structures, lower competitiveness and blanket social provisions across Europe in an attempt to produce a level playing field will destroy the one thing that we seek to achieve—an outward-looking, free-trading Europe of nation states in which all my right hon. and hon. Friends can believe.
9.12 pm
Mr. John Hutton: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his impressive maiden speech. I look forward to him addressing the House again in future.
I would describe myself as a strong supporter of the European Union. It was a pleasure to hear such strong support for it in tonight's debate. I want the Union to continue to evolve into an effective economic, political and foreign policy entity. I hope that that is also the Government's view as they take us into the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
It is perfectly appropriate for the House to debate the style and kind of European Union that we want, but I suggest that the guiding principles governing the Union's development should be openness, transparency and full commitment to decisions being taken at the appropriate level—be it regional, national or Commission. That is fundamental if the momentum that is building up from the Union's evolution is to be maintained and to continue to enjoy popular support among this country's electorate. That is critical.
In the short time available to me, I make a special plea for two industries that have not been mentioned tonight —shipbuilding and defence, which is critically important. I am glad that the Government have committed themselves in the White Paper to a renewed 7th directive on state aid

637
to the shipbuilding industry. I urge the Minister and the Government to maintain that support for a renewed eighth directive if, meantime, there is no international agreement on withdrawing all state subsidies for shipbuilding.
It would be suicidal for the Government to withdraw their support for that directive: it would have a devastating impact on the British shipbuilding industry. The directive is an essential life support system for the industry, and I hope that it will be extended beyond the end of the year, because it is important not just to my constituency but to other shipbuilding communities. I particularly urge the Government to maintain their argument with the Commission for the extension of that principle of state aid to the warship yards: that, too, is very important to my constituents.
Secondly, I urge the Government to do all that they can to ensure that the Konver initiative is renewed at the end of the next financial year. We had PERIPHERA last year and Konver this year; together, the schemes have produced £2 million worth of important support for job-creation activity in my constituency and throughout the north-west. It is important that that aid should be maintained, and continued in the future.
I know that the Government have an ideological objection to the whole principle of defence industry diversification, but I think that those two schemes in particular have demonstrated the relevance and appropriateness of Community initiatives at that level. The defence industry simply cannot cope on its own with a sudden reduction in the volume of work that the Government are placing with it. As the Government are the industry's only substantial client, the normal rules of the market place do not apply to it.
I hope that it is common ground between the parties tonight that we are not prepared to sit in the House and allow such a critical and strategic national industry, which supports thousands of communities and hundreds of thousands of skilled engineering workers, to evaporate on the altar of some ideological free market experiment. The defence industry is too important for us to play politics with it. For that reason, I hope that the Minister and the Government will take forward and support the Konver initiative and the PERIPHERA scheme next year.
9.16 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: In the time remaining, I cannot make a speech, but I will make a gesture. Let me begin by paying my own tribute to the late John Smith. He and I were both positive about Europe: it meant a lot to him, and it means a lot to me. We were positive in the sense that we did not believe that the interests of the people of this country could be sustained and enlarged by a crabbed and inward-looking attitude, and the pretence that the nation state alone is sufficient.
Of course we differed in our solutions to the problem of achieving the type of Europe that we wanted to develop; that was natural. One of the facts that have emerged over the years is that there is not always a British position in regard to the future of Europe, but there is often a Conservative or socialist position. In forming such attitudes, we may well want to find allies in like-minded parties throughout the Community.
638
In my few minutes, I want to place something on record. If we are positive about what we can achieve for the British people by active membership of the Community, we shall succeed in ensuring that the British people themselves are enthusiastic about the Community. It is in our interests to have a common foreign policy, with all the uncertainty that surrounds us; it is in our interests for that policy to include a common defence policy involving our building up the Western European Union.
The WEU must, of course, be closely allied to NATO, without which it could not function because of the importance of America. Since the Brussels agreement in January, however, America has accepted that the WEU can use its targeting intelligence and lift capacity without necessarily involving American troops in any particular operation. We are beginning to make enormous progress in that regard.
It is in this country's interests for us to tackle environmental questions across the Community rather than just internally. It is in our interests—I know that people understand this when it is explained to them—for us to tackle crime and drugs on a Community basis. Such issues matter to our constituents; they also have a pan-European implication. Most important, we cannot resolve our economic problems without action across the Community. Member states have the common objective of a low-inflation, high-growth economy. As we have seen during this terrible recession, from which we are now emerging, an economy will not succeed without assistance and reinforcement from success elsewhere.
There must be a common approach on how to achieve low inflation. That is why close co-operation between Finance Ministers is necessary and why, in building a single market without exchange controls, we must develop common policies and share similar goals, without which unemployment will continue to be much higher than it need otherwise be.
Unemployment is the most critical issue in the Community. It is unacceptable that 19 million people are unemployed in the Community. The most positive contribution that the British Government can make is to understand—this understanding is becoming more widespread among European employers federations in many countries, whatever their Government—that they have to get people back to work and increase the competitiveness of European companies to create jobs and economic growth. Britain has contributed to that thinking. We must show the British people that, when we are self-confident and we put our arguments clearly, we can influence others, not by handbagging them but through intellectual argument and by carefully presenting statistics and evidence that an idea is relevant to others.
That is why we can go confidently into the European elections, present our agenda and get the British people on our side and why we can have a European Union that can build on the confidence that we can engender within it. I am glad that I have had four minutes in which to speak in the debate.
9.20 pm
Ms Quin: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. This has been a wide-ranging and, despite some widely differing views, harmonious, good-tempered debate.
It has also been wide-ranging in time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) took us back to

639
1940, for which he was subjected to a little criticism from the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), but the hon. Member for Stafford then took us back to Lord Palmerston and gunboat diplomacy.
We heard a tremendous maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who spoke with great confidence and flair. He transported us back to Tom Paine, Wentworth and even Charles I. I join in the tributes that were paid to my hon. Friend. We appreciated his tribute to Jimmy Boyce, who, sadly, served this House for only a short time.
Given my hon. Friend's background and experience, it was highly appropriate that he should make his debut in this debate. I assure him that in no way was I trying to dismiss the old industries as irrelevant. I am all too aware that the contribution that they are capable of making to industrial development has been undervalued, and that new technologies are applied to older industries to make an artificial distinction between old and new industries, which is not viable. I wish my hon. Friend a long and successful career in the House.
Throughout the debate, many fine tributes have been paid to John Smith by many of my hon. Friends who knew him at the beginning of his parliamentary career or even before—my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) produced a photograph from 1962. There was considerable praise for John Smith's views on Europe and for his consistency. Before attending this debate, I re-read the speech that he made in the momentous debate of July 1971 and found that many of his comments then are highly relevant to today's debate, including, for example, his affirmation that Europe is not only a free trade area and his belief in the regional dimension of Europe.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary who has just joined us. I do not know whether he will be able to give us a graphic blow-by-blow account of his latest skirmish in Brussels or whether he has good news for Euro-sceptics and Euro-enthusiasts alike—perhaps he has already been able to tell the Minister of State.
Clearly, a variety of views have been expressed by Conservative and Labour Members. The hon. Member for Stafford urged us to call Euro-sceptics "Euro-realists", although I am not sure that we would all agree that that was the most suitable term. We also discovered that there are different types of Euro-sceptics, and.there has certainly been speculation in the press—although I am not sure how authoritative it is—that some were contemplating urging withdrawal from the European Union. However, Conservative Euro-sceptics assured us that that was not the case.
As usual, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made a stimulating contribution, which was appreciated to varying degrees by his right hon. and hon. Friends. Whenever I see the right hon. Gentleman speak with conviction but without notes, I am tempted to throw away my Euro-paper mountain; but I do not feel that I have the confidence or perhaps the experience that he has.
There has been comparatively little mention of the Maastricht treaty, for which I think that I am rather grateful. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred to the "high priests of Maastricht". I was a little worried; I am not sure who they are and wondered whether there might be some contenders for the title in the
640
Chamber today. Is it a type of annual award that could be introduced? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain at a future date.
Many themes have been raised in the debate and I shall mention just a few. The concern that Britain is being isolated in the European Union cropped up several times, and not only in speeches from Opposition Members. It was mentioned by the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney).
The Government face a dilemma: they say that they want to be at the heart of Europe, but some of their actions put us on the periphery, and we cannot be at the heart of Europe and on the periphery at the same time. The fiasco of qualified majority voting of a few weeks ago was mentioned in that connection by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).
Mention was also made of the European monetary institute. It appears that one of the reasons why it is sited in Frankfurt is that it would be difficult to have it in a country that has opted out of financial integration as set out under the Maastricht treaty. That impression was reinforced in the German newspapers when the institute was set up: they thanked John Major for allowing Germany a free run.
Our isolation in terms of the social chapter was mentioned by many hon. Members, especially by my hon. Friends. Despite the strong and successful efforts not to have a partisan slanging match, there was much concern about that opt-out and a feeling that a policy of opt-out and veto was a rather negative approach.
That brings me on to the veto itself. Again, there were some claims—thankfully, not as many as we have experienced lately—by Conservative Members that Labour wanted to abandon the veto. That simply is not the case. Any reading of our party documents will show that in foreign policy, in taxation and in some of the areas where there is already a veto, we have no intention of giving up the veto. It seems to us entirely appropriate in those policy areas.
There was a rather humorous piece not long ago in the Evening Standard which quoted one Conservative Member, anonymously, as saying that if the Conservatives had to keep claiming that Labour was set on abandoning the national veto, they would have to go to confession twice a day to save their souls. We believe, however, that majority voting is used as a rule in the European Union.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)indicated dissent.
Ms Quin: The Foreign Secretary may shake his head. If one considers all the decisions made in 1992, for example, one sees that many thousands did not need to go to a vote and that others were decided by qualified majority voting and not by unanimity. However, we believe that it is important to have the veto in certain areas.
During the debate, the dreaded F-word made its appearance from time to time. As ever, it seemed to be a rather disputed term. Some say that it means a centralised super-state and some talk about the European version of federalism in which there is an emphasis on decentralisation and subsidiarity. We are not in favour of a centralised super-state. Having fought against bureaucratic centralism at home, with the establishment of so many quangos and

641
the weakening of local government, it is unlikely that we would go on a crusade for bureaucratic centralism in the European Union.
Perhaps it is a question not just of the F-word, but of the E-word. I heard that Conservative canvassers in the local elections were told not to use the dreaded E-word—Europe. It will be extremely difficult to follow that advice in the European elections which will be upon us shortly.
The theme of openness and democracy in Europe was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides and it was one of the factors that provided for some unity in the debate. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), for example, complained about secrecy in the Council of Ministers. That sentiment was heard from many Opposition speakers.
I should like to ask the Minister a question that I asked him last week, but to which I have not had an answer. We were disappointed, to put it mildly, that the Government did not back the Dutch Government in supporting the case put forward by The Guardian, which complained about the lack of openness in the European Union's deliberations. It might be good to get the Government's view on that when the Minister responds.
Many hon. Members on both sides talked about improved parliamentary scrutiny. That is an important issue. Having been a member of European Standing Committee B, which scrutinises European legislation, I am well aware of the worth of the work of that Committee. None the less, many of us still feel that there are many ways in which scrutiny can and should be improved, not necessarily by duplicating the scrutiny that takes place in the European Parliament, but perhaps by complementing it. In that respect, good relations between Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament are important.
I believe that there is not a conflict here between national Parliaments and the European Parliament, with its growing authority and influence. We need a strengthening of the democratic elements in the European Union generally. In that respect, the interests of national parliaments and the European Parliament may, as often as not, go hand in hand.
The issue of subsidiarity was, again not surprisingly, raised at several points during the debate and the importance of allowing the regions and, indeed, local authorities their voice in the European decision-making process was stressed by many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) talked about the Committee of the Regions. One of the things that gave the Opposition much satisfaction was that, as a result of one of the rare victories in the House, we were able to ensure that the representation on the Committee of the Regions would comprise elected local members. That is something that we feel very strongly about.
The idea of a referendum was mentioned in passing, but did not feature greatly in the debate. I seem to remember that when the referendum took place in 1975, the pattern of the result was that the further one got away from London and the south-east, the rather more lukewarm the yes vote was. I have a theory, which I have no way of proving, that if we had a referendum today, the result might turn out to be the other way round. In many ways, Scotland, Wales, the north of England and the other regions of England have
642
seen a European Union which seems to be genuinely interested in regional matters and in decentralisation. That is a very important premise, on which we ought to build for the future.
The intergovernmental conferences, to be held in 1996, were mentioned by many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Both of them mentioned the debate that we shall no doubt have over the possible progress towards European monetary union. The Labour position is that it wants to see those criteria interpreted flexibly. I very much endorsed what my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said of the need for greater convergence, to which I would add the commitment to growth and the commitment to tackling the issue of employment.
Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Quin: I shall give way once.
Mr. Forman: When the hon. Lady says that her party would like those criteria interpreted flexibly, does that mean that, if a smaller group of countries in the European Union were to press ahead towards full monetary European at an earlier date, she would wish Britain to be part of that smaller group—or would she not?
Ms Quin: We would not like the idea of a two-tier Europe, especially if Britain were to be in the slower lane. When we are talking of flexible interpretation, we are talking of being part of the discussions and trying to consider the criteria flexibly.
I know that some hon. Members felt that, once those criteria were included in the Maastricht treaty, there was nothing to be done about it. However, I must say that, having been in the European Parliament, I am not defeatist about treaties and directives. Directives are frequently amended. In fact, much of our time in the European Parliament was spent looking at amendments to directives. Indeed, the treaty of Rome turned out to be an extremely flexible document. People who would share my persuasion on the left interpreted it and laid the stress on certain paragraphs, and people of a rather different political persuasion argued in relation to other paragraphs. That has always seemed to be part and parcel of the European way of doing things.
The issue of enlargement was mentioned and, again, one other aspect—[Interruption.] I shall stick strongly to what I have said, but perhaps we may argue about it on a future occasion.
One of the other subjects on which there was unity in the debate was the fact that we all welcomed the enlargement which, we hope, will take place next year. Other potential applicants were mentioned, such as Malta, Cyprus, and, of course, eastern European countries. Again, there was a strong feeling on both sides of the House that the European Union must not develop at the expense of opening out to the countries of eastern Europe. Having encouraged the transition in those countries, it would be reprehensible for us to be seen to turn our backs on them or, indeed, to be retreating into some kind of narrow-minded protectionism. It is extremely important for the future that we keep their interests very much at heart.
There are clear differences between the two Front Benches on issues that I referred to in my earlier speech. I

643
shall not discuss them again. In any event, I do not have time to do so. On economic, social, environmental and regional policies, for example, there are considerable differences that will no doubt be aired again, and possibly again and again, in coming weeks.
In the spirit of consensus, I conclude by saying that, as we have all taken part in the debate, we presumably feel united in recognising the importance of Europe. Let us hope that we shall be able to raise public interest in these matters during the forthcoming European election campaign. After all, we are talking about matters that are extremely important for the development and future well-being of our country.
9.40 pm
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The debate has revealed a number of rather predictable differences in the House but agreement that the events of the past 12 months have been especially important for Europe. The effect of those events will be long lasting. Four of them stand out: the entry into force of the Maastricht treaty, the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round at GATT, the enlargement negotiations, and a new resolve on the part of the European Union to tackle the underlying causes of unemployment and the loss of competitiveness. All four of those issues have been referred to extensively during the debate.
I, too, welcome the new hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). He impressed us all with his confidence when making his speech. He pleased us as well with his well-phrased tributes both to his predecessor and to the leader of his party, whose sudden death last week so shocked us all.
I am sorry that in the remaining minutes of the debate I shall probably not be able to answer all the questions asked and respond to all the points raised, especially by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who had a long list of questions, and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who made several points about Wales. As for the Committee of the Regions, I can give the hon. Member for Caernarfon the assurance that those councillors who lost their seats in the recent election will continue to serve out their term. That was made clear when they were appointed to the committee. I think that it would be wrong so soon into the new term for them to be discharged.
If the economy has not dominated the debate, it has certainly been referred to by many hon. Members. The economies of all member states will face a new challenge when the new world trade liberalisation package comes into effect. The point was well made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who rightly said that, whether we like it or not, we are facing a global trading environment and we must prepare ourselves for it. The fact that 20 million people are out of work in the European Union is a warning that something is wrong with the European employment model. The United Kingdom is the only major country where unemployment is below 10 per cent.
Over the past 20 years it is striking that similar growth rates in the United States and Europe have delivered over four times as many jobs in the United States as in Europe. That stark fact is telling us something. That is why we as a Government have taken such a prominent part in the debate on growth, competitiveness and employment. That is why we were the first country to submit a document
644
setting out an analysis of the problem and our views on what should be done about it. It is all too easy to diagnose a problem; what is difficult is to prescribe solutions. We are certain that we must not shrink from taking necessary measures to correct what has gone wrong in the European labour market.
That means, at least in part, a move to greater deregulation and the promotion of labour market flexibility. It also means that we must look carefully at social costs and their effect on employment. That has nothing whatever to do with creating a sweatshop economy either in this country or in Europe. That is a scare that we can do without. The Conservative party wants a highly trained, adaptable, well-paid work force, but we know that social protection must be earned.
We believe in investment, in good training and high productivity, but employment is not just about high technology and big firms. It is about what happens to and in small firms and partnerships employing two or three workers, often part time. It is beyond dispute that excessive regulations and high non-wage labour costs have a direct effect on those firms' ability to employ people. That is why we are adamant about preserving and protecting our opt-out from the social chapter. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). That is why, at our insistence, the member states of the Union and the Commission are now studying urgently the relationship between regulations and employment.
We are committed to action. If it can be shown that overregulation is one of the causes of European unemployment, we must insist that something is done about it. If we do not get it right—if we do not get more jobs for each unit of economic growth—not only will the political ambitions of the Union be seen to be increasingly hollow, but the social consequences in member states may be extremely serious.
Questions were asked about the agreement on qualified majority voting reached during the enlargement negotiations. I am somewhat surprised that Opposition Members should be so open in saying that they would not even have tried to stand up for British interests. Of course the result was a compromise—that is often true in negotiations—but the fact that it is so unpopular with a number of other member states and with the Commission shows that we did safeguard our main concerns.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) asked about the legality of the agreement. It is legally binding in the Council of Ministers and it obliges the chairman to take any necessary initiative to achieve a decision on the basis of no more than 23 votes against.
Ms Quin: I asked the Minister whether the agreement was justiciable, as the Prime Minister claimed, in the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All matters are justiciable in the European Court of Justice ultimately. What is clear about this decision of the Council is that it is binding on members of the Council of Ministers. The hon. Lady need not just take that from me, because Dr. Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, said immediately after the agreement was reached:
"Germany itself will regard the Decision as binding on the Council and has no doubt that all other member states of the Union will also fully respect the procedures foreseen." The agreement is an interim one and will remain in place

645
until something different is agreed at the next IGC. We also achieved an agreement that the IGC will address the issue of voting strength and the voting thresholds in the Council of Ministers.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East also asked whether the agreement could be invoked by a single member state. I gave the answer to that question in European Standing Committee B last week, but for the benefit of the House, let me repeat it. Yes, it can. The question of who triggers it does not arise, because there is a clear obligation on the presidency to seek the necessary agreement wherever the necessary minority votes becomes clear.
Like several other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned the national veto. He said that he wanted 'greater co-opération"—those were his words—in defence and foreign policy. We can all agree with that and there is strong support on the Conservative Benches, notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), for making a success of the intergovernmental pillars of the union, especially in foreign and security affairs.
However, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said that his party would give up the national veto. He, could hardly say otherwise, because spokesmen from his party are on record as saying that. He tried to water it down by saying that we should seek allies so that we should never find ourselves in a minority of one. He also said that the qualified majority voting compromise that we had reached should be of assistance in that, and I am grateful for his support.
However, in the hard world of international diplomacy, essential interests have to be protected against any eventuality. It may be impossible to find allies for our cause on some issues. I know that the Liberal Democrats are the innocents abroad, but Conservative Members know that there are aspects in which vital national interests are at stake, and in which the requirements of unanimity must apply.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I do not think that he deliberately seeks to misrepresent what I said. He will be aware that I was not describing Liberal Democrat policy. I was making a statement of fact, in terms of the way in which the institutions of the European Union operate, that there would be four additional hurdles involving the Parliament and various other institutions and considerations, before we ever reach the stage at which a proposal coming forward would leave Britain isolated. Is he denying any of those four factual hurdles?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I said that the hon. Gentleman had tried to water it down. He has now invented some procedural hurdles which, he says, will prevent us ever being in the position of having to invoke the national veto. I was arguing that there are eventualities that we must foresee. It is not always possible to find allies to support essential national interests—and we are speaking here not simply of foreign affairs and defence but of taxation, immigration policy and changes to the treaty in future.
I therefore envisage a situation in which it may be necessary for Britain to invoke a veto and I am pointing
646
out, for the benefit of the House and the wider public, that the Liberal Democrats have willingly abandoned that national veto, although the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye is in good company.
I can help the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who said that he had not heard of the European socialist manifesto. I can enlighten him because, for accuracy, I have brought a copy to the House. I can confirm one surprise. It is called, 'The Socialist Manifesto'—surprising, because the Labour party excised the word 'socialist' from its last general election manifesto, but it is in the European one. The second fact about it is that the Labour party, the party of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, is formally signed up to what is in it. All Labour candidates for membership of the European Parliament are fully and explicitly committed to what is in it.
On the subject of the way in which decisions are taken, I remind the House of the following quote:
"We want majority voting in the Council to be the rule."
That means not only that the Labour party is dissatisfied with the present arrangements and wants to go further, but that the rule must be majority voting. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East tried to retreat from that by saying that the Labour party manifesto would make it clear that Labour will retain the national veto. Either the Labour party is saying different things in different documents or it is in a muddle and is trying to reconcile a commitment to phase out the veto with a commitment to retain it.
I shall strike a slightly less partisan note in welcoming the support of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East for enlargement. Hon. Members on both sides of the House support enlargement and welcome the prospect of the four new EFTA states joining the European Union early next year.
Mr. Radice: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was about to refer to the hon. Gentleman and answer a point that he made in his speech.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye suggested that the debate about qualified majority voting had endangered enlargement. That is not the case. A number of detailed agricultural drafting points, including the drawing up of the treaty, continued for some time after the qualified majority voting issue had been settled and the European Parliament still had time to scrutinise the treaty and give its assent, by a large majority, earlier this month.
Mr. Radice: On a slightly different point, if the European Union were enlarged to take in the Visigrad countries, would more majority voting be necessary?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is exactly the sort of issue that we shall discuss in 1996. What we are deciding today and what we have negotiated over the past few months is how to make a success of the current round of enlargement.
Enlargement confirms our vision of the European Union as an outward-looking, diverse and dynamic organisation based, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, on the primacy of the nation state. This round of enlargement is also a door to further enlargement to the east. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will agree that those will not be easy issues.

647
Matters for 1996 include not only institutional change but structural funds and the future of the common agricultural policy.
The EFTA states that are applying to join felt that their membership of a free trade zone—the European economic area—was insufficient. Those who want the European Union to be simply a free trade area must face the fact that the experience of those countries led them to believe that their interests were better served within the European Union. They wanted not just to be part of a free trade area but to influence the rules and trade policy of the organisation. They did not wish simply to be spectators from without.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made the good point that the right of British Airways to start an air service between Orly and London airports depends on enforcing trade rules of which we are part. Were we to leave the European Union and become offshore participants, we could not enforce those free trade rules of which we are the beneficiaries.
As for 1996, we cannot look into the future this evening, but we know that the Europe of today is in flux. The end of the cold war has freed the bonds of Europe and the security organisations of the west are still adapting to that change. We have not had an opportunity this evening to discuss the Western European Union or NATO, but those organisations are adapting to the new security outlook in Europe. The Maastricht debate, both here and on the continent, showed that the high water mark of a centralised federalism has passed and the tide has now turned.
The freeing up of world trade, referred to frequently in this debate, poses another challenge to the European Union. It shows again the folly of rigid centralism and too much intervention. The number of unemployed in Europe forces us to look at market structures just as hard as we have looked at political structures.
The prospect of four new member states coming in next year forces us to look at, and to focus attention on, the sort of Europe that we are creating. The prospect of enlarging further to the east raises other questions, not just about the east. The small states of Cyprus and Malta have applied to join. Although we cannot foresee the institutional changes that may be required, we know that the possible accession of so-called micro-states raises questions again about how many Commissioners there should be, and how many votes there should be in the Council of Ministers and how they should be organised. We clearly believe on this side of the House that, if we have the confidence and the determination to play a full part in this European Union, we can build a Union in which this House and this country can feel at home.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

  COURT OF AUDITORS REPORT (ENVIRONMENT)
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7909/92, the Court of Auditors Special Report No. 3/92 concerning the environment; welcomes its recommendations as to how the Commission and Member States can pursue Community environmental policy more effectively, with better management and monitoring of the instruments used to put
  648
  environmental policy into effect; and endorses the Report's call for the objectives of the Structural Funds to be pursued and achieved in compliance with Community environment policy. —[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN UNION (ENLARGEMENT)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
  That this House takes note of the Presidency Report on the results of negotiations on the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union; warmly welcomes the successful conclusion of negotiations with these countries; and looks forward to their accession to the European Union on 1st January 1995.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In respect of motion No. 3, you may be aware that, coming under the Standing Order, the matter of treaty accession was discussed upstairs in Standing Committee B last Tuesday. However, you and the House may not know that the Select Committee on EC legislation unanimously recommended to the Leader of the House that the important matter of enlargement be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government did not agree to that.
  You may also be aware that, in matters of statutory instruments, there is often 'tagging' about observations from such Committees. Is there any Standing Order preventing such 'tagging' informing the House of consequences or actions such as those that I have described?
  Madam Speaker: There is no such Standing Order that would prohibit such a note on the Order Paper. The authorities of the House consider submissions for an informative note of that kind when they are made on behalf of Ministers, whose business this is. The hon. Gentleman may like to pursue his ideas with the Leader of the House.

PETITION

  Child Support Agency
  10.2 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I beg leave to present a petition from a group called the supporters of absent parents asking for reasonable treatment, in Nottingham.
  They wish to declare that
  "the Child Support Act and the administration thereof is deemed to be grossly unfair in respect to 'Absent Parents'."
  The petition was presented to me today by seven people who had walked from the city of Nottingham to Westminster to draw attention to their plight.
  The petition therefore requests the House of Commons immediately to review the system concentrating on the following points, which I shall summarise. The group is asking for some flexibility in the system which is presently in force and, more importantly, for some appeal mechanism so that people who feel that they have been treated unfairly can ensure that there is someone to listen to their justified complaint.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10.3 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: How contemptible and disgraceful it is of the Government to have so dishonoured those service men and women who lost their lives in two world wars in defence of our freedom by denying the Commonwealth War Graves Commission the money it needs to maintain memorial cemeteries and records, records which enable people to trace the resting place of service men and women whose memory they cherish. I know from so many people what comfort they have received from visiting the graves and memorials and finding them so carefully tended. The Government have not only dishonoured our dead; they are guilty of insulting the families, friends and those who served alongside them.
  I am a member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I have watched with dismay the disgraceful penny-pinching activities of the Government at first hand. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was established by royal charter during the first world war to honour and remember those who gave their lives in defence of freedom. It includes representatives from Australia, Britain, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa. It is funded by each of those countries by grant in aid in proportion to the number of their graves. The major contribution, of course—77.81 per cent.—comes from Britain. A cut in funding by Britain is automatically followed by a cut from the other countries.
  The commission maintains war graves and memorials in 145 countries, with 23,097 cemeteries and burial places for the 1,694,947 service men and women who gave their lives in defence of our freedom in two world wars.
  Before 1988, the grant in aid was made by Her Majesty's Treasury. In that year, responsibility was passed to the Ministry of Defence. At the time, because the commissioners were concerned that their budget might be subject to defence cuts, an assurance was given that it was a purely technical matter and that the British contribution would not be subject to arbitrary cuts. Sadly, those assurances have proved worthless.
  In October, Moray Stewart, the second permanent under-secretary at the Ministry of Defence, wrote to the vice-chairman of the commission drawing attention to the enormous pressure that was bearing down on public expenditure generally and the Ministry of Defence in particular for next year. Those of us on the commission were shocked when he continued by informing us that he was sure that, in the circumstances, we would agree that it was simply not realistic to assume that the United Kingdom contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission could be shielded entirely from that pressure.
  After mentioning the so-called underspend, which I shall return to later, he added that he might well have to seek to limit the United Kingdom share of the commission's budget for next year to the order of £20 million. He understood that that would be some £1 million to £2 million below the level which the commission's staff were currently seeking. A reduction of that sort would be in line with that which was made last year.
  At the finance committee meeting on 27 October, the MOD representative reported that the MOD was looking for a funding requirement of 10 per cent. less than what
  650
  was requested by the commission. On 13 December, the dreaded Moray Stewart wrote to say that he had no alternative but to seek a reduction of £1.2 million for next year. When the commission met on 15 December, Moray Stewart reported that, although the commission had reduced its requirements by £650,000—he should have said £630,000—it was still necessary for him to seek further reductions. He suggested that the increase in the working balance could be deferred, there could be a further £100,000 cut in staff and further savings of about £500,000 made in other areas to be left to the discretion of the commission's staff.
  The Secretary of State has been as harsh and unfeeling. On 21 February, he told Sir Joseph Gilbert that, compared to the cuts that everybody else was taking, the £700,000 proposed was very modest, and it was difficult to believe that it could not be absorbed. That, then, is the truth of the matter—a cut of £700,000 from the British Government. When the automatic change in contributions from the other Commonwealth countries is taken into account, the figure becomes £900,000—a cut of £900,000 over and above the reduction already made by the commission.
  What a mean, shabby, vicious act on the part of the Secretary of State. We have a defence budget of about £23 billion, yet the Minister cannot find all the £20,738,675 —less than 0.1 per cent. of the total defence budget—that the commission has requested to care for the memory of those who died so that we might live. Those brave men and women gave their lives and would expect us to treat them with honour. What would they have thought if they had known that their sacrifice was to be repaid by that miserable, nasty, pernicious cut of £700,000 in the British grant in aid to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission?
  What is the Secretary of State's tawdry defence? In a written reply to me on 3 May, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces stated:
  "The commission has confirmed that it has no plans to cut any projects or commitments as a result."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 475.]
  Additionally, the Secretary of State, during the debate on the Army on 4 May, and responding to fears expressed about the commission's cut in funding, stated that he had been given
  "a categorical assurance that there would be no effect whatever on the maintenance work or on the projects that the commission wishes to implement."—[Official Report, 4 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 787.]
  Let us put the record straight. The commission has been treated extremely shabbily by the Government. It has been felt by the commissioners—again, the Minister will know this—that the attitude of the Government has been, 'This is what you will get, and if you do not like it, tough.' The commission felt that it had little alternative but to accept the reduction in financial provision, but registered its strong disapproval of what had happened.
  Although the commissioners accepted the level of funding allocated, they feared that the reduction exposed them to the possibility that, as the year progressed, some projects might be put at risk. They do not at this stage plan to make any specific cuts to their programme, but they have expressed grave concern about their ability to discharge their unchanging duties effectively if similar reductions are imposed in future.
  The Minister must know that the vice-chairman of the commission put it very clearly to the Secretary of State that reductions on the scale proposed would put at serious risk

  651
  the ability of the commission to perform its charter duties. Those cuts can threaten many matters, including staffing standards; irrigation programmes; provision of adequate depots; deferrals in structural maintenance—for example, the Menin gate ceiling needs repairing; horticultural supplies and equipment; and new and replacement vehicles.
  I expect tonight that the Minister will merely regurgitate the bogus arguments produced by his so-called civil servant, Moray Stewart, some of which have been included in an amendment tabled by a group of compliant Tory Members of Parliament to my early-day motion 1152.
  In defence of the indefensible, the Government and their lapdogs say that contributions to the budget have increased by 50 per cent. in cash terms over the past five years. Given the sacrifice of those service men and women, if those contributions had been in real terms, they would not have been out of place. Remember, they gave their lives. But the truth ig that the budget has not been increased in real terms by 50 per cent., and the Minister knows that very well.
  If the Minister has allowed Moray Stewart to write it into his speech, he should take his pencil and cross it out now. That would be the honest thing to do, because a fall in the value of sterling added approximately 20 per cent. to costs in this period and the increase in inflation—32.3 per cent. in Britain alone—has accounted for the rest. The civil servants know that, and it may even be understood by Ministers, but they still try to throw a smokescreen over the truth. Perhaps at last they are becoming ashamed of what they have done.
  Another red herring that is bound to be dragged out is that a substantial surplus of £1,700,000 was carried forward from the previous year and that, because of that, no hardship will be incurred. That has been answered by the commission over and over again. When will Ministers understand that, as 65 per cent. of all transactions are incurred outside the UK in foreign currency, the commission has to be prepared to cope with fluctuations in exchange rates, wage rates and health and safety requirements?
  As the commission operates in 145 countries, many factors outside its control can affect its planned programme. Therefore, it is essential that the commission retains the provision whereby it is allowed to carry forward funds and projects from one year to another. Of the £1.7 million, £1.1 million was identified before the budget was presented in December. Therefore, that sum was already taken into account in the funding sought from the member Governments for 1994-95, and their requirement was reduced by that amount. After the budget was agreed in December, a further £600,000 was identified, but £500,000 of that was committed to work which was being carried forward from 1993–94 into 1994–95.
  The Minister is prepared to resort to any dodge, any manipulation of figures, to try to cover up what the Government have done. For example, when the Minister replied to my written question on 3 May he added the recoverable VAT figure to the grant-in-aid figure even though it had already been taken into account in the request for funding, as had also the amount of money available for carry forward.
  The Government can juggle the figures as much as they like, but people will still recognise them for what they are —Ministers caught in a shameful act who will do anything, whether honourable or not, to escape from justified blame.
  652
  Let them make no mistake about this: people outside the House firmly believe that what the Government are doing is dishonourable.
  The people of this country know that they owe those who died a tremendous debt, and the last thing that they can stomach is the penny-pinching attitude of the Ministry of Defence towards the memorials and cemeteries cared for by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. They and I want to see the Secretary of State for Defence showing some courage and admitting that he has acted badly.
  On D-day, he—unlike most of us—will have the power to do something tangible to honour those who sacrificed their lives for us. He should use that power to undo the great harm that he has done. The Secretary of State should agree immediately, as part of the D-day commemoration, to restore the £700,000 withheld from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and allow us all to escape from the shame that he has brought on our country.
  10.18 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): It is conventional to congratulate an hon. Member on securing an Adjournment debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for her remarkable persistence in pursuing the subject—and so she should. As she mentioned, she is a member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The hon. Lady has raised a range of parliamentary questions in recent days, and she referred to some of them this evening; she has also tabled the early-day motion that she mentioned and secured this debate.
  One reason why I find the hon. Lady's persistence so remarkable is that, as a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, she should be well placed to answer many of her own questions. Perhaps she should not have taken this opportunity to try to exploit a situation. Frankly, I think that she went way over the top in her language and accusations. I regret that, especially from the hon. Lady.
  I am, however, grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight on the British Government's funding contribution to the commission in the current financial year. I hope that anybody taking sound bites of this debate will not do so without taking the balancing truth. Of course we respect the sacrifice of those who died for us. Of course we respect the misery of those who loved and lost them.
  I will begin with a little history of the commission. In 1917, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—then known as the Imperial War Graves Commission—was established by royal charter. It marks and maintains the graves of members of the armed forces of the Commonwealth who died as a result of action in the two world wars, maintains memorials to all those whose graves are unknown, and keeps records and registers.
  This very House played a vital part in the establishment of the principles for which the commission is renowned —that the dead be individually commemorated by name, either on the headstone on the grave or by an inscription on a memorial; that headstones and memorials be permanent; that headstones be uniform; and that there should be no differences on account of rank, race or creed.
  A great and moving debate on those principles took place in 1920. Burdett-Coutts, then Member of Parliament

  653
  for Westminster, argued for them with—Gallery correspondents noted—a rare passion. He described how, after the Passchendaele offensive, an officer had shown the commission's proposals to those in his unit. The officer recalled that
  "the uniformity of design was what appealed most strongly to all. That the fellowship of the war should be perpetuated in death … was the unanimous and emphatic desire of everyone, officer and man."
  Coutts painted two scenes:
  "On the one hand, a cemetery, we will say, of 50 graves with half-a-dozen of these special monuments standing up conspicuous among the rest … On the other hand, there is the picture that portrays all alike—great and lowly, peer and peasant, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, raised to one supreme level in death by common sacrifice for a common cause. I cannot doubt which of those two pictures you will choose."
  Not all agreed. Some advocated that those who had the means'should be able to repatriate the remains of their kin or erect memorials and headstones of their own choosing to them in situ. It was, fittingly, Winston Churchill who closed the debate, with a ringing appeal for the principles of the commission's work.
  Those principles won the day and have given us the commission's characteristic cemeteries of lawn and trees, with rows of headstones in narrow, planted borders. It is hardly surprising that the subject of the commemoration of our dead of two world wars remains charged with emotion. Let me say at this stage, for the avoidance of any doubt —even that which may be occasionally maliciously engendered—that for more than 70 years and another world war on, the British Government remain as committed as ever to funding the magnificent work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which now extends to graves and memorials in 145 countries, covering well over 1.5 million individual commemorations.
  I turn now to the funding arrangements for the commission, which is, after all, the principal reason for the debate. Funding is, in the main, provided by member nations—Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa—in addition to the United Kingdom. It is based on the respective number of war dead, so the United Kingdom pays almost 80 per cent. of those national contributions. I believe that that arrangement is totally fair and has stood well the test of time. I can confirm—again, for the avoidance of any doubt—that the British Government have no wish to change the formula.
  The United Kingdom's contribution is made in the form of a grant in aid which, since 1988, has been funded from the defence budget. Previously, the grant was made directly from the Treasury. Over the past five years, to the end of the financial year 1993–94, the commission's total budget, and therefore the United Kingdom's percentage contribution to that budget, has—as the hon. Lady said —increased in cash terms by 50 per cent., from £20 million to £30 million.
  I stress the words "in cash terms", as the hon. Lady did. She, however, then tried to confuse the issue by using the phrase "real terms". I do not say "real terms"; I suggest that there is no prima facie case of persistent and chronic underfunding, even if we take foreign exchange rates or inflation into account.
  The Ministry of Defence is, of course, accountable to Parliament for the determination and payment of the grant in aid, for the conditions attaching to that aid, for
  654
  maintaining the commission's observance of those conditions and for the steps taken to satisfy itself that the commission's system of financial management and control is sufficient to safeguard public funds. In that connection, it may be appropriate to mention—I know that the hon. Lady has done so elsewhere—the review of the commission conducted by the MOD's management services organisation—its team of internal consultants—in 1993.
  The terms of reference for the review were drawn up in consultation with the commission. The review is a regular affair undertaken about once every five years, and is fully provided for in the financial memorandum agreed between the Department and the commission which governs the payment of the grant in aid. The review team interviewed staff from the commission and spoke to commissioners, including those from contributing nations or their representatives. The team discussed its findings, as they emerged, with representatives of the nations, whom they found very supportive.
  Not surprisingly, the team's report concluded that the operational aspects of the commission's work were extremely well run. Cemeteries are maintained efficiently and effectively, and efficiencies have been achieved through improved technology and working practices. In dealing with the commission's head office, however, the report drew attention to—among other matters—the scope for greater use of office technology, more efficient working practices, less hierarchical staffing procedures and a financial programming system that would be more responsive to the requirements of the commission. The recommendations concerning financial planning drew on the best of current management thinking, and, I am sure, could not be considered unreasonable or radical.
  The commissioners themselves have a duty to be satisfied that the commission's management systems and administration are efficient and robust enough to ensure that the funds provided by member Governments are used to good effect. The review was certainly acknowledged by most commissioners—especially those from contributing member Governments—to have been very useful in providing the necessary reassurance that the commission's operational activities are carried out in a way that gives value for money.
  The hon. Lady's main concern was the commission's funding in the current financial year. The financial memorandum agreed between the commission and the MOD states that each year the commission will provide draft estimates for the forthcoming year, in sufficient detail to ensure that the commission is managing its resources efficiently, effectively and economically.
  In considering grant in aid for 1994–95, the MOD had to take into account—among other things—the record of the commission's administration in the spending of funds that had been allocated to it year on year. It also had to examine the grant in aid arrangements, and ensure that they allowed for funds not spent in one year to be carried forward to the next. In recent years, there has been a tendency for the surplus carried forward at the end of each year to be larger than that predicted at an earlier point in the year, when the following year's contribution must be finalised. Of course that must be taken into account. Let me give an example: when the budget for 1994–95 was first considered, a surplus carry forward of some £900,000 at the end of 1993–94 was predicted; that has since almost doubled.

  655
  In saying that, I make no criticism of the commission's staff. These are, by their very nature, difficult matters to judge and to estimate, but my Department, in allocating funds, must take account of consistent patterns and trends of this kind to ensure the most cost-effective use of its resources.
  I can certainly understand the comfort that a substantial cushion of funding, carried forward from one year to another, gives the commission's staff in managing its programme of work. It is quite another matter, however, to justify such a cushion in terms of fair and equitable public expenditure.
  I have tried to explain this in detail to set out the proper context for the figures that appear in the defence supply estimates showing a reduction in the UK's contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission from £21.4 million in 1993–94 to £20.5 million in 1994–95.
  It is easy to exploit that reduction, and the hon. Lady has tried her hardest to do so tonight, but these matters were discussed between Ministry of Defence officials and the staff of the commission from last October onwards. Again, some detail may suffice to refute an allegation that there has been a lack of consultation or that Ministry officials have acted in an arbitrary fashion.
  An informal meeting was held between commission and Ministry of Defence officials last October, which was followed by the meeting of the commission's finance committee, on which representatives of all contributing nations sit, at the end of that month. That was followed in turn by a commission meeting in December, which discussed funding for 1994–95. Between those meetings, there was a certain amount of correspondence, which set out the Ministry's views in full and could hardly be construed as acting in a stealthy or pre-emptive manner.
  The main meeting on which I wish to dwell, however, is one that the vice-chairman of the commission, Sir Joseph Gilbert, and others sought with the Secretary of State earlier this year. At that meeting, my right hon. and learned
  656
  Friend examined in the greatest detail the effect that any reduced funding would have on the work and standards of the commission, taking into account the surplus being brought forward. He made it clear that it would be quite unacceptable to him personally if damage were done to the splendid work of the commission by his Department's funding proposals. He was assured that the commission did not plan to cut projects or reduce commitments. For the future, my right hon. and learned Friend made it perfectly clear that he would not accept any reductions that would damage the commission's work.
  It was those assurances to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred in his powerful intervention in the Army debate on 4 May—an intervention which, had the hon. Lady been present to hear it, would have been judged to be as genuine as it was intended to be. The hon. Lady might then have concluded that this debate was unnecessary.
  I understand that, at the March meeting of the commission, the hon. Member asked about the effects of the funding level for 1994–95 and was told that no cuts in the programme were planned, which she accepted. The hon. Lady was not only at that meeting but was provided with a detailed record of the meeting between Sir Joseph Gilbert and the Secretary of State in February. I wonder what her motives are in persisting with these arguments.
  In conclusion, and in the hope that this time the hon. Members who signed the hon. Lady's early-day motion will listen, hear and understand, I state categorically that the Government will continue to honour fully their obligation to fund the splendid work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in maintaining the war graves and memorials of the British and other Commonwealth dead of two world wars to the very high standard that they deserve.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants in his Department have applied through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many have been referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 May 1994,Official Report, column 668.

TREASURY

  Beer Imports
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent unaccompanied duty-paid imports of beer.

  Sir John Cope
  The European Commissioner responsible for taxation policy has confirmed the United Kingdom Government's view that United Kingdom excise duty and VAT must be paid on unaccompanied duty-paid imports of excise goods. Customs are performing checks using intelligence techniques to detect individuals attempting to avoid duty payment. In this way illegal unaccompanied imports may be detected in transit, at the recipient's premises, or subsequently.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the regional distribution throughout the United Kingdom of the destination of duty-paid imports of beer.

  Sir John Cope
  Duty-paid beer in quantities below the indicative limits may be imported freely by private travellers for their own use. The distribution can be anywhere throughout the United Kingdom. Customs have no means of knowing the final destination of such travellers and have therefore made no estimate of their regional distribution.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of the involvement of individuals with a criminal record, and of organised criminal groups, in the illegal importing and resale of duty-paid beer brought into the United Kingdom ostensibly for personal use.

  Sir John Cope
  Although there is evidence of petty criminals engaging in this illegal activity, there is no evidence of organised crime being involved.

  Open Government
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to create more openness in government by publishing Government press releases and other information on a free access electronic news or bulletin board system.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans at present to provide a free access service.

  VAT
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will continue to support the present VAT zero rate floor limit for refunds of goods bought in the United Kingdom by tourists from outside the European Union.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government support the present arrangements and have registered their opposition to the European Commission proposal for a minimum threshold before non-EC visitors can claim a VAT refund.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the visible trade deficit with non-European Union countries between February and March.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: Latest data show a visible trade deficit of £718 million in March, compared with £657 million in February.

  Alcohol (Duty)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place for assessing and collecting duty from cross-channel travellers who return with opportunity purchases of alcohol for sale through businesses; what advice is given to small businesses on the procedures; and what plans he has to introduce a duty collection facility at Dover.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: The movement of commercial consignments of excise goods between member states is subject to procedures laid down in EC legislation, and these have been reproduced by Customs in notices which are freely available to the trade and public. Customs recognise the need to facilitate purchasers who have acquired excise goods outside of the established procedures. They are examining the existing arrangements to see if greater flexibility can be introduced. This includes the possibility of duty collection points at the ports.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Engineered Foods
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific proposals she has to ensure the labelling of all foods the production of which has involved genetic engineering; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Food Advisory Committee on the
  295
  labelling of foods produced as a result of genetic modification. They are that mandatory labelling rules should apply in all cases where a foodstuff:

  (a) contains a copy gene originally derived from a human;

  (b) contains a copy gene originally derived from an animal which is the subject of religious dietary restrictions; or

  (c) is a plant or microbial material containing a copy gene originally derived from an animal.

  These rules would not apply if the inserted gene had been destroyed during processing and was not, therefore, present in the food.

  Labelling of such foods is being considered by the EC Council of Ministers as part of a proposal on novel foods.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy to make mandatory the assessment procedures for the safety of genetically engineered foods in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We are currently at an advanced stage in negotiating mandatory procedures to apply throughout the whole of the European Union.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993 were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; how many were referred on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. Jack
  According to the POLIS database eight parliamentary questions answered by Ministers in this Department in the period 1 November 1992 and 31 March 1993 were given a response either that the information requested was not held centrally or that the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost and eight were referred to agency chief executives. Both those figures represent less than 1 per cent. of all written answers given in the same period.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the objections she has received in response to the second consultation document of reorganisation in the milk marketing scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of those formal responses to the consultation exercise which the Ministry has made publicly available.

  My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales will consider the responses to the consultation exercise when deciding whether to approve the reorganisation scheme under the terms of the Agriculture Act 1993.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 412, if she will describe the procedures in place for prosecuting non-United Kingdom companies in breach of the Welfare of Animals During Transit Order 1992.
  296
  Mr. Soames
  Acting directly or from information received from an inspector of this Department or a local authority, the police have general powers of arrest and detention under section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in respect of non-United Kingdom nationals suspected of having committed an offence under the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992. These powers have been exercised on a number of occasions and offenders successfully prosecuted.

  If a non-United Kingdom company has an agent in the United Kingdom authorised to accept service of a summons, it would, according to the circumstances of the case, be possible to bring a prosecution against such a company for offences against the order.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 13 April,Official Report, column 180, to which local authorities statements have been given by her Department's staff with respect to possible prosecutions.

  Mr. Soames
  Such statements have been given to Hampshire county council.

  Pig Producers
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to receive from the EC its report into allegations of subsidising of pig producers and pigmeat processors by certain member states; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: As a direct result of United Kingdom pressure on the Commission to investigate aid to French pig producers, the Commission published in its Official Journal of 15 April its intention to open proceedings under article 93(2) of the treaty against two French aid schemes.

  We have sent in our comments to the Commission urging an immediate decision that the schemes be declared illegal and demanding the recovery of any aid paid. If the Commission cannot take an immediate decision, we have asked that interim measures be introduced prohibiting any further payment of aid pending a final decision.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members and dates of membership of the Renewable Energy Advisory Committee and of each committee established by the Renewable Energy Advisory Committee on each major technology.

  Mr. Eggar
  The list of members and dates of membership of the Renewable Energy Advisory Committee is as follows:

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee

  Member

  Oraganisation

  Joined committee

  Dr. C. Hicks (Chair)

  DTI

  March 1994

  Dr. A. Wheldon

  Reading University

  January 1992

  Mr. A. Tweedale

  Energy Supplies Ltd.

  January 1985

  Mr. G. Leach

  Independent consultant

  January 1985

  Mr. G. Walker

  EPSRC

  January 1985

  Mr. I. Mitchell

  Countryside Commission

  March 1994

  Mr. R. Morris

  Portlea Ltd.

  August 1989

  Mr. P. White

  NORWEB

  August 1989

  297

  Member

  Organisation

  Joined committee

  Mr. G. Bevan

  DTI

  December 1985

  Mr. J. Penman

  DoE

  June 1991

  Mr. R. Penn

  DTI

  October 1991

  Mr. R. Meir

  DTI

  November 1986

  Mr. A. Hyde

  DTI

  March 1994

  Dr. K. Brown

  ETSU

  April 1993

  Ms C. Gray (Observer)

  OST

  September 1993

  Mr. A. Brown (Observer)

  ETSU

  December 1993

  The REAC has not established any committees on major technologies. There are, however, currently three advisory committees which provide advice to the Energy Technology Support Unit on the development and formulation of the Government's wind energy, solar energy and biofuels programmes. Details of membership and dates of membership of these three committees are as follows:

  Wind Energy Advisory Committee

  Member

  Oraganisation

  Joined committee

  Dr. A. Brown (Chair)

  ETSU

  December 1993

  Dr. J. Halliday

  EPSRC

  December 1992

  Dr. A. Shuttleworth

  Scottish Power

  August 1993

  Mr. A. S. Kennedy

  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric

  January 1991

  Professor M. Lowson

  Bristol University

  1979

  Mr. D. Milborrow

  Independent consultant

  September 1984

  Professor Wootton

  City University

  October 1993

  Mr. M. Trinick

  Bond Pearce Solicitors

  October 1993

  Dr. R. R. Wilson

  James Howden and Co. Ltd.

  July 1983

  Mr. P. Simpson

  Wind Energy Group Ltd.

  December 1990

  Mr. G. Swarbrick

  South Western Electricity plc

  June 1991

  Dr. J. Halliday

  EPSRC

  December 1992

  Mr. R. Meir

  DTI

  1986

  Mr. D. I. Page

  ETSU

  1983

  Miss Y. Rizzi

  DoE

  February 1993

  Solar Energy Advisory Committee

  Member

  Oraganisation

  Joined committee

  Dr. K. Brown (Chair)

  ETSU

  May 1993

  Professor P. O'Sullivan

  Bartlett School of Architecture

  October 1983

  Dr. J. Wiltshire

  Newcastle University

  June 1984

  Mr. G. Oldham

  Independent consultant

  March 1991

  Mr. B. Heppel

  Independent consultant

  March 1989

  Professor R. Hill

  University of Northumbria

  November 1993

  Professor B. Brinkworth

  University of Wales

  November 1993

  Dr. V. Crisp

  BRE

  September 1991

  Mr. A. Field

  DoE

  November 1991

  Mr. R. Meir

  DTI

  December 1986

  Dr. A. J. Cole

  ETSU

  May 1991

  Mr. J. Newman

  DTI

  November 1991

  Dr. D. Vincent

  DoE

  January 1987

  Biofuels Advisory Committee

  Member

  Organisation

  Joined committee

  Dr. A. Brown (Chair)

  ETSU

  July 1986

  Dr. A. V. Bridgewater

  Aston University

  July 1986

  Mr. P. F. Hufton

  NEI International Combustion Ltd.

  December 1990

  Mr. Burdekin

  Forestry Commission

  March 1990

  Mr. M. Jones

  North London Wastes Authority

  November 1989

  Mr. H. D. T. Moss

  Shanks & McEwan

  March 1990

  Professor G. Noone

  Severn Trent Water

  December 1992

  Mr. D. Thirkell

  Independent

  July 1992

  Professor D. Hall

  University of London

  December 1993

  Mr. R. Boon

  Shell Petroleum

  December 1993

  Mr. K. Reilly

  Associated Energy projects plc

  July 1993

  Mr. L. Parry

  United Kingdom Waste Management

  July 1993

  298

  Member

  Oraganisation

  Joined committe

  Dr. K. Richards

  ETSU

  June 1993

  Dr. M. Dwyer

  MAFF

  July 1992

  Dr. P. Hinchcliff

  DoE

  May 1992

  Mr. R. Kettle

  DTI

  September 1991

  Mr. R. Meir

  DTI

  December 1986

  Mr. S. Norgrove

  DTI

  July 1992

  Mr. E. Winiarski

  EPSRC

  December 1992

  Key: DTI—Department of Trade and Industry.

  DoE—Department of the Environment.

  MAFF—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  ETSU—Energy Technology Support Unit.

  EPSRC—Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

  BRE—Building Research Establishment.

  OST—Cabinet Office; Office of Science and Technology.

  Aircraft Projects
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy concerning the future of large aircraft projects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  DTI assists United Kingdom aerospace companies to participate in international collaborative projects wherever this is appropriate, and is in close contact with the United Kingdom industry on the proposed future large aircraft development.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate the circumstances of the departure of the chairman of East Midlands Electricity, and the closure of the electrical contracting business.

  Mr. Eggar
  Both issues are commercial matters for East Midlands Electricity plc.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will hold an inquiry in the joint venture of the East Midlands and the Yorkshire electricity boards on the retailing operations following the closure of the electrical contracting business operations in Ossett in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are commercial matters for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the appointment of the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am pleased to announce the reappointment of Professor Stephen Littlechild as Director General of Electricity Supply for a second five-year term. The new term will commence on 1 September 1994. Since 1989 Professor Littlechild has played an important role in the creation of a competitive electricity market and I welcome his continuing involvement in the development of this sector of the economy.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions he has had with British Coal about the proposal to contractualise the basic element of the current British Coal redundancy scheme;

  (2) what discussions he has had with British Coal about the proposed employment package which is currently being put to the mining unions.
  299
  Mr. Eggar
  Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a variety of coal industry matters.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will guarantee the contractualised redundancy scheme in the event of a colliery business failure after privatisation of the coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government, through the statutory redundancy payments scheme, ensure that all qualifying redundant employees receive a basic level of compensation. Where employers are unable to pay, for example in the case of receivership, this payment is met by the Department of Employment.

  Any redundancy arrangements after the privatisation of British Coal in excess of the statutory requirements will be a matter for private sector employers. Where employees are transferred to a new employer and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply, the new employer will take on contractual obligations which exist at the time of transfer.

  Trade Marks Bill
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the consultation exercise his Department has been carrying out on the subject of lookalikes in the context of the Trade Marks Bill.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The consultation exercise was carried out via the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property, because this afforded a readily available mechanism for seeking the views of those with experience in this field. The consultation was not, however, restricted to members of SACIP, and comments were received from others, including the British Producers and Brand Owners Group and individual companies.

  The overwhelming majority of the views received was against taking action in the Bill. Many made the point that this is not a trade marks issue, as the main characteristic of a lookalike product is that it does not copy a trade mark. This is also the Government's view.

  There was a widespread feeling among those who commented that—compared with other countries—there may be an issue of unfair competition to be addressed. The Government believe, however, that the Bill, which broadens the definition of what may be registered as a trade mark and also widens the rights conferred, will improve the position by allowing shapes and distinctive packaging to be registered, and should be given a chance to work. If, once the Bill has been in force for a reasonable period, brand owners can demonstrate that there continues to be a problem, the Government would be prepared to look again at the situation.

  Letter (Combat 18)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consult the chairman of the Post Office about the circumstances in which the contents of a letter posted at Streatham High Road main post office on 29 April at 11.30 am became known to a member of Combat 18; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office. It is, of course, a criminal offence under sections 56 and 58 of the Post Office Act 1953 to tamper with mail.

  Cable Companies
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures have been laid down to enable members of the public to raise complaints against the operation of cable companies installing their equipment on highways and also on private property; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Cable television operators are granted powers under section 10 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to install cable systems in the maintainable highway and, with appropriate consent, on private land. Their licences include conditions designed to ensure that they operate in a responsible manner and adhere to all relevant street works legislation. Street works in the maintainable highway are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and its associated regulations, which are enforced by local highway authorities. Where work is undertaken on private land, it should be with the consent of the landowner, and any complaint arising from that work is a matter for the landowner and the cable operator concerned. Many cable operators provide freephone numbers to deal with inquiries.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the progress being made in discussions between the Ukrainian Government and representatives of the G7 to eliminate the danger of radiation threat from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  A G7 mission met representatives of the Ukrainian Government on 2 to 4 May. These were exploratory talks designed to prepare the ground for consideration, at the forthcoming G7 economic summit, in the context of nuclear safety in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, of how best we might work with Ukraine to secure the G7 objective of early closure of high-risk reactors such as Chernobyl.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, columns 428–29, how many consultancy contracts have been let by his Department's executive agencies in the last five years; and at what cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to reply to this question, as it falls into the category of day-to-day operational matters.

  Letter from Mike Hoddinott to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  Your recent Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade asked how many consultancy contracts have been let by the Department's executive agencies in the last five years; and at what cost. Details in respect of Accounts Services Agency are as follows:

  Contracts

  Number

  Cost in £'000

  1989–90

  1

  21

  1990–91

  0

  0

  1991–92

  0

  0

  1992–93

  34

  248

  1993–94

  19

  164

  301
  The costs for each year include VAT although Account Services Agency had separate VAT registration for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  You tabled the following Parliamentary Question:
  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his Answer of 24th March, Official Report, columns 428–9, how many consultancy contracts have been let by his Department's executive agencies in the last five years; and at what cost."
  I have been asked to reply to this question, as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency. The following information is, of course, only relevant to this Agency.
  The number of consultancy contracts let and the costs involved were as follows:

  Number

  Cost £

  1993–94

  20

  147,271

  1992–93

  23

  205,075

  1991–92

  17

  231,653

  The cost of consultancy in 1990–91 was £283,441. Because of changes to our financial systems in 1991, I regret that the precise numbers of contracts before 1991–92, or their cost before 1990–91, is not readily available.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question about contracts let by The Insolvency Service. Since The Insolvency Service became an Executive Agency in March 1990, eight contracts have been awarded to management consultants at a total cost of £0.33 million.
  The Service also uses the private sector for advice on, development of and delivery in relation to specialist areas such as training, design and information technology systems.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  I have been asked to answer with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist your question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning the cost and number of consultancy contracts let by the Executive Agencies of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Over the last five years (up to and including 1993–94) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist has let fourteen consultancy contracts at a total cost of £442,000.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 29
  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 March, Official Report, columns 428–9, how many consultancy contracts have been let by his Department's executive agencies in the last five years, and at what cost".
  Over the past five years NEL has let 22 consultancy contracts at a total cost of £360,447.
  You should note that the above consultancies were in respect of activities such as the development of commercial systems and investigation of new markets for NEL services.

  Letter from P. B. Clapham to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  I am writing in response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about the number and cost of consultancy contracts which have been let by his Department's Executive Agencies during the last five years.
  302
  The total number of external consultancies let by the National Physical Laboratory during the period was 82. The total cost was £1,472,325 excluding VAT.
  I hope this provides the information need.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  Parliamentary question: Consultancy contracts
  I have been asked to reply, in respect of this Agency, to your recent question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning consultancy contracts let in the last five years.
  The Number of consultancy contracts let by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory between April 1989 and March 1994 was 8, at a cost of £42,376.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  I am replying in respect of the Patent Office to the question you tabled in Parliament on 29 April, regarding consultancy contracts let by DTI executive agencies over the last five years.
  The Patent Office has been empowered to let contracts since it became an agency in March 1990. Since then, we have let five "general" or "management" consultancy contracts, at a cost of £10,100. Three of these involved advice on recruitment advertising or the establishment of training projects. Over this period we have also placed ten contracts for advice on building works and other property services (at a cost of £53,600) in connection with the seven sites from which we operate; and three contracts (£34,800) for legal and information technology advice: the Patent Office is very dependent upon its IT systems in order to perform its statutory duties.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the number of consultancy contracts let by this Agency in the last five years; and at what cost.
  The Radiocommunications Agency was created as an Executive Agency of the DTI in April 1990. Before that date all contracts were let through the DTI. The figures in the table below therefore relate only to the years from 1990–91. Details are given concerning all contracts let to external consultants. Some of these contracts span financial years with payments being made on a staged basis across the life of the contract.

  Financial year

  Number of contracts

  1Value £ thousands

  1990–91

  10

  471

  1991–92

  10

  746

  1992–93

  14

  1,058

  1993–94

  8

  768

  1 Including VAT.

  In addition, the Radiocommunications Agency funds academic institutions and other research bodies to carry out research into radio propagation as part of our research programme.

  I hope this information is useful.

  Letter from D. Cormack to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 16 May 1994:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION

  PQ from Mr. Alan Milburn (Darlington):

  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his Answer of 24 March, Official Report, columns 428–9, how many consultancy contracts have been let by his Department's executive agencies in the last five years; and at what cost.

  Warren Spring Laboratory Executive Agency has let no consultancy contracts in the last five years.

  Market Overt
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the markets and locations coming within the ancient statute of market overt.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: By long-standing custom, every retail shop in the City of London is a market overt. Outside London, a market overt must be one established by charter or statute; the exact number is not known.

DEFENCE

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if spent fuel from nuclear submarine reactors will be processed in THORP.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no plans to process spent fuel from nuclear submarine reactors in THORP.

  HMS Valiant
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on repairs to HMS Valiant during the last financial year; and what repairs to HMS Valiant will be undertaken following its arrival at Plymouth.

  Mr. Aitken
  Around £2.4 million was spent on repairs to HMS Valiant during the last financial year.

  It is not our practice to comment on the nature of defects in nuclear-powered submarines.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of total low flying activity took place over Wales for the last six months of 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 16 February,Official Report, column 818.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sir Robin Butler
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) of 28 April,Official Report, columns 254–55, if he will set out the criteria to be adopted to judge the disproportionate time or effort in preparing information as stated at paragraph (c) of the Cabinet Secretary's note to which he refers.

  The Prime Minister
  The criteria are set out in the guidance on interpretation of the code of practice on access to Government information, which has been issued to all Departments and placed in the Library of the House. The guidance states that consideration should be given to the amount of information sought in an application and the difficulties in identifying, locating or collating the information requested. The guidance goes on to say:"In each case, the test is whether these factors would mean that meeting an access request would require an unreasonable
  304
  diversion of resources or otherwise undermine the work of the department (because files are kept out of circulation for extended periods, for example, or staff have to be diverted a considerable amount of time from other more urgent work)."

  Wrafton Laboratories, Devon
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has visited the north Devon factory of Wrafton laboratories since January 1993; and what was the date and purpose of each visit.

  The Prime Minister
  I have made one visit, on Friday 5 February 1993, as part of a series of regional visits throughout the country.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the report of the Cabinet Office efficiency unit on the use of outside consultants to identify savings in the civil service.

  The Prime Minister
  The final report of the efficiency unit's scrutiny on the Government's use of external consultants will be completed shortly. It is the normal practice for the efficiency unit's reports to be published. A decision on publishing the report will be made when the final report has been received.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what information has been made available to Her Majesty's Government as a result of the opening of Stasi files in East Germany about the acquisition of timing devices of the type manufactured by Edwin Bollier and Ulrick Lumpert, which featured in the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie and of the approach to Bollier and Lumpert by United States authorities on 30 December 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  The exchange of information with the German authorities in the Lockerbie investigation is a matter for my right honourable and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has repeatedly made clear that he cannot comment on details of the available evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  World Bank Documents
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make those World bank documents which are available to American non-governmental organisations available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's Government will continue to follow the procedure that has been agreed by all members of the World bank whereby documents are made available under the bank's policy on disclosure of information. A list of those documents is available to hon. Members in the House of Commons Library.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the incidence of cholera in Somalia; and what has been the international community's response.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 29 April, 12,444 cases, including 491 deaths, had been reported. The international community continues to respond within the framework set out in my answer of 27 April, columns 194–95.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions are being made to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations population fund and the World Health Organsiation human reproduction programme in 1994.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made the following contributions to the core costs of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations population fund and the World Health Organisation's progamme of research and training in human reproduction in 1994:

  £ million

  IPPF

  7·5

  UNFPA

  7·0

  WHO/HRP

  2·5

  Additional contributions for specific programme activities may also be made during the year.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) of 19 January,Official Report, column 590, regarding United Kingdom bilateral disbursements on population activities, if he can now given the total figures for 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Bilateral expenditure in 1993 on population activities, including HIV/AIDS and reproductive health and the joint funding scheme, has provisionally been estimated at £16.125 million. A final figure will be produced as soon as possible.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what review he has conducted of the extent to which aid under the aid and trade provisions has been linked to arms sales and the implications of this for overseas aid policy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I know of no case in which a project funded under the aid and trade provision has been conditionally linked to the sale of arms. As a matter of policy, the British Government would not countenance any such link.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Justice (Delays and Costs)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set up a review to look at the delays in the administration of justice and the cost of obtaining it.
  306
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As well as continuing to evaluate and implement the outstanding recommendations of the civil justice review and the relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, we have several other reviews in hand, including Lord Woolf's work on access to justice and the departmental fundamental review.

  Police and Magistrates Courts Bill
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received in the last month on the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill[Lords].

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the month since 17 April, the Lord Chancellor and I have received 45 representations from hon. Members and peers and 11 from magistrates and other members of the public.

  Judges
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with other Law Officers with a view to election of judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department by how many magistrates courts committees, and for how many petty sessions areas, justices' clerks have been put on(a) fixed-term contracts and (b) performance-related pay; and how many, and what proportion of, justices' clerks and petty sessions areas are currently affected by (a) or (b) or both.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The terms and conditions of individual members of staff are a matter for magistrates courts committees as employers. The Department has no record of the numbers of justices' clerks who are either on fixed-term contracts or receiving performance-related pay.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Investments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, who is responsible for deciding the overall balance of the Church Commissioners' investments; and what policy is currently being pursued.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' assets committee is responsible for deciding the balance of the investment portfolio with general rules made by the board of governors. The commissioners' long-term aim is to achieve a diversified portfolio which bears comparison with those held by other institutions with similar responsibilities. This will mean a reduction, over a period, in the commissioners' property holdings, although, of course, this can be achieved only as market conditions allow.

  Women Priests
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the number of women currently ordained into the priesthood of the Church of England for those stipends for which the Church Commissioners are responsible.
  307
  Mr. Alison
  As at 8 May, there were 146 women priests receiving a stipend through the Church Commissioners' payroll.

  London Offices
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the annual cost to the commissioners of their office accommodation in London.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners own the freehold of No. 1 Millbank and the Church of England records centre at Galleywall road, Bermondsey. The cost of maintaining, heating and lighting the commissioners' office accommodation was £0.47 million in 1993.

  Lambeth Report
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Lambeth report.

  Mr. Alison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on 25 April, column 13.

  Priests' Incomes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what are the average fees, stipends or salaries paid to ordained(a) women and (b) men; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  Clergy remuneration is linked to the category of post, with no differentiation on the ground of gender. In 1993 the average stipend for clergy of incumbent status was £12,830. The equivalent figure for assistant staff was £12,140. Both figures take account of fee income, which was on average about £750 per head. Accommodation, free of rent, is provided.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Statistics
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list for the first 100 sitting days of sessions (1) 1990–91, (2) 1992–93 and (3) 1993–94, (i) the average hour of rising of the House, (ii) the number of divisions, (iii) the number of Public Bills(a) passed and (b) reported from Standing Committee, (iv) the number of affirmative statutory instruments (a) debated in Standing Committee and (b) debated on the Floor of the House, (v) the number of prayers against statutory instruments (a) debated in Standing Committee and (b) debated on the Floor of the House, (vi) the number of Opposition days and (vii) the number of Bills guillotined.

  Mr. Newton
  The information sought is contained in the following table.

  1990–91

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Average hour or rising of the House

  11.58pm

  11.27pm

  11.43pm

  Number of divisions

  134

  118

  236

  Public Bills passed

  32

  23

  21

  308

  1990–91

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Bills reported from Standing Committee

  37

  11

  17

  Affirmative Statutory Instrument debated in Standing Committee

  58

  67

  14

  Prayers against Statutory Instruments debated in Standing Committee

  10

  6

  1

  Affirmative Statutory Instruments debated on floor of House

  38

  28

  66

  Prayers against Statutory Instruments debated on floor of House

  12

  0

  1

  Number of Opposition Days

  9½

  7½

  11

  Number of Bills guillotined

  1

  2

  4

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many and which occasions in the current Session Government Departments or Parliamentary counsel have drafted amendments for the use of Government Back Benchers in the Report stage of private Members' Bills.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Maddock) on 13 May,Official Report, column 259.

  Photo-identity Passes
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many right hon. and hon. Members have not obtained a photo-identity pass for the House of Commons.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  ANZAC Memorial
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will consider relocating the ANZAC memorial, at present situated in the passage between the florist and the Strangers' Bar, to a more fitting location.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I have referred the hon. Member's suggestion to the Advisory Committee on Works of Art.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Tony Newton
  The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is five, none and two respectively. The operating cost of this equipment, which is used only by Ministers and their private secretaries, was £5,530 in 1993–94.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) whether the Funding Agency for Schools will continue to share responsibility with local education authorities in those areas where over 10 per cent. of schools have opted out but where local government reorganisation reduces the numbers of opted-out schools to below 10 per cent;

  (2) whether the Funding Agency for Schools will continue to have responsibility for the provision of school places in local authority areas where over 75 per cent. of schools have currently opted out but where local government reorganisation reduces the number of opted-out schools to below 75 per cent.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend would need to consider this matter in the light of the individual circumstances applying in any new LEA areas.

  Outdoor Activity Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the contribution made by the Sports Council in drawing up the "Guidance for Safety in Outdoor Activity Centres".

  Mr. Forth
  The Sports Council was represented on the steering group which the Department established to help prepare guidance on safety in outdoor activity centres. The draft circular which the Department prepared in the light of the steering group's advice was issued on 13 May; a copy is in the Library.

  TASC Unit
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the budget of the Teaching as a Career unit for each year of its existence in relation to its English functions.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Teaching as a Career unit was set up in 1987 to serve both England and Wales. The table shows the annual expenditure for running costs and publicity. The Welsh Office contributes one eighteenth of the running costs of the unit, but has a separate budget for Welsh-only advertising and publications.

  Annual expenditure of the Teaching as a Career Unit

  Year

  Running costs (England and Wales)

  Publicity

  1987–88

  345,611

  166,988

  1988–89

  375,000

  558,999

  1989–90

  400,000

  553,853

  1990–91

  698,928

  788,284

  1991–92

  954,139

  647,500

  1992–93

  818,000

  588,000

  1993–94

  751,500

  312,020

  1994–95 (planned)

  844,000

  350,000

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the budgets subvented to the Higher Education Funding Council for England in respect of teacher training in England in each year of its existence.
  310
  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has not earmarked amounts for teacher training within the annual grants to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We shall determine in due course the amount to be allocated to the Teacher Training Agency for the funding responsibilities which will be transferred to it in 1995–96, subject to the passage of the Education Bill.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what budget is proposed annually for the Teacher Training Agency in England; and what is its breakdown.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We shall determine in due course the annual budget of the Teacher Training Agency, reflecting the funding and other responsibilities which will transfer to it in 1995–96, subject to the passage of the Education Bill.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when each of the present Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office was appointed; and on how many nights each month since their appointment they have remained overnight in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew MP—Date appointed: 12 April 1992 Number of Overnights Spent in Northern Ireland Since Appointment

  Number

  1992

  April

  9

  May

  14

  June

  8

  July

  10

  August

  7

  September

  15

  October

  19

  November

  16

  December

  13

  1993

  January

  11

  February

  8

  March

  9

  April

  9

  May

  8

  June

  13

  July

  8

  August

  8

  September

  13

  October

  11

  November

  10

  December

  12

  1994

  January

  13

  February

  13

  March

  4

  April

  6

  Michael Ancram MP—Date appointed: 27 May 1993 Number of Overnights Spent in Northern Ireland Since Appointment

  Number

  1993

  May

  —

  June

  1

  311

  Number

  July

  9

  August

  8

  September

  11

  October

  9

  November

  10

  December

  3

  1994

  January

  9

  February

  9

  March

  12

  April

  5

  Sir John Wheeler—Date appointed: 25 June 1993 Number of overnights spent in Northern Ireland since appointment

  1993

  Number

  June

  1

  July

  8

  August

  12

  September

  10

  October

  10

  November

  7

  December

  11

  1994

  January

  6

  February

  5

  March

  5

  April

  8

  Mr. Smith—Date appointed: 5 January 1994 Number of overnights spent in Northern Ireland since appointment

  1994

  Number

  January

  4

  February

  8

  March

  10

  April

  7

  Baroness Denton—Date appointed: 11 January 1994 Number of overnights spent in Northern Ireland since appointment

  1994

  Number

  January

  9

  February

  12

  March

  13

  April

  14

  The above information does not, however, accurately reflect the amount of time which Ministers devote to Northern Ireland. A more accurate reflection is shown by the number of days spent in Northern Ireland which is given in the table below.

  Total Number of days since appointment

  Number of days as percentage of total working days available1

  Secretary of State

  378

  75

  Sir John Wheeler

  126

  60

  Michael Ancram

  145

  63

  Baroness Denton

  51

  67

  Mr. Smith

  50

  63

  1 Number of days excluding public and bank holidays.

  Emergency Provisions Act
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects Mr. John Rowe's report on the operation in 1993 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 to be available.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today arranged for copies of Mr. John Rowe's report to be placed in the Library of the House. I welcome this independent report which will serve as a basis for Parliament to debate the annual renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  I am most grateful to Mr. Rowe for his work in carrying out his review of the operation of the Act in 1993. His report will receive careful and detailed consideration.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions from 1990 to April 1994 recorded in the POLIS database as including a reference to part or all of the information not being held centrally or being available only at disproportionate cost was 187. As a result of computerisation and/or more effective operational systems more detailed information is now available in respect of 19 questions which are listed. However, in some cases the full information would still not be available.

  Dr. Joe Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the average waiting time for those people waiting for their first appointment with a cardiac surgeon has increased or decreased during the last 12 months.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total expenditure, including legal costs and compensation payments, incurred by each health and social services board in defending religion and sex discrimination cases over the past three years to 30 April.

  Mr. Martin Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the number of patients waiting for out-patient treatment on 31 March for each individual health authority(a) in total and (b) by main speciality for periods (i) under 12 months; (ii) 12 to 24 months and (iii) over 24 months.

  Mr. Seamus Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaf people in Northern Ireland, are in receipt of* Attendance Allowance in each age bracket (a) under 10 years, (b) 10 to 18 years, (c) 18 to 65 years and (d) over 65 years.

  (*The question would now refer to Disability Living Allowance and not Attendance Allowance as in the original question.)

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the current length of waiting lists at each acute hospital in Northern Ireland; and what are the comparable figures in each of the last 5 years.

  Mr. John Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the number of hip replacement operations which were done privately in each of the last 3 years in National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Seamus Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals:(a) over 65 years, (b) physically disabled and (c) mentally disabled were receiving hospital, residential or nursing home care in each year since 1985 in each health board area in Northern Ireland.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each health and social
  313
  services board, the number of (a) administrative and clerical staff, by grade and (b) managerial staff by grade since 1989.

  Mr. John Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total take-up of student loans to date in Northern Ireland by(a) institution and (b) area board expressed as a percentage of the estimated number of eligible students, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in official report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each District Council in the County of Tyrone: and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the official report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each District Council in the County of Fermanagh; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the official report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each District Council in the County Londonderry; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the official report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each District Council in the County Down; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the official report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each District Council in the County Antrim; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the official report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each District Council in the County Armagh; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how much money has been expended in the Ballymoney Borough Council area out of the various EEC funds.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been expended in the Moyle Council area out of the various EEC funds.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been expended in the Ballymena Borough Council area out of the various EEC funds.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechen Republic
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had from the Chechen Republic in Russia about the state of relationships with Britain, the reasons for changes and any consequent actions by the Chechen Republic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no direct relations with the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, nor have we received any communication from it recently. However, I understand that it issued a public statement on 5 May denying Chechen involvement in the murder of Karen Reed and suspending links with Britain.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the contemporary environmental conditions in Kuwait in the aftermath of the Gulf war; and what continuing involvement there is by British companies and agencies in the alleviation of those conditions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The clean-up operations in Kuwait following the Gulf war are almost complete. There was a high degree of British participation in tackling the immediate environmental consequences, both bilaterally and through the United Nations Environmental Programme. By the end of 1991, all the oil fires were extinguished and no floating oil remained at sea.

  In 1992, the United States ship Mount Mitchell conducted a research cruise on the extent of contamination in the Persian gulf. Since then, we have made no recent assessment of the environmental conditions in Kuwait, although scientific research into the long-term effects of the oil fires continues. The Regional Organisation for the Protection of the Marine Environment makes regionally based assessments. Meanwhile, Royal Ordnance plc continues to conduct minefield clearance operations in Kuwait.

  Yemen
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether all British nationals who should have been evacuated from Yemen have now left the country safely.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All British nationals who made it known to our embassy in Sana'a that they wished to leave the Yemen have been evacuated. Some have elected to remain.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the meeting in Riyadh between the Gulf Co-operation Council and the European Union concerning Iraq and Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the statement following the ministerial meeting between the EC and GCC Foreign Ministers in Riyadh on 8 May. Ministers condemned Iraq for its failure to implement Security Council resolutions in full and its policy of selectivity in implementing such resolutions. They also expressed their concern at the continued repression of the civilian population by the Iraqi regime.

  On Bosnia, both sides welcomed the Washington agreement on a Bosniac/Croat federation, and expressed full support for the efforts of the international community to reach a negotiated settlement in the basis of the EU action plan, and underlined the need for their countries to contribute to the political and economic reconstruction of the former Yugoslavia after a settlement. The GCC Ministers separately called for the lifting of the arms embargo for the Bosnian Government.

  East Timor
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pressure he has put on the Indonesian Government to allow Amnesty International access to East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Indonesian Foreign Minister confirmed to me when I was in Jakarta last month that he would consider inviting Amnesty International to visit Indonesia to discuss East Timor.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made directly, or through NATO or the European Union, to the Bosnian Government concerning the shelling of Brcko and military activity around the town; what action he has proposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs sent messages to both President Izetbegovic and Dr. Karadzic en 27 April urging restraint, especially in the Brcko area. The Security Council on 4 May agreed a presidential statement to similar effect. We deplore the loss of innocent life whoever is responsible. The United Nations and NATO continue to monitor the situation closely.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 541, regarding trusts which failed to meet the capital return targets, when the information for 1993–94 will be made available.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will be available once accounts have been audited and submitted to the national health service executive in December 1994.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the size of surpluses generated by trusts in each year since 1990–91, by region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table. There were no operational trusts in the 1990–91 financial year. Information for 1993–94 will be available in December 1994.

  Region

  Retained surplus/(deficit)

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  Northern

  2,896

  5,427

  Yorkshire

  3,100

  2,991

  Trent

  153

  4,593

  East Anglian

  1,075

  533

  North West Thames

  6,145

  17,220

  North East Thames

  7,249

  13,165

  South East Thames

  1,082

  9,597

  South West Thames

  6,582

  4,116

  Wessex

  2,111

  4,105

  South Western

  12,483

  11,119

  Oxford

  104

  4,356

  West Midlands

  2,932

  4,177

  Mersey

  2,194

  (749)

  North Western

  50

  6,952

  316
  Notes:

  Source: Audited accounts of NHS Trusts 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  2. The figures for 1992–93 are provisional, being subject to National Audit Office review.

  3. Surplus/(Deficit) is after interest, dividend payable on Public Dividend Capital, extraordinary and exceptional items.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will itemise where trusts deposited their surpluses in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for trusts to make their own arrangements for depositing cash not required for immediate use, within the constraints placed on them by statute. Information on where individual trusts deposit their money is not available centrally, but such arrangements as they do make are subject to independent audit. Paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 states that trusts can invest surplus cash in securities of the Government of the United Kingdom or in such other manner as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve. Approval has been given for investment in certain United Kingdom public sector institutions, banks which are authorised institutions under part I of the Banking Act 1987, and building societies authorised under the Building Societies Act 1986.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists expressed in whole-time equivalents are employed in Wandsworth district health authority; and what is the percentage in post against funded establishment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 14 January at columns 317–20.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards are in place to prevent the carrying out in the United Kingdom of liposuction operations by surgeons whose EC practice certificate has been withdrawn.

  Mr. Sackville
  Practitioners are required to register annually with the General Medical Council, which will also keep a record on a specialist list of any certificate issued in compliance with EC directive 94/16/EEC (Specialist Medical Training).

  As the United Kingdom competent authority for registration of medical practitioners, the General Medical Council is also responsible for the recording of details of specialist certification from members of the EC who enter this country to practise.

  The registration details of surgeons offering plastic surgery are available, to patients seeking liposuction treatment, through their general practitioner, who will have access to the latest details carried in the General Medical Council's registers.

  Audiology
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of how many of the London hospital audiology departments have a sufficient staff ratio
  317
  to meet the needs of the served population and of the adequacy of funding available to the London hospital audiology departments to meet the needs of the served population; how much it is costing London hospital audiology departments to use agency staff rather than permanent staff; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 15 February at column 666. Local health authorities are responsible for purchasing audiology services to meet the needs of their populations. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairmen of the London health authorities for details on the level of service that they purchase and to the chairmen of trusts about the costs of agency staff.

  Paediatric Care, Hastings and Rye
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements will be available for comprehensive tertiary paediatric care for children from Hastings and Rye in the South Thames region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Children from Hastings and Rye are first referred to the Conquest hospital for immediate identification of the problem. East Sussex health authority purchases specialist tertiary care in one or two cases per year from Guy's and St. Thomas's national health service trust.

  DDT
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will undertake a survey of all former armed forces personnel in order to identify possible medical conditions arising from the use of DDT during service.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. Surveys of people allegedly affected by events during their employment would not normally be undertaken by the Department. We are not aware of any reports of medical conditions in former armed forces personnel arising from the use of DDT during service. On the known toxicity of the pesticide, none would be expected in normal use.

  General Practitioners and Pharmacies (Regulation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she regulates the qualifications and service training of laboratory staff carrying out tests for cholesterol and glucose in general practitioners' surgeries and high-street pharmacies.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no requirement for staff carrying out tests for cholesterol and glucose in general practitioner surgeries and pharmacies to be regulated. Self-testing diagnostics are available for both of these tests and quite often the same products are used in GP surgeries and pharmacies.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether GP fundholders and pharmacies carrying out personal scientific medical investigations are required to be licensed and participate in external anonymous quality control procedures; to what extent they are subject to inspection; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  General practitioners and pharmacies are not required by law to be licensed, participate in 318
  external quality control procedures or be subject to inspection. Many GPs participate in voluntary professional schemes and pharmacies are subject to the terms of a professional code covering these issues.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are available to deal with local pharmacies which provide prescription drugs to patients which are dispensed beyond their "use by" date; and what checks are made to ensure the quality of prescription materials.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's inspectors include expiry date checking as part of their regular monitoring of professional activities in pharmacies. Any breach of the rules could result in prosecution under section 64 of the Medicines Act and/or reference to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's Statutory Committee. The drug testing scheme administered by family health services authorities provides an independent check on the quality of drugs and appliances dispensed.

  Child Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has available on the proportion of social services department budgets in each English local authority devoted to child care and associated services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information provided by local authorities for 1993–94 is shown in the table.

  Percentage of Social Services Budgets allocated to Children's services in 1993–94

  Children services (£000s)

  All services (£000s)

  Per cent.

  Avon

  29,658

  103,297

  28·7

  Bedfordshire

  16,094

  52,773

  30·5

  Berkshire

  27,063

  78,187

  34·6

  Buckinghamshire

  12,147

  59,092

  20·6

  Cambridgeshire

  16,147

  61,811

  26·1

  Cheshire

  28,071

  86,152

  32·6

  Cleveland

  19,853

  65,754

  30·2

  Cornwall

  7,818

  44,535

  17·6

  Cumbria

  11,077

  47,134

  23·5

  Derbyshire

  30,428

  101,876

  29·9

  Devon

  27,417

  101,634

  27·0

  Dorset

  7,550

  54,657

  13·8

  Durham

  9,506

  56,659

  16·8

  East Sussex

  21,487

  88,643

  24·2

  Essex

  24,844

  135,032

  18·4

  Gloucestershire

  12,013

  47,080

  25·5

  Hampshire

  32,895

  123,865

  26·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  18,982

  62,829

  30·2

  Hertfordshire

  24,601

  95,086

  25·9

  Humberside

  26,241

  98,180

  26·7

  Isle of Wight

  3,788

  13,390

  28·3

  Kent

  52,564

  158,253

  33·2

  Lancashire

  44,264

  159,021

  27·8

  Leicestershire

  26,727

  84,245

  31·7

  Lincolnshire

  13,148

  48,761

  27·0

  Norfolk

  9,129

  48,219

  18·9

  Northamptonshire

  20,533

  56,723

  36·2

  Northumberland

  10,980

  31,860

  34·5

  North Yorkshire

  13,483

  60,648

  22·2

  Nottinghamshire

  36,322

  118,701

  30·6

  Oxfordshire

  16,263

  55,688

  29·2

  Shropshire

  11,811

  38,168

  30·9

  Somerset

  11,088

  42,350

  26·2

  Staffordshire

  26,800

  92,254

  29·1

  Suffolk

  11,532

  57,687

  20·0

  319

  Children services (£000s)

  All services (£000s)

  Per cent.

  Surrey

  20,268

  87,676

  23·1

  Warwickshire

  11,631

  40,986

  28·4

  West Sussex

  15,253

  67,361

  22·6

  Wiltshire

  14,618

  49,870

  29·3

  Isles of Scilly

  3

  160

  1·9

  Bolton

  9,262

  32,450

  28·5

  Bury

  4,817

  18,598

  25·9

  Manchester

  26,939

  72,424

  37·2

  Oldham

  8,670

  26,796

  32·4

  Rochdale

  7,779

  26,952

  28·9

  Salford

  8,472

  34,618

  24·5

  Stockport

  5,858

  32,382

  18·1

  Tameside

  10,365

  27,112

  38·2

  Trafford

  6,418

  23,068

  27·8

  Wigan

  7,180

  27,594

  26·0

  Knowsley

  7,830

  19,532

  40·1

  Liverpool

  29,511

  88,343

  33·4

  St· Helens

  6,162

  19,784

  31·1

  Sefton

  9,092

  34,919

  26·0

  Wirral

  10,503

  42,571

  24·7

  Barnsley

  8,203

  22,982

  35·7

  Doncaster

  5,333

  29,196

  18·3

  Rotherham

  5,467

  29,907

  18·3

  Sheffield

  15,049

  69,179

  21·8

  Gateshead

  7,147

  26,430

  27·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  10,397

  42,485

  24·5

  North Tyneside

  8,457

  26,475

  31·9

  South Tyneside

  6,106

  19,056

  32·0

  Sunderland

  11,234

  34,334

  32·7

  Birmingham

  50,408

  159,420

  31·6

  Coventry

  11,640

  42,807

  27·2

  Dudley

  6,579

  26,998

  24·4

  Sandwell

  10,905

  40,664

  26·8

  Solihull

  7,094

  21,293

  33·3

  Walsall

  7,027

  25,916

  27·1

  Wolverhampton

  12,336

  36,963

  33·4

  Bradford

  20,538

  61,877

  33·2

  Calderdale

  6,120

  25,572

  23·9

  Kirklees

  12,010

  43,385

  27·7

  Leeds

  23,697

  91,986

  25·8

  Wakefield

  11,499

  34,059

  33·8

  City of London

  638

  3,399

  18·8

  Camden

  16,253

  48,770

  33·3

  Greenwich

  20,653

  43,852

  47·1

  Hackney

  26,271

  64,213

  40·9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17,014

  43,613

  39·0

  Islington

  14,012

  50,189

  27·9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  16,001

  37,089

  43·1

  Lambeth

  37,501

  86,431

  43·4

  Lewisham

  16,502

  51,256

  32·2

  Southwark

  26,499

  60,343

  43·9

  Tower Hamlets

  18,381

  51,193

  35·9

  Wandsworth

  26,780

  67,315

  39·8

  Westminster

  23,413

  57,081

  41·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,645

  21,852

  30·4

  Barnet

  9,820

  41,323

  23·8

  Bexley

  5,576

  20,473

  27·2

  Brent

  15,609

  41,528

  37·6

  Bromley

  9,583

  31,469

  30·5

  Croydon

  18,327

  47,523

  38·6

  Ealing

  13,410

  43,654

  30·7

  Enfield

  8,209

  34,877

  23·5

  Haringey

  19,208

  42,937

  44·7

  Harrow

  5,975

  23,473

  25·5

  Havering

  7,336

  26,588

  27·6

  Hillingdon

  7,317

  28,622

  25·6

  Hounslow

  13,344

  34,832

  38·3

  Kingston upon Thames

  6,068

  18,247

  33·3

  Merton

  7,496

  24,981

  30·0

  Newham

  19,573

  50,441

  38·8

  Redbridge

  8,210

  27,906

  29·4

  320

  Children services (£000s)

  All services (£000s)

  Per cent.

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,765

  19,117

  19·7

  Sutton

  6,611

  21,435

  30·8

  Waltham Forest

  13,038

  43,894

  29·7

  Note: Figures relate only to direct service provision. Planned expenditure on strategic matters and regulation is excluded.

  Source: Local Authority budget returns (form RA93/94).

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that housing needs identified under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 are being met by local authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowls
  Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities have a duty, in prescribed circumstances, to provide accommodation for children and young people.

  Statistics
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) pregnancy, (b) NHS abortion, (c) venereal disease and (d) AIDS, were identified in persons aged (i) under 16 years, (ii) 16 to 18 years, (iii) 18 to 25 years and (iv) over 25 years, in the last five years for which figures are available.

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

  Child Fatalities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to introduce a system to identify death through neglect in child fatality cases.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on cause of death is available from the existing system of death registration, using the international classification of diseases, which already identifies neglect under the following categories; criminal neglect, abandonment or neglect of helpless persons, lack of food or water, exposure and destitution.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons diagnosed as suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have previously been blood donors.

  Mr. Sackville
  Of 156 cases reported to the national Creutzfeldt Jakob disease surveillance centre unit since 1 May 1990, 22 are believed to have given blood at some stage in their lives. There is no epidemiological evidence of any risk of transmission of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease through blood or blood products. However, individuals with central nervous system diseases or risk factors for Creutzfeldt Jakob disease are now excluded from blood donation.

  Bed Shortages
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with whom the obligation of payment rests when a patient is discharged from hospital because of a lack of long-stay beds and is still in need of continuing care in a private nursing home.
  321
  Mr. Bowis
  Under the new community care arrangements health and local authorities have been required to agree their respective responsibilities for long-term care and procedures governing hospital discharge.

  Drug Abuse, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure by her Department in the last year for which figures are available for(a) drug rehabilitation and (b) health education in relation to drug abuse; and what proportion of that funding was spent in Hampshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities were allocated £20.043 million in 1992–93—towards the costs of developing services for drug misusers. The Wessex regional health authority "AIDS (Control) Act" Report for that year shows expenditure of £1.437 million, of which £665,014 is recorded for Southampton, Portsmouth, Basingstoke and Winchester district health authorities. Copies of the "AIDS (Control) Act" report are available in the Library.

  The specific grant for alcohol and drug misuse services was £2.3 million in 1993–94, of which £42,841 was awarded to four schemes for drug misusers in Hampshire.

  Section 64 grants to support the work of the voluntary sector nationally in the drugs field in 1993–94 totalled £788,970. A further £92,803 was paid in 1993–94 to voluntary agencies and other organisations concerned with services for drug addicts.

  The Department spent £5.47 million in 1993–94 on national anti-drug and solvent misuse publicity campaigns.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of deaths in Hampshire that were drug related for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of deaths due to drug dependence and non-dependent abuse of drugs, excluding alcohol and tobacco, in Hampshire in 1992 was 10.

  In addition there were 56 deaths due to poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that disabled facilities grants be made available in respect of disabled people under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Disabled facilities grants are already available to disabled people under 18 years of age, under the Children Act 1989. These grants are one of a series of house renovation grants arising from the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which was amended by the Children Act (Consequential Amendment of Enactments) Order 1991, so that children with disabilities are also eligible.

  Patient Numbering System
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in introducing the new patient numbering system for the national health service.
  322
  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service number replacement programme is currently on schedule to deliver a new national health service number to England and Wales in 1996.

  NHS Trusts, Sheffield
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each NHS trust within the Sheffield district health authority area, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live(a) within and (b) outside the Sheffield district health authority boundary.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All chairman and non-executive directors appointed to national health service trusts within the area covered by Sheffield district health authority live within the authority's boundaries, with the following exceptions.

  Northern general hospital NHS trust

  Non-executive director

  Professor F. Sharp

  Central Sheffield University hospitals NHS trust

  Non-executive director

  Dr. I Rennie

  Sheffield children's hospital NHS trust

  Non-executive director

  Mr. R. Pickford

  Professor M. Tanner

  Community health Sheffield NHS trust

  Non-executive director

  Mrs. M. Dale

  Mrs. M. Perkins

TRANSPORT

  Maritime Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to consult trade unions when seeking to move staff employed by the Marine Safety Agency-designate in Southampton to alternative posts elsewhere.

  Mr. Norris
  The Marine Safety Agency has no plans to move staff employed in Southampton to alternative posts elsewhere.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Lord Donaldson to publish his report on maritime safety.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We intend to publish his report tomorrow at 2.30 pm; copies will be placed in the Vote Office on publication.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving(a) maritime transport sinking or (b) collisions have occurred in the Irish sea and the English channel during the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures given in the table relate to incidents involving one or more United Kingdom-registered merchant or fishing vessels where it has been established that the accident happened in either the Irish sea or the English channel.

  The figures only are given for the years shown as information relating to a particular sea area and type of accident can only readily be obtained from the Marine

  323
  Accident Investigation Branch computerised accident database. The database contains data from 1991 onwards only. To obtain the information requested for 1989 and 1990 would entail a great deal of research of the manual records for those years.

  Year

  Losses

  Collisions and Contacts

  Irish sea

  1991

  5

  5

  1992

  4

  3

  1993

  3

  6

  1994 to date

  —

  —

  English channel

  1991

  10

  10

  1992

  10

  9

  1993

  7

  9

  1994 to date

  1

  4

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals for driving licences to contain photographs and fingerprints.

  Mr. Key
  We will shortly start public consultation on our proposals to incorporate photographs on driving licences. We have no intention to include fingerprints.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money has so far been spent on the Crossrail project.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. and British Rail that they have so far spent around £110 million on the Crossrail project.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the number and percentage of occasions annually on which the final approach separations used when there is no additional wake vortex separation requirement for(a) Leeds-Bradford and (b) Humberside airports are less than the legal minima; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I have not made an assessment. I understand that there are standard procedures for reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome which permit the distance between aircraft following one another to be reduced below the minimum radar separation by instead using visual separation. Visual separation may be used when the air traffic controller can see both the leading and following aircraft; or when the pilot of the following aircraft can view the preceding aircraft and maintain a safe distance. Visual separations are used whenever weather conditions permit. Controllers constantly monitor separations and take immediate action if distances between aircraft are below safe limits.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of the work associated with the market testing of shipping and seamen, with particular reference to the cost of consultants engaged and the cost of preparing the in-house bid.

  Mr. Norris
  The market testing of the registry of shipping and seamen involved expenditure of £19,100, excluding VAT, on consultants to support the in-house bid team. Consultants were not used to support the client side. Other costs associated with the market test were absorbed within the normal running costs of the registry of shipping and seamen and are not readily available.

  Carlisle Airport
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the value of the contract between BNFL and Carlisle city council for the use of Carlisle airport.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a commercial matter between British Nuclear Fuels plc and Carlisle city council.

  Research
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out for each year since 1979 the amount of money allocated for transport research by his Department to(a) the Transport Research Laboratory and (b) to outside consultants.

  Mr. Key
  The Department's research expenditure is reported in an annual publication by the Cabinet Office. Until this year, the"Annual Review of Government Funded R&D" included the Department's expenditure under a number of categories—intramural, to other Government Departments, private industry, etc. From this year the "Annual Review of Government Funded R&D" has been replaced by the "Forward Look". The "intramural" element shown in both publications very largely reflects the value of work carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory each year.

  With the introduction of full economic costing, research commissioned from the Transport Research Laboratory has been costed on a revised basis since 1992–93.

  The first Forward Look was published on 27 April and copies of this, and the previous publications, are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what guidance is given to members of the public in the draft traffic area office codes of practice for complaining about(a) illegally parked vehicles and (b) unsuitable vehicle operating centres;

  (2) if he will list the advice given in the draft traffic area office codes of practice to members of the public on complaining about the operation of local bus services;

  (3) if he will list how many paragraphs of information in the draft codes of practice, issued by the traffic area offices, are applicable to members of the public who are not goods or public service vehicle operators who wish to complain about the holder of an operator's licence;

  (4) if he will list the advice given to members of the public about making complaints about unlicensed vehicle operators, in the draft traffic area office codes of practice.
  325
  Mr. Key
  The code of practice for the traffic area offices sets out the standards of service which TAOs aim to meet in administering the operator licensing local bus registration systems. It indicates where complaints can be made if these service standards are not met. The code is not concerned with the actions of operators. Complaints about the illegal operation of heavy goods vehicles or the unsuitability of HGV operating centres can be addressed to the local traffic commissioner.

  Complaints about local bus services should normally be made to the operator in the first instance. The Confederation of Passenger Transport United Kingdom, formerly the Bus and Coach Council, with our support, has issued a quality code for operators of local bus services, under which operators are encouraged to direct complaints to the relevant person, which would include, where appropriate, the traffic commissioner.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Railtrack has received its safety validation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  London Transport (Assaults)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 May, what was the ethnic origin of each of the employees of London Transport who experienced an assault while on duty(a) for London Buses and (b) for London Underground, in each of the past five years and in the current year to the latest available date.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: I regret that the information requested can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the operational costs on a district basis of the Vehicle Inspectorate and the numbers of people employed within each district on(a) vehicle testing and (b) road transport enforcement, prior to the organisational changes within the Vehicle Inspectorate of 1 November 1993.

  Mr. Key
  I have asked the Vehicle Inspectorate chief executive to write to the hon. Member with this detailed information.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 23 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the Vehicle Inspectorate. In all you asked five questions. One of these related to the future status of VI's testing stations and will be answered by Mr. Key.
  The information relating to the remaining four questions is attached as follows:
  Annex 1: VI testing stations by region following the Inspectorate's reorganisation on 1 November 1993. Annex 2: Staffing and costs by district prior to 1 November 1993 (staffing expressed in whole time equivalents).
  Annex 3: Current test fees.
  Annex 4: Staffing by Vehicle Testing (VT) and Road Traffic Enforcement (RTE) regions.
  326
  Region and Testing Stations

  West Scotland

  Bishopbriggs

  Lochgilphead

  Fort William

  Inverness

  Newton Stewart

  Kirkwall

  Lairg

  Lerwick

  Portree

  Stornoway

  Wick

  Kilmarnock

  Dumfries

  East Scotland

  Aberdeen

  Livingston

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  East Fortune

  Charlesfield

  Keith

  Perth

  Kirkcaldy

  Montrose

  North West

  Carlisle

  Heywood

  Steeton

  Workington

  Kirkham

  Barrow

  Milnthorpe

  North East

  Darlington

  Newcastle

  Scarborough

  Leeds

  Walton

  Merseyside and North Wales

  Wrexham

  Caernarvon

  Bromborough

  Liverpool

  Bredbury

  North Midlands

  Sheffield

  Doncaster

  Derby

  Nottingham

  Beverley

  West Midlands

  Stoke

  Shrewsbury

  Wolverhampton

  Birmingham

  East Midlands

  Leicester

  Peterborough

  Grimsby

  Grantham

  Weedon

  East

  Chelmsford

  Ipswich

  Norwich

  Crimplesham

  Royston

  South Wales

  Kidderminster

  Ammanford

  Haverfordwest

  327

  Hereford

  Llantrisant

  Llanrystyd

  Llandrindod Wells

  Pontypool

  South West

  Bristol

  Calne

  Exeter

  Taunton

  South Molton

  Gloucester

  Plymouth

  St. Austell

  Redruth

  South Central

  Leighton Buzzard

  Poole

  Salisbury

  Bicester

  Newbury

  Southampton

  Cowes

  London

  Edmonton

  Purfleet

  Yeading

  Mitcham

  South East

  Canterbury

  Guildford

  Hastings

  Lancing

  Gillingham

  Analysis of staffing and operational costs pre-November 1993 Vehicle testing and enforcement

  Spend £

  Staffing

  Carlisle

  191,316

  16·15

  Bishopbriggs

  366,322

  31·52

  Livingston

  324,764

  26·53

  Inverness

  174,611

  11·21

  Kilmarnock

  156,263

  14·10

  Aberdeen

  143,794

  12·94

  Perth

  176,641

  15·59

  Scottish GMO

  51,860

  3·00

  Scottish total

  1,586,591

  131·04

  Derby

  183,936

  16·84

  Bredbury

  355,218

  34·06

  Heywood

  380,824

  34·67

  Kirkham

  351,395

  33·17

  Liverpool

  303,418

  32·79

  Wrexham

  348,493

  31·16

  North West GMO

  42,797

  3·00

  North West total

  1,966,081

  185·71

  Nottingham

  268,355

  23·09

  Beverley

  165,193

  14·19

  Walton

  236,361

  18·97

  Doncaster

  162,060

  12·52

  Grimsby

  133,695

  19·82

  Sheffield

  206,076

  14·42

  Leeds

  385,201

  34·22

  Darlington

  265,789

  23·32

  Newcastle

  253,708

  22·08

  North East GMO

  49,482

  2·75

  North East total

  2,127,940

  185·18

  Kidderminster

  253,372

  22·89

  Birmingham

  343,941

  31·06

  Wolverhampton

  301,692

  27·57

  328

  Spend £

  Staffing

  Stoke

  441,958

  37·29

  Llantrisant

  258,628

  21·48

  Pontypool

  143,024

  12·40

  Ammanford

  172,672

  15·04

  Wales Mid GMO

  47,602

  3·00

  Wales Mid and South West total

  1,962,889

  170·75

  Southampton

  256,210

  21·66

  Newbury

  152,105

  13·06

  Poole

  205,310

  17·62

  Bristol

  380,822

  34·72

  Exeter

  313,527

  26·06

  Plymouth

  207,013

  16·00

  Gloucester

  124,762

  12·87

  Bicester

  141,899

  13·18

  South West GMO

  45,296

  2·80

  South West total

  1,826,946

  158·01

  Purfleet

  359,021

  32·33

  Edmonton

  359,750

  29·49

  Leicester

  205,678

  19·35

  Weedon

  184,781

  18·81

  Grantham

  168,092

  15·93

  Chelmsford

  196,745

  18·62

  Royston

  193,161

  15·81

  Leighton Buzzard

  146,178

  15·60

  Norwich

  190,383

  17·62

  Peterborough

  277,252

  27·78

  Ipswich

  185,965

  17·82

  East GMO

  54,626

  2·00

  East total

  2,523,632

  231·16

  Yeading

  422,591

  33·00

  Mitcham

  314,421

  25·00

  Canterbury

  155,972

  13·54

  Gillingham

  185,931

  16·29

  Hastings

  111,341

  9·84

  Lancing

  160,131

  14·05

  Guildford

  188,422

  16·62

  South East GMO

  51,666

  2·00

  South East total

  1,590,495

  130·34

  Vehicle Testing and Enforcement total

  13,584,574

  1,192·19

  Traffic Enforcement

  Spend £

  Staffing

  Edinburgh

  117,173

  9·00

  Glasgow

  85,342

  6·00

  Perth

  61,868

  4·00

  Scottish EMO

  71,201

  6·00

  Scottish Total

  335,584

  27·00

  Manchester

  96,299

  8·00

  Preston

  96,837

  9·00

  Carlisle

  53,372

  4·00

  Warrington

  82,371

  7·00

  North West EMO

  131,645

  8·50

  North West Total

  480,524

  36·50

  Leeds

  81,820

  7·00

  Brigg

  95,583

  8·00

  Gateshead

  102,454

  8·00

  Sutton in Ashfield

  101,594

  7·00

  North East EMO

  119,104

  13·08

  North East Total

  500,535

  43·08

  329

  Spend £

  Staffing

  Cobridge

  70,595

  6·00

  Cardiff

  105,049

  9·00

  Worcester

  73,361

  6·00

  Birmingham

  112,253

  8·00

  West Midlands and South West EMO

  162,872

  13·08

  West Midlands and South West Total

  524,130

  42·08

  Bristol

  73,397

  6·00

  Poole

  100,439

  7·00

  Plymouth

  80,917

  6·00

  Reading

  76,559

  6·00

  Western EMO

  100,103

  10·00

  South West Total

  431,415

  35·00

  Grantham

  77,584

  5·00

  Weedon

  63,981

  5·00

  Aylesbury

  75,279

  6·00

  Norwich

  93,392

  7·00

  Harwich

  98,865

  8·16

  Eastern EMO

  120,749

  12·81

  East Total

  529,850

  43·97

  Uckfield

  73,170

  5·00

  Dover

  77,520

  5·00

  Maidstone

  85,421

  5·00

  Chessington

  135,461

  10·00

  Belvedere

  124,837

  9·00

  Stanmore

  12,413

  0·00

  South East and Metropolitan EMO

  133,521

  10·66

  South East Total

  622,343

  44·68

  Traffic Enforcement Total

  3,404,381

  272·31

  Total vehicle inspection and traffic enforcement

  Spend £

  Staffing

  308,489

  25·15

  453,664

  37·52

  386,632

  30·53

  174,611

  11·21

  155,283

  14·10

  143,794

  12·94

  176,641

  15·59

  123,081

  11·00

  1,922,175

  158·04

  280,235

  24·84

  452,055

  43·08

  434,196

  38·67

  433,766

  40·17

  303,418

  32·79

  348,493

  31·16

  174,442

  11·50

  2,426,605

  222·21

  350,175

  30·09

  260,756

  22·19

  338,835

  26·97

  263,654

  19·52

  133,695

  19·62

  208,076

  14·42

  385,201

  34·22

  265,789

  23·32

  253,708

  22·08

  168,586

  15·83

  2,628,475

  228·26

  330

  Spend £

  Staffing

  323,967

  28·89

  448,990

  40·08

  375,053

  33·57

  554,211

  45·29

  258,628

  21·48

  143,024

  12·40

  172,672

  15·04

  210,474

  16·08

  2,487,019

  212·83

  329,607

  27·66

  252,544

  20·08

  286,227

  23·62

  457,381

  40·72

  313,527

  26·08

  207,013

  16·00

  124,762

  12·87

  141,899

  13·18

  145,401

  12·80

  2,258,361

  193·01

  436,605

  37·33

  423,731

  34·49

  280,957

  25·35

  278,173

  25·81

  266,957

  24·09

  198,745

  18·62

  193,161

  15·81

  146,178

  15·60

  190,383

  17·62

  277,252

  27·78

  185,965

  17·82

  175,375

  14·81

  3,053,482

  275·13

  495,761

  36·00

  391,941

  30·00

  221,393

  18·54

  321,392

  26·29

  236,178

  18·84

  172,544

  14·05

  188,422

  16·62

  185,207

  12·66

  2,212,838

  175·02

  Total

  Total

  16,988,955

  1,464·50

  Notes:

  1. Allocations of VI staffing between testing and enforcement divisions can be carried out on the basis of the management accounts produced for same period ie Testing 55 per cent. and enforcement 45 per cent.

  2. Operational costs are those quoted on the October district/sector unit cost analysis.

  3. On 1 November 1993 VI split its operational work between two dimensions: Vehicle Testing (VT) and Road Transport Enforcement (RTE). VT created a new regional structure based on 14 Regions. RTE reorganised into 23 areas integrating traffic and roadworthiness enforcement work.

  4. GMO=Group Managers Office. EMO=Enforcement Managers Office.

  Curent Test Fees

  £

  vehical

  Cost

  Re-test Cost

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)

  Motor Vehicles 2 axle

  Test Fee1

  Re-test fee

  32·70

  16·60

  331

  Vehicle

  Cost

  Re-test Cost

  3 axle

  33·70

  16·60

  4 or more axles

  34·70

  16·60

  Trailers

  1 axle

  16·70

  8·30

  2 axle

  17·10

  8·30

  3 or more axles

  17·90

  8·30

  Clearance of Prohibition by partial inspection

  Motor Vehicle

  16·60

  —

  Trailers

  8·30

  —

  1Retest after failure (within 14 days of initial inspection)

  Public Service Vehicle

  Test Fee

  Retest fee

  9–12 passenger seats

  28·20

  14·10

  13+ passenger seats

  40·30

  19·80

  Clearance of Prohibition by partial inspection

  9–12 passenger seats

  14·10

  —

  13+ passenger seats

  19·80

  —

  C.O.I.F.

  Examination (inclusive of tilt test)

  129·00

  —

  Tilt retest

  129·00

  —

  Examination retest

  15·40

  —

  A.D.R.

  Motor Vehicle (excluding annual test fee)

  —

  98·80

  Trailer (excluding annual test fee)

  —

  98·80

  T.I.R.

  Initial inspection

  62·60

  —

  Re-inspection

  43·70

  —

  January 1994 staffing analysis VT division

  Region

  Staffing

  West Scotland

  39

  East Scotland

  40

  North East

  60

  North West

  53

  Merseyside and North Wales

  62

  North Midlands

  55

  South Wales

  47

  West Midlands

  60

  East Midlands

  53

  South West

  58

  South Central

  48

  London

  70

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  All cases (including those of a non-sexual nature)

  7,211

  6,822

  5,571

  4,825

  All sexual assaults

  3,200

  2,881

  1,812

  1,318

  Sexual abuse within the family or by a relative

  1,700

  1,661

  1,011

  802

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many awards of criminal injuries compensation were made in each year since 1979; and what was the value of payments in each year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is taken from the annual reports of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. It is also summarised at annex A of the White Paper "Compensating victims of violent crime: Changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme" (Cm 2434) published on 15 December 1993.
  332

  Region

  Staffing

  East

  54

  South East

  44

  VT Total

  743

  RTE division

  Group

  Staffing

  Scotland and North West

  170

  West Midlands and South Wales

  99

  South East and West

  187

  North East and East

  214

  RTE Total

  670

  VI summary

  Division

  Staffing

  VT

  743

  RTE

  670

  VI Total

  1,413

  Note: VI also employs 316 staff at its headquarters in Bristol and Swansea working in VT, RTE and central services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crimanal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many awards of criminal injuries compensation were made, resulting from(a) physical abuse, (b) sexual abuse and (c) neglect cases involving children, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does not record centrally information about awards made in respect of abuse, neglect or other categories of injury.

  However, since 1989, it has recorded information about the number of applications received in respect of children—under the age of 18 at the date of the incident—who have suffered abuse. The information summarised below is taken from CICB's annual reports, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Financial year

  Number of awards

  Compensation paid (£m)

  1979–80

  17,460

  15·7

  1980–81

  20,784

  21·5

  1981–82

  17,350

  22·0

  1982–83

  19,733

  29·4

  1983–84

  21,133

  32·8

  1984–85

  19,771

  35·3

  1985–86

  22,534

  41·6

  1986–87

  21,925

  48·2

  1987–88

  20,991

  52·0

  1988–89

  27,752

  69·4

  1989–90

  27,926

  72·7

  1990–91

  35,190

  109·3

  333

  Financial year

  Number of awards

  Compensation paid (£m)

  1991–92

  39,249

  143·7

  1992–93

  36,638

  152·2

  Number of deaths from fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the specified locations in the United Kingdom, 1979–921

  Year

  Dwellings2

  Industrial premises

  Elderly persons' and children's homes3

  Offices4

  Recreational venues

  Public houses, clubs5

  1979

  865

  13

  7

  1

  1

  2

  1980

  822

  6

  6

  0

  0

  640

  1981

  780

  4

  6

  3

  0

  6

  1982

  728

  7

  8

  2

  7

  10

  1983

  710

  18

  4

  8

  2

  5

  1984

  692

  25

  7

  1

  6

  2

  1985

  700

  5

  6

  0

  758

  1

  1986

  753

  13

  7

  2

  2

  5

  1987

  710

  8

  7

  2

  0

  4

  1988

  732

  11

  15

  2

  0

  4

  1989

  642

  6

  4

  0

  2

  5

  1990

  627

  2

  5

  1

  0

  3

  1991

  608

  2

  7

  3

  0

  1

  1992

  594

  6

  13

  0

  1

  0

  1 Data for 1993 are not yet available.

  2 Includes deaths in high rise flats, separate data are not available.

  3 Includes homes for the disabled or handicapped.

  4 Includes all deaths from fires starting in rooms used as offices, including any in offices in dwellings.

  5 Includes wine bars, discotheques in clubs etc.

  6 Includes 37 deaths in unlicensed drinking clubs in Soho.

  7 Includes 56 deaths in Bradford City football ground.

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics.

  Trespass
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to strengthen protection for private landowners against trespass by hunts and to provide remedies for trespass on public footpaths.

  Mr. Maclean
  The proposed new offence of aggravated trespass, contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, will apply to all trespassers, including hunters, who wilfully disrupt, or seek to disrupt, a lawful activity on land. It will be possible to commit the new offence on footpaths and bridleways.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his oral statement of 4 May,Official Report, columns 823–26, which organisations and individuals have so far been consulted on possible changes to the immigration rules in 1994; and what form the consultation has taken.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In July 1993, copies of a working draft of the revised immigration rules were sent to the following organisations:

  Bar Council

  Camden Law Centre

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Immigration Advisory Service

  Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA)

  Fire Deaths
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons died in fires in each year since 1979, where the fire was located in(a) domestic dwellings, (b) industrial installations, (c) private residential homes, (d) offices, (e) recreational venues, (f) high-rise flats and (g) public houses, clubs and discotheques.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table.

  Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI)

  Law Centres Federation

  Law Society

  National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux

  Refugee Legal Centre

  Copies of the working draft were placed in the Vote Office and Library of the House. They were also made available, on request, to a number of legal practitioners and others. Officials held meetings in December with representatives of ILPA, JCWI and the Law Society to discuss their written responses to the working draft.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his oral statement of 4 May,Official Report, columns 823–26, what are the compelling and compassionate circumstances in which it may allow an application from a homosexual non-United Kingdom citizen for leave to remain in the United Kingdom with a homosexual partner who is a United Kingdom citizen.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Factors which may be taken into account in assessing whether compelling compassionate circumstances are present in such an application are the health of the settled partner and the length and stability of the relationship.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom made by non-United Kingdom citizens on the basis of a same-sex relationship with a citizen of the United Kingdom have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1990.
  335
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not separately identified in the statistics.

  Drug Abuse, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimate of the cost of drug-related crime in Hampshire for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The involvement of drug misusers in criminal activity is difficult to quantify. It is not possible to estimate with any accuracy the amount of crime which is drug related.

  Refugees
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is meant by exceptional leave to enter for persons applying for refugee status.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A person who is not recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom in accordance with the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees may be granted exceptional leave to enter or remain if there are compelling humanitarian reasons for not returning him to his country of origin.

  Operation Elgar
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were detained following operation Elgar; how many have subsequently been released; how many are still detained; and how many of those detained were employed by the London borough of Southwark;

  (2) if he will make a statement on operation Elgar which took place on 27 April;

  (3) how many people have been deported following operation Elgar.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Operation Elgar was a joint operation by the Immigration Service and the Metropolitan police aimed at detecting offenders against the immigration laws.

  As a result of visits conducted on 27 April, 59 people were detained. Two more were detained following related visits on 28 April and 1 May. Of these 61, 11 have been removed from the United Kingdom as illegal entrants or under the deportation process, and two remain in detention with a view to removal. The remaining 48 were released and 22 of them are subject to reporting restrictions pending removal from the United Kingdom on further consideration of their cases. A total of 44 people were dealt with as offenders against the immigration laws.

  Twenty-four of the people detained and dealt with as immigration offenders were identified as being on the payroll of the London borough of Southwark. It is not known how many were employed by the borough at the time of the operation.

  The operation was carefully planned and the guidance in Home Office circular 131/1980 about the conduct of operations of this type was fully observed.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of supplying every adult with an identity card.
  336
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 7 December 1993, column 168.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make a study of the new identity card system to be introduced in the Netherlands in June.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no plans for a specific study of the system in the Netherlands.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with other member states of the European Union regarding mutual recognition of identity cards; and what discussions his Department has had regarding a common European-wide identity card.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have had no discussions with other European Union member states about identity cards. Community law already provides that nationals of any European Economic Area state may use a valid identity card issued by that state for travel throughout the European Economic Area. It is a matter for each member state to decide whether or not to issue identity cards.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he proposes to introduce for interviewing life sentence prisoners for release on licence following the abolition of local review committees in September 1994.

  Mr. Howard
  I have asked the Parole Board to undertake the interviewing of life sentence prisoners currently performed by local review committees. This will include mandatory life sentence prisoners and discretionary life sentence prisoners whose tariffs have not yet expired. I am most grateful to the board for agreeing to take on this extra work.

  I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all present and former members of local review committees for their outstanding contribution to the parole scheme over the last 25 years. They have given most generously of their time and I am very grateful to them for their hard work, dedication and the great care they have taken over their recommendations in this very sensitive area.

  Public Alert System
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of 28 February,Official Report, column 586, on studies of possible enhancements to the national public alert system, if he will give (a) the terms of reference of the studies, (b) the personnel carrying out the studies, (c) the expected cost of the studies, (d) the date on which they commenced and (e) the date on which the studies are expected to be completed; and if he will publish the report of the studies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The requirements of the study now being considered were:"To review current receipt and generation arrangements using only peacetime Broadcasting Systems for alerting/warning the public and to produce a proposal for a National Warning System using existing peacetime Broadcasting Networks as a primary system for warning the United Kingdom population of an air attack."
  337
  The study was carried out by the BBC at a cost of £4,200 and was presented in October last year. It is being examined by officials in the course of their normal duties. The study contains information confidential to the BBC's operations and it would not be appropriate for my Department to publish it. The need for and scope and timing of further studies have not yet been decided.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of 28 February,Official Report, column 586, if he will place in the Library a copy of the representations by his officials to the Local Government Commission for England on the subject of emergency planning.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A copy of the letter referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), column 586, has been placed in the Library.

  European Union (Ministerial Meetings)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the formal meetings at which representatives of the United Kingdom Government have attended in accordance with article K3 of the European Union treaty since the coming into force of that treaty

  Average number of days absence due to sickness1 Police forces in England and Wales2

  Forces

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  10·1

  10·1

  8·7

  12·0

  Bedfordshire

  13·2

  12·4

  11·6

  11·7

  Cambridgeshire

  12·4

  10·8

  10·1

  11·3

  Cheshire

  10·8

  12·2

  14·5

  11·2

  City of London

  12·7

  11·0

  11·1

  11·4

  Cleveland

  19·6

  16·2

  14·0

  14·9

  Cumbria

  11·5

  10·6

  11·6

  10·4

  Derbyshire

  10·9

  14·2

  12·4

  12·8

  Devon and Cornwall

  9·5

  10·1

  9·9

  9·6

  Dorset

  7·6

  10·9

  9·6

  9·5

  Durham

  11·6

  12·4

  12·8

  15·3

  Dyfed-Powys

  11·0

  11·7

  10·9

  12·7

  Essex

  12·9

  11·4

  8·0

  8·4

  Gloucestershire

  10·1

  11·5

  12·2

  11·2

  Greater Manchester

  14·2

  13·0

  10·9

  11·6

  Gwent

  10·9

  13·8

  14·0

  11·2

  Hampshire

  10·5

  13·9

  11·7

  9·5

  Hertfordshire

  13·5

  14·0

  12·6

  11·3

  Humberside

  13·6

  10·4

  12·0

  15·5

  Kent

  9·8

  6·8

  10·6

  12·7

  Lancashire

  16·5

  15·6

  13·8

  13·0

  Leicestershire

  13·7

  13·9

  13·2

  15·8

  Lincolnshire

  13·7

  14·9

  11·5

  12·9

  Merseyside

  17·0

  19·6

  17·1

  17·1

  Norfolk

  12·9

  11·0

  10·1

  12·0

  North Wales

  13·7

  17·0

  16·9

  15·1

  North Yorkshire

  11·8

  14·0

  13·6

  12·7

  Northamptonshire

  12·7

  13·4

  9·7

  9·7

  Northumbria

  10·3

  9·8

  13·1

  13·3

  Nottinghamshire

  12·1

  12·0

  13·2

  13·4

  South Wales

  13·9

  15·8

  15·0

  11·7

  South Yorkshire

  12·3

  12·5

  12·5

  13·1

  Staffordshire

  15·0

  16·3

  15·6

  14·1

  Suffolk

  7·8

  7·4

  6·6

  9·0

  Surrey

  9·3

  11·6

  10·8

  13·8

  Sussex

  10·2

  13·7

  8·9

  11·3

  Thames Valley

  7·3

  9·8

  8·0

  9·8

  Warwickshire

  12·4

  14·0

  14·3

  15·3

  West Mercia

  12·4

  13·0

  12·3

  12·2

  West Midlands

  7·1

  9·6

  14·0

  6·2

  West Yorkshire

  10·9

  12·4

  12·4

  13·4

  338
  together with the subject matter under consideration at the meeting and the title UI of the official representing the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not routinely collected centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Police Complement
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many supernumerary officers there are in each police authority and how many of them are on royal protection duties.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not our practice to publish details of police deployment to protection duties, for security reasons.

  Police Sick Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by sex, and by year for the last 10 years, the average number of police officer days lost for reasons of sickness in each police authority.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form which is requested. Information is available on the average number of days which were lost due to sickness for the years 1990 to 1993 and is shown in the table.
  339

  Forces

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Wiltshire

  9·1

  8·2

  7·4

  8·5

  Provincial Total

  11·8

  12·5

  12·0

  11·9

  Metropolitan Police

  12·7

  12·7

  12·9

  2

  England and Wales Total

  12·0

  12·5

  12·2

  9·32

  1Information is based on the average strength of each force throughout each year.

  2Figures for the Metropolitan Police are not yet available for 1993.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of people remanded in custody by magistrates courts in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield in each of the last five years.

  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.

  Receptions into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales on Remand from a Magistrates' court in Doncaster, Barnsley, Rotherham or Sheffield, 1989–1993

  Year

  Magistrates' court

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Doncaster

  166

  167

  206

  260

  332

  Barnsley

  90

  105

  180

  198

  234

  Rotherham

  73

  95

  175

  181

  206

  Sheffield

  199

  165

  397

  524

  555

  Total

  528

  532

  958

  1,163

  1,327

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him in relation to the future of the obscene publications branch at New Scotland Yard.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have received 26 letters and three questions, apart from this one, from hon. and right hon. Members about this matter, and one other letter from a voluntary organisation. The future of the obscene publications branch was also the subject of a recent early-day motion, No. 1057.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Director General of the Prison Service as to the number of drug finds that have been made in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of drug finds is one aspect of the drugs problem in prisons, but it is not a reliable indicator of its scale. My right hon. and learned Friend has had frequent discussions about that problem with the Director General and others and the methods of dealing with it.

  Prison Population, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by Her Majesty's prison and remand home/centre, for the latest date he has figures
  340
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the total number of people remanded in custody by magistrates' courts in (a) Doncaster, (b) Sheffield in each of the last five years.
  The information you have requested relating to the numbers received into a Prison Service establishment on remand from the Magistrates' courts requested is given in the attached table.

  available, the number of inmates whose place of residence is South Yorkshire; and what were the figures (a) 12 and (b) 24 months ago.

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 16 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list by Her Majesty's prison and remand home/centre for the latest date he has figures available, the number of inmates whose place of residence is South Yorkshire; and what were the figures (a) 12 and (b) 24 months ago.
  The information available on where prisoners originate from is for the county of the court first committing to custody. The latest available provisional statistics are for the population in Prison Service establishments on 31 December 1993, who were first committed to custody by a court from South Yorkshire, and is given in the attached table.
  I regret to inform you that the information on the population available before 1993 is unreliable because of the high proportion of sentenced cases with no court data recorded.

  Population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1993 who were first committed to custody by a court in South Yorkshire1

  Prison Service establishment

  Number of persons2

  Acklington

  14

  Ashwell

  3

  Askham Grange

  5

  Aylesbury

  2

  341

  Prison Service establishment

  Number of persons2

  Bedford

  2

  Birmingham

  1

  Castington

  7

  Chanings Wood

  1

  Cookham Wood

  1

  Deerbolt

  12

  Drake Hall

  1

  Durham

  1

  Elmley

  2

  Erlstoke

  1

  Everthorpe

  33

  Feltham

  1

  Featherstone

  2

  Frankland

  6

  Full Sutton

  16

  Garth

  7

  Gartree

  2

  Glen Parva

  3

  Grenden

  2

  Hatfield

  24

  High Point

  2

  Holme House

  5

  Hull

  75

  Huntercome

  1

  Kirklevington

  1

  Lancaster

  1

  Leeds

  15

  Lincoln

  16

  Lindholme

  104

  Littlehey

  1

  Long Lartin

  1

  Maidstone

  2

  Manchester

  1

  Moorland

  104

  Morton Hall

  26

  The Mount

  1

  New Hall

  13

  North Sea Camp

  2

  Nottingham

  5

  Onley

  2

  Portsmouth

  1

  Ranby

  44

  Risley

  4

  Rochester

  1

  Rudgate

  19

  Stafford

  2

  Stocken

  12

  Stoke Heath

  1

  Sudbury

  3

  Swaleside

  1

  Swifen Hall

  1

  Thorpe Arch

  7

  Thorne Cross

  1

  Usk

  2

  The Verne

  1

  Wakefield

  19

  Wandsworth

  1

  Wetherby

  10

  Whatton

  15

  Whitmoor

  1

  Wolds

  190

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  Wymott

  8

  Not Recorded

  14

  All Prisons

  886

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Excludes those committed to custody for non-payment of a fine and non-criminal prisoners.

  National Lottery Charities Board
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will name the members of the National Lottery Charities Board;

  (2) when the National Lottery Charities Board will be set up.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 10 May that he was appointing as chairman of the National Lottery Charities Board the hon. David Sieff. Potential board members are currently under consideration, and he expects to make appointments within the next few weeks.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give consideration to protecting educational and social welfare projects which have received section 11 grant since 1992 and which fall outside bidding guidance issued for the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No guarantee can be given as regards the future of existing projects beyond existing commitments but the bidding guidance already covers activity of this sort. The specific aims of the budget include initiatives intended to"enhance the employment prospects, education and skills of local people, particularly the young and those at a disadvantage, and promote equality of opportunity"
  and to
  "promote initiatives of benefit to ethnic minorities".

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The information is as follows:

  £

  Sale of NTL (October 1991)

  2,152,000

  Sale of DTELS (March 1994)1

  822,000

  1 These are costs so far calculated. The final account has yet to be settled.

  These figures exclude payments to the Government Actuary's Department.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Physical Education Teachers
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance his Department has given the Sports Council on the development of pre-service and in-service training for physical education teachers.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department is represented on the Sports Council's young people and sport advisory group which advises the Council, among other things, on its work with physical education teachers.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new initiatives he is taking to involve disabled people and their organisations in relation to fuller access to the arts.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department aims to make the cultural life of the nation more widely accessible to everyone, including disabled people. To that end, the Department is taking the lead in an access initiative, to explore with our sponsored bodies how best to deliver this aim within existing resources.

  In the specific field of the arts, the Department has demonstrated its commitment through its continuing support for ADAPT, established in partnership with the Carnegie (UK) Trust with the aim of adapting arts-related buildings to make them more accessible. For its part, the Arts Council for England has an established record in promoting the interests of disabled people, and is committed to maintaining its vigorous approach in these matters.

  Sport and Recreation Qualifications
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance his Department has given the Sports Council with regard to the development of national vocational qualifications for sport and recreation.

  Mr. Sproat
  None. The Sports Council chairs the industry lead body for sport and recreation and receives guidance in relation to this role from the Employment Department and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

  English Heritage
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what benefits have accrued from English Heritage's transfer of management of a number of its properties to(a) English Heritage, (b) the new managers of the properties and (c) the Exchequer.

  Mr. Brooke
  In pursuance of the policies in its "Forward Strategy", English Heritage sought my agreement to the transfer of 22 sites to local management in March this year. Local management arrangements provide opportunities for improved cost-effectiveness and can bring benefits in terms of local enthusiasm for and commitment to the properties concerned, as well as additional resources for their preservation and presentation to the public. It is too early to quantify the extent of these benefits. However, I have agreed with English Heritage that it will keep the success of alternative management schemes under review and will formally evaluate the effectiveness of the policy in two years' time.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance he has given on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the staff of English Heritage employed at properties whose management is to be transferred to other bodies such as the National Trust.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department of National Heritage has issued advice to English Heritage on the application of the Transport of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)344
  Regulations 1981, in accordance with the guidance given by Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 11 March 1993, Official Report, columns 648–49. English Heritage follow this guidance in all relevant cases where the management of English Heritage properties is transferred to other bodies.

  Royal Palaces
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the state ceremonial occasions, and expenditure on them by his Department, referred to under the heading "Occupied Royal Palaces", in his Department's expenditure plans for 1994–95, Cm 2511.

  Mr. Sproat
  The state ceremonials for which the Department has responsibility the planned expenditure on these for 1994–95 is as follows:

  £

  Commonwealth Day Flag Flying

  14,000

  State visit President of Zimbabwe

  210,000

  Her Majesty The Queen's Birthday Parade

  44,000

  United Nations Day Flag Flying

  2,200

  Remembrance Sunday

  65,000

  Association of Jewish ex-servicemen and women (AJEX)

  1,000

  336,000

  Additional costs Fees/storage/repairs

  218,600

  Total

  554,800

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give a breakdown of his Department's estimated £11 million expenditure for 1994–95 on the Historic Royal Palaces Agency.

  Mr. Sproat
  Of the £11 million public expenditure allocated to the Historic Royal Palaces Agency for 1994–95:£3 million has been transferred to the Royal Armouries in year towards the cost of the new museum in Leeds;
  £1.5 million will be spent on modernising fire detection and prevention systems in line with the recommendations of the Bailey Inquiry following the Windsor fire;
  and the remainder will go towards other capital conservation and improvement schemes, building maintenance and running costs.

  Three quarters of the agency's costs are met from commercial receipts.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give a breakdown for each royal palace of the £20.6 million due to be spent by his Department in 1994–95 on the occupied royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  The amounts planned to be spent on each of the occupied royal palaces in 1994–95 are as follows:

  £ million

  Buckingham Palace

  4·043

  Windsor Castle

  5·910

  St James's Palace and Clarence House

  2·998

  Kensington Palace

  1·171

  Utilities/salaries and ancillary costs

  6·469

  Total

  20·591

  345
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the other historic buildings referred to in his Department's expenditure plans 1994–95, Cm 2511, under the heading "Occupied Royal Palaces"; and how much of the £26.4 million total for this period will be spent on them.

  Mr. Sproat
  The other historic buildings under this heading for which the Department has some responsibility are: Apsley house, the Royal Naval college at Greenwich, Osborne house and the Albert memorial. The Department also has responsibility for maintenance of Trafalgar square, and certain statues in London.

  Planned expenditure in 1994–95 on these buildings and structures is £3.1 million. Additionally up to £1 million is being made available by English Heritage towards the restoration of the Albert memorial.

  Cultural Services
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the likely impact on national museums and galleries in the United Kingdom of the EU sixth directive relating to the VAT treatment of cultural services.

  Mr. Sproat
  Discussions are continuing between my officials and those of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise about the implications and scope of such an exemption. The views that my Department has received from the national museums and galleries have been taken into account during these discussions, and those organisations will be consulted on further developments.

  Correspondence
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will reply to the letter of the right hon. Member for Guildford of 23 March requesting urgent action on behalf of a constituent.

  Mr. Brooke
  My private office replied on 3 May, informing the right hon. Gentleman that the letter in question was properly a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, which has undertaken to reply substantively.

  Outdoor Activity Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the contribution made by the Sports Council in drawing up the code of practice for outdoor adventure activity providers.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council is contributing its expertise to the development of a voluntary accreditation scheme for outdoor activity providers through its membership of the English tourist board's activity centre advisory committee. This Department has observer status on ACAC. The new code of practice, agreed at the committee's last meeting, will provide an important mechanism for ensuring that centres operate to nationally agreed safety standards. The committee has also agreed a programme of pilot inspections over the summer as part of the process of devising sports-specific guidelines and the Sports Council and the English tourist board will be helping to fund this work.

WALES

  Strategic Development Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated under the strategic development scheme, and, prior to the introduction of the scheme, how much was spent through(a) the urban programme, (b) the rural initiative, (c) projects of regional and national importance and (d) special project schemes for each year since 1989–90 for (i) each district council and (ii) Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  1994–95 strategic development scheme allocations to district councils in Wales, together with the all-Wales total, is provided in table 1. Details of expenditure between 1989–90 and 1993–94 through the urban programme, rural initiative, projects of regional and national importance and special projects schemes are in tables 2 to 5.

  Table 1

  Strategic Development Scheme Allocations—£'000

  11994–95

  Alyn and deeside DC

  1,337

  Colwyn BC

  1,447

  Delyn

  829

  Glyndwr DC

  187

  Rhuddlan BC

  821

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  1,487

  Carmarthen DC

  2184

  Ceredigion DC

  2975

  Dinefwr BC

  1,444

  Llanelli BC

  2,224

  Preseli Pembrokeshire DC

  927

  South Pembrokeshire DC

  2,481

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  1,753

  Islwyn BC

  31,267

  Monmouth DC

  58

  Newport BC

  1,153

  Torfaen BC

  640

  Aberconwy BC

  2,250

  Arfon BC

  1,126

  Dwyfor DC

  787

  Meirionnydd DC

  668

  Ynys Mon BC

  1,140

  Cynon Valley BC

  31,947

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  3903

  Ogwr BC

  1,102

  Rhondda BC

  34,460

  Rhymney Valley DC

  300

  Taff-Ely BC

  3431

  Brecknock BC

  2,330

  Montgomeryshire DC

  126

  Radnor DC

  183

  Cardiff CC

  989

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  1,190

  West Glamorgan CC

  2,281

  Port Talbot BC

  253

  Lliw Valley BC

  282

  Neath BC

  353

  Swansea CC

  2,625

  WALES TOTAL (including county councils)

  56,223

  Notes:

  1 Includes slippage on schemes carried forward from 1993–94.

  2 Excludes £1,9 million set aside for projects approved in principle for Carmarthen DC and Ceredigion DC.

  3 Includes £10,000 revenue allocation for each of the 5 successful Community Revival Strategies, but excludes the capital allocations which will not be confirmed until receipt of the Business Plans in June 1994.
  347

  Table 2

  Urban programme expenditure details

  £'000

  1989–901

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–942 forecast outturn

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  275

  223

  265

  100

  338

  Colwyn BC

  45

  275

  280

  108

  57

  Delyn

  622

  618

  235

  757

  338

  Glyndwr DC

  13

  8

  119

  133

  118

  Rhuddlan BC

  249

  601

  545

  992

  1,138

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  521

  776

  1,449

  525

  246

  Carmarthen DC

  —

  16

  136

  18

  18

  Ceredigion DC

  18

  14

  132

  101

  77

  Dinefwr BC

  378

  168

  687

  1,069

  428

  Llanelli BC

  433

  467

  442

  1,037

  764

  Preseli Pembrokeshire DC

  157

  157

  283

  95

  140

  South Pembrokeshire DC

  158

  139

  219

  172

  222

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  2,390

  2,744

  5,876

  1,534

  916

  Islwyn BC

  870

  944

  1,013

  709

  723

  Monmouth DC

  14

  41

  32

  30

  203

  Newport BC

  692

  623

  610

  690

  960

  Torfaen BC

  1,255

  927

  822

  464

  345

  Aberconwy BC

  169

  167

  261

  191

  170

  Arfon BC

  425

  309

  426

  616

  382

  Dwyfor DC

  100

  65

  —

  139

  121

  Meirionnydd DC

  112

  182

  402

  221

  158

  Ynys Mon BC

  213

  182

  184

  263

  127

  Cynon Valley BC

  1,073

  1,281

  1,727

  2,193

  1,776

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  1,366

  1,081

  1,055

  1,477

  987

  Ogwr BC

  1,271

  1,230

  1,111

  1,333

  1,165

  Rhondda BC

  2,043

  2,268

  1,330

  1,885

  2,805

  Rhymney Valley DC

  1,082

  1,071

  362

  1,127

  744

  Taff-Ely BC

  429

  418

  320

  1,031

  533

  Brecknock BC

  102

  79

  25

  250

  —

  Montgomeryshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radnor DC

  5

  14

  15

  16

  16

  Cardiff CC

  916

  964

  1,155

  1,046

  1,310

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  282

  217

  294

  449

  761

  Port Talbot BC

  559

  696

  561

  149

  324

  Lliw Valley BC

  432

  19

  309

  424

  339

  Neath BC

  504

  438

  768

  675

  310

  Swansea CC

  535

  510

  572

  525

  965

  Wales Total (including county councils)

  27,732

  29,695

  36,584

  31,970

  29,347

  Notes:

  1 Allocation not expenditure data provided for 1989–90. Expenditure details are not available on a consistent basis with future years because of the introduction of local authority capital expenditure controls in 1990–91. From this date information collected relates solely to local authorities expenditure against money provided through the Urban Programme, excluding any local authority expenditure financed through loans. Before this date authorities funded some of the schemes approved under the Urban Programme by raising loans and therefore only included appropriate loan charge payments on the payment returns.

  2 Actual expenditure details not available until local authorities annual Audited claims are received at the end of the year.

  Table 3

  Rural initiative expenditure details since the programmes inception—£'000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 forecast outturn

  Colwyn BC

  40

  —

  32

  Delyn

  32

  32

  —

  Glyndwr DC

  180

  270

  175

  Rhuddlan BC

  147

  —

  27

  Carmarthen DC

  558

  126

  120

  Ceredigion DC

  127

  240

  338

  Dinefwr BC

  78

  123

  236

  Preseli Pembs DC

  32

  339

  1,021

  South Pembs DC

  60

  146

  681

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  10

  —

  —

  Monmouth DC

  219

  156

  57

  348

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 forecast outturn

  Aberconwy BC

  —

  262

  793

  Arfon BC

  157

  152

  590

  Dwyfor DC

  250

  108

  549

  Meirionnydd DC

  —

  100

  526

  Ynys Mon BC

  50

  122

  405

  Brecknock BC

  360

  —

  110

  Montgomeryshire DC

  350

  256

  262

  Radnor DC

  464

  157

  —

  Lliw Valley BC

  —

  —

  8

  Wales total (including County Councils)

  4,315

  5,539

  8,439

  349

  Table 4

  Projects of Regional or National Importance Allocations—£'000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Ceredigion DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  500

  South Pembrokeshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·000

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  1·700

  2·945

  1·055

  —

  —

  Aberconwy BC

  —

  —

  —

  2·000

  —

  Dwyfor DC

  —

  —

  1·400

  900

  —

  Swansea CC

  1·500

  1·250

  1·239

  —

  165

  TOTAL WALES (including County Councils)

  5·639

  10·523

  15·216

  9·611

  6·571

  Figures for PRNI/SP relate to capital allocations for 1989–90 and supplementary credit approvals from 1990–91 onwards. Figures are therefore not strictly comparable.

  Table 5

  Special projects allocations—£'000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Colwyn BC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  580

  Delyn BC

  250

  200

  650

  2,000

  1,950

  Rhuddlan BC

  950

  540

  840

  825

  1,200

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  1,350

  1,350

  1,350

  200

  2,085

  Dinefwr BC

  —

  —

  900

  600

  —

  Llanelli BC

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,200

  1,500

  Preseli Pembs DC

  —

  650

  650

  700

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  700

  655

  Aberconwy BC

  1,400

  —

  759

  185

  —

  Dwyfor DC

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rhondda BC

  —

  —

  900

  —

  —

  Taff Ely BC

  —

  —

  350

  —

  —

  Brecknock BC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,316

  Radnorshire DC

  —

  500

  850

  250

  —

  Total Wales (including County Councils)

  6,950

  4,240

  8,204

  7,660

  9,565

  Figures for PRNI/SP relate to capital allocation for 1989–90 and supplementary credit approvals from 1990–91 onwards. Figures are not therefore strictly comparable.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the Government decided that the White Paper on local government in Wales should not contain proposals for unitary authorities for Meirionnydd and Montgomeryshire.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not the practice to give details of internal discussions on policy matters.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to review the cases of residents of care or nursing homes in receipt of a preserved entitlement to income support.

  Mr. Scott
  Income support at the higher levels is paid to 284,000 people in residential care and nursing homes at a cost of £2.7 billion, compared with support for just 12,000 at a cost of £10 million in 1979.

  These limits are reviewed each year.

  Maxwell Pensions Unit
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the work of his Department's Maxwell Pensions Unit.
  350
  Mr. Hague
  The Maxwell Pensions Unit continues to work with all concerned to encourage the resolution of disputes as quickly as possible. The unit provides substantial administrative support to the Maxwell Pensioners Trust global settlement initiative, which aims to secure the pension rights of all Maxwell scheme members.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had in the last month on his policy on the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  During April 1994 Ministers received representations from hon. Members, organisations and members of the public about various child support issues, some favourable, others not.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he now estimates the Child Support Agency will collect in its first year of operation.

  Mr. Burt
  Provisional figures show that to the end of March the Agency had recorded £210 million as collected. This is not the total amount for the year, however. It does not include, for example, maintenance paid direct by absent parents to parents with care where benefit is not an issue. Nor does it include some other amounts collected which will be scored retrospectively.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet hon. Members to discuss the working of the Child Support Agency.
  351
  Mr. Lilley
  Ministers always give sympathetic consideration to requests from hon. Members to discuss particular issues.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further changes he expects to introduce to the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to amend the Child Support Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the working of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no immediate plans for change but are keeping the operation of the Child Support Agency under review.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are now paying maintenance as a result of the Child Support Agency's activities who were not paying it previously.

  Mr. Burt
  As at 31 March, 205,540 maintenance assessments had been completed. It is estimated that almost 60 per cent. of cases taken on by the agency were not already receiving maintenance.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received concerning proposals for further changes in the child support regulations.

  Mr. Burt
  Between 5 April 1993 and 30 April 1994 Ministers received 13,081 letters about child support. The cost of establishing how many of these suggest changes to regulations would be disproportionately high.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the changes in family credit payments during the period of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The information provided in the table is for 31 March 1993, immediately prior to the introduction of the Child Support Agency, and 31 October 1993, the latest date for which information is available.

  March 19931

  October 19932

  Number of Family Credit recipients

  485,000

  520,000

  Number of recipients with maintenance

  66,000

  80,000

  Number of recipients without maintenance

  419,000

  440,000

  Average award of all Family Credit recipients

  £42.34

  £45.97

  Average award of recipients with maintenance

  £45.90

  £48.40

  Average award of recipients without maintenance

  £41.78

  £45.53

  1 Source: Five per cent. sample of Family Credit recipients at 31 March 1993.

  2 Source: Five per cent. sample of Family Credit recipients at 31 October 1993.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding publication of the Child Support Agency collection and enforcement manual.
  352
  Mr. Burt
  There have been a small number of representations regarding the publication of the Child Support Agency's collection and enforcement manual. However, there is good reason for the manual not to be available as it contains detailed guidance on the actions to be taken when enforcing, or deciding whether to enforce child maintenance and could allow a person liable to pay maintenance to delay or possibly avoid enforcement action being brought against him or her.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is Government policy regularly to uprate pensions and other benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Yes. We have uprated retirement pension and most other benefits in line with prices or better each year since 1979. This April, the uprating of retirement pension—and most other benefits—included an additional element, above the increase in prices, for extra help with the cost of VAT on fuel.

  Pensions
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much total pension incomes have increased per annum between 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the equivalent figure between 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  Between 1979 and 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, pensioners' total income from state pension and occupational pension grew at an estimated average annual rate of 3.1 per cent. for all pensioners.

  The estimated average annual rate of growth between 1974 and 1979 was 0.4 per cent.

  Child Care Allowance
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he currently makes of the number of families which will benefit from the introduction of the disregard for child care.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families will benefit from the recent introduction of a child care allowance in family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  We expect that 150,000 families will benefit from the introduction of the child care disregard. This includes 50,000 expected to take up work as a direct result of the change.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about his Department's use of management consultants.

  Mr. Scott
  Management consultancy firms have mainly been used by the Department to assist with the development and maintenance of the major computer systems introduced to support the Department's business. These systems play a major part in enabling the Department and its agencies to deliver an efficient and professional service.
  353
  The introduction of these systems together with the use of consultants in other business areas has improved the quality of services provided throughout the Department.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of spending on social security in the current year.

  Mr. Hague
  Currently the grand total of social security spending is expected to be £88.6 billion in 1994–95. This figure has been taken from the 1994 Social Security Department report.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the table. The equipment is provided where a valid business case for its purchase and use is made by the individual/unit concerned.

  Mobile telephones (including car 'phones)

  Pagers

  Benefits Agency

  Number in use

  1—

  1—

  Combined annual cost

  2£625,738.94

  1—

  Contributions Agency

  Number in use

  1—

  1—

  Combined annual cost

  2£194,183.18

  1—

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Number in use

  539

  1,111

  Annual cost

  £210,681

  £244,503

  Number issued to specified BA and ES district offices for the use of computer support staff

  —

  998

  Annual cost

  —

  £108,562

  DSS HQ

  Number in use

  49

  72

  Annual cost

  £20,193

  £14,757

  Child Support Agency

  Number in use

  380

  185

  Annual cost

  1—

  1—

  Resettlement Agency

  Number in use

  7

  8

  Annual cost

  1—

  1—

  War Pensions Agency

  Number in use

  103

  5

  Annual cost

  £27,810

  £439

  Notes:

  1 Indicates that no central record is held by the Agency and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  2 Includes combined annual cost of mobile telephones and pagers.

  Figures quoted are as at the end of the 1993–94 financial year.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner tax units receive occupational pensions; if he will break this figure down 354
  into bands of occupational pension income of £1,000, up to a maximum of £20,000; and if he will give figures for the last five years.

  Mr. Hague
  Information for the years 1987 to 1990–91 —the latest available—is in the tables:

  Pension units in receipt of occupational pensions 1990–91 — total number of pensioner units 7.04 million

  Single pensioners with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,047

  Up to 2

  596

  Up to 3

  230

  Up to 5

  251

  Up to 7*

  161

  Up to 20*

  167

  All

  2,455

  Pensioner couples with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  479

  Up to 2

  397

  Up to 3

  *173

  Up to 4

  *154

  Up to 5

  *126

  Up to 7

  *148

  Up to 10

  *124

  Up to 20

  *120

  All

  1,832

  All pensioner units with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,526

  Up to 2

  994

  Up to 3

  404

  Up to 4

  313

  Up to 5

  217

  Up to 6

  *157

  Up to 7

  *152

  Up to 8

  *119

  Up to 10

  *120

  Up to 13

  *91

  Up to 20

  *81

  All

  4,288

  1990 — total number of pensioner units 7.05 million

  Single pensioners with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,042

  Up to 2

  543

  Up to 3

  234

  Up to 6

  *320

  Up to 20

  *232

  All

  2,374

  Pensioner couples with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  506

  Up to 2

  395

  Up to 3

  332

  355

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 6

  *238

  Up to 20

  *265

  All

  1,855

  All pensioner units with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,548

  Up to 2

  938

  Up to 3

  398

  Up to 4

  *312

  Up to 5

  *221

  Up to 6

  *193

  Up to 8

  *274

  Up to 20

  *246

  All

  4,229

  1989 — total number of pensioner units 7.02 million

  Single pensioners with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,033

  Up to 2

  *358

  Up to 3

  *253

  Up to 5

  *269

  Up to 20

  *243

  All

  2,159

  Pensioner couples with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  584

  Up to 2

  371

  Up to 3

  *198

  Up to 5

  *236

  Up to 8

  *187

  Up to 20

  *140

  All

  1,858

  All pensioner units with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,616

  Up to 2

  729

  Up to 3

  451

  Up to 4

  *288

  Up to 5

  *218

  Up to 6

  *180

  Up to 8

  *196

  Up to 20

  *194

  All

  4,017

  1988 — total number of pensioner units 6.99 million

  Single pensioners with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  972

  Up to 2

  459

  Up to 3

  *208

  Up to 5

  *289

  Up to 20

  *222

  All

  2,154

  356

  Pensioner couples with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  606

  Up to 2

  *272

  Up to 3

  *167

  Up to 6

  328

  Up to 20

  *206

  All

  1,715

  All pensioner units with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,578

  Up to 2

  731

  Up to 3

  375

  Up to 4

  *334

  Up to 5

  *203

  Up to 7

  *263

  Up to 20

  *246

  All

  3,670

  1987 — total number of pensioner units 6.96 million

  Single pensioners with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,033

  Up to 2

  441

  Up to 3

  *219

  Up to 5

  *196

  Up to 20

  *178

  All

  2,080

  Pensioner couples with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  667

  Up to 2

  347

  Up to 3

  *179

  Up to 6

  *250

  Up to 20

  *203

  All

  1,732

  All pensioner units with occupational pensions

  £ thousands

  Number (thousands)

  Up to 1

  1,700

  Up to 2

  788

  Up to 3

  398

  Up to 4

  *231

  Up to 6

  *264

  Up to 8

  *184

  Up to 20

  *147

  All

  3,812

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and should be treated as such.

  2. Estimates derive from the Family Expenditure Survey for the combined years 1990–91 and the Government Actuary's Department's Survey of Occupational Pension 1991.

  * denotes unreliably small sample size.

  4. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of housing benefit being paid to(a) tenants of local authorities, (b) tenants of housing associations and (c) tenants of private landlords.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing Benefit Expenditure in Great Britain

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Local Authority Tenants

  4,347

  5,004

  Private Tenants1

  3,257

  3,817

  Data Source:

  Social Security Departmental Report 1994.

  Notes:

  1 Separate information on the amount of Housing Benefit paid to Housing Association tenants is not available and is included in the private tenants total.

  Incapacity Benefits
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will introduce arrangements to allow people receiving benefits for incapacity to do voluntary work.

  Mr. Scott
  Regulations were laid before Parliament on 22 April 1994 and come into force today. These regulations will enable people to continue to be accepted as incapable of work for the purposes of sickness benefit, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance if they are doing voluntary work for up to 16 hours a week.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to elect directly boards of management to all social security offices.

  Mr. Scott
  No. It would serve no purpose other than to result in an increase in bureaucracy. Customers and their representatives are already consulted regularly so their views can inform future service planning.

  Centenarians
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many telegrams he sent to(a) male and (b) female centenarians in the past year and five, 10 and 16 years ago; what was the cost to public funds in each of those years at current prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Number of telegrams sent to centenarians

  1988

  1993

  Male

  238

  311

  Female

  1,904

  2,589

  The approximate cost of each telegram, exclusive of staff time, is currently £2.65.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many hours of civil servant time, and at what cost, was spent on drafting new clauses and amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 12 May at column 213.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received since Friday 6 May from disabled people's organisations and others regarding progress on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill; what has been the nature of such representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  To date I have received eight letters and a small number of telephone calls relating to the future of the Bill which is scheduled to continue its Report stage on 20 May.

  I announced the Government's plans for combating discrimination against disabled people during the debate on Report of the Bill on 6 May at column 996 and gave further details in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) on 10 May at column 136.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the calculations underlying the cost compliance assessment in respect of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

  Mr. Scott
  The basis for the calculations is contained within the compliance cost assessment, copies of which were placed in the Library on 5 May.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when was the last date before 6 May that he discussed the progress of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill with the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Lilley
  There was a discussion at Cabinet on 5 May which focused on the Government's own proposals on civil rights for disabled people and the compliance cost assessment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC(a) the names and addresses of the directors, (b) their current salary and (c) what relevant experience they had for their appointment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  (a) Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council directors are:

  Mr. P. Wetzel

  Joint Chief Executive

  S. R. Gent Plc.

  Dodworth Road

  Barnsley

  Mr. A. Goulbourn

  Chief Executive

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  The Conference Centre

  Eldon Street

  Barnsley

  359

  Mr. D. Anderson

  Managing Director

  PLM Redfearn Glass Ltd.

  Burton Road

  Monk Bretton

  Barnsley

  Mr. R. Davies

  Works Manager

  Dupon (U.K.) Ltd.

  Wheatley Hall Road

  Doncaster

  Mr. R. Akroyd

  General District Manager

  Barnsley Health Authority

  Hilder House

  49–51 Gawber Road

  Barnsley

  Mr. J. Wall

  Executive Vice President

  Koyo Bearings (Europe) Ltd.

  P.O. Box 101

  Elmhirst Lane

  Dodworth

  Barnsley

  Mr. R. Bailey

  Managing Director

  Ben Bailey Homes Ltd.

  Elizabeth House

  Cliff Street

  Mexborough

  Mr. R. Drohan

  Chief Executive

  ACE Conveyor Equipment Ltd.

  Plumtree Farm Industrial Estate

  Harworth

  Doncaster

  Mr. J. Edwards, OBE

  Chief Executive

  Barnsley MBC

  Town Hall

  Barnsley

  Mr. D. Hale

  Chief Executive

  Doncaster MBC

  2 Priory Place

  Doncaster

  Mr. R. Lasseter

  Managing Director

  Pegler Ltd.

  St. Catherine Avenue

  Doncaster

  Mr. H. Salt

  Leader

  Barnsley MBC

  Town Hall

  Barnsley

  Mr. I. Ferguson

  Managing Director

  Reed Northern Newspapers Ltd.

  Sunny Bar

  Doncaster

  Ms F. Howell

  General Plant Manager

  J. I. Case (Europe) Ltd.

  Wheatley Hall Road

  Doncaster

  360

  Mr. B. Marshall

  Regional Officer

  National Union of Teachers

  7–9 Chequer Road

  Doncaster

  Mr. R. Turner

  Managing Director

  Lyons Bakeries (U.K.) Ltd.

  Fishdam Lane

  Carlton

  Barnsley

  (b) TEC Directors are non executive and therefore do not draw salaries from the TEC, the exception being the Chief Executive who is, in the case of Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, an Executive Director. The company's annual statutory report and accounts for the year ended 1993 show Directors Remuneration of £45,000. (c) Details of TEC Director selection can be found in the TEC Operating Agreement (1994) paragraphs 12.3—12.3.6., which is held in the Library. The Barnsley and Doncaster TEC ensures that each Director receives relevant induction, training and development throughout their appointment with the TEC.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been(a) the total money spent, (b) the percentage of that money allocated according to decisions made by Ministers on competitive bids and (c) the percentage of that money allocated according to some statistical measure of need for the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC since its inception.

  Miss Widdecombe
  (a) Total funding from the Department to Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council from its inception in January 1990 to the end of 1993–94 was £82,109 million.

  (b) Nil by Employment Department to the end of 1993–94.

  (c) All budgets take into account the needs of the client groups and local labour market factors. In particular, TECs receive sufficient funds to meet the youth training guarantee.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people received assistance from the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council in 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For the year ended 31 March 1994 approximately 11,000 people received specific assistance from the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council. The North Yorkshire TEC offers a diverse range of products and services which consist of a range of vocational training programmes for both employed and unemployed people, courses aimed at people wishing to start their own business, courses aimed at existing businesses and provision of information to individuals and businesses.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 to 19-year-olds were placed or assisted on training programmes by the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council in 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  During 1993–94, 2,184 young people aged 16 to 18 commenced on youth training in addition to the 2,700 who were already in training on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to secure an
  361
  abatement in relation to those training and enterprise council secondees from his Department who have taken advantage of the voluntary early retirement scheme and who are still in full-time employment with those training and enterprise councils.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The abatement rules apply only to civil servants who left the service with an award of pension under the principal civil service pension scheme or the superannuation Acts and are re-employed in the civil service or in employment or offices to which the scheme applies. Training and enterprise councils are private companies to which the scheme does not apply.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each training and enterprise council in each of the last three years the endorsements for training purposes categorised A, B and C.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of his Department's staff who were seconded to the(a) North West Wales, (b) Gwent, (c) North East Wales and (d) West Wales training and enterprise councils have taken advantage of the voluntary early retirement scheme while remaining in employment with the TEC; and at what cost to the voluntary early retirement scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: I understand that some 27 departmental staff who were on secondment to training and enterprise councils took voluntary early retirement under the early retirement schemes which the Department ran in Wales and are now employed by TECs. I believe that three are with North West Wales TEC, six with Gwent TEC, six with North East Wales TEC and 11 with West Wales TEC. I also believe that one is employed with Mid Glamorgan TEC. The early retirement costs of these releases amounted to £650,326 for the 1993–94 financial year, with ongoing annual compensation payments totalling some £181,590 payable until recipients reach age 60. Had all 27 returned to the Department before being given early retirement, the costs incurred would, of course, have been the same, Had they remained, the Department would have been responsible for their salaries and pensions.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the application of voluntary early retirement schemes to secondees from his Department to training and enterprise councils in Wales, as described in the letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West dated 20 April, combined with the absence of a clawback mechanism for the former civil servants benefiting from the early retirement scheme but continuing in full-time employment with those training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: The total cost to the Department in the 1993–94 financial year was £650,326 for the release of the 27 individuals concerned. Ongoing compensation payments totalling some £181,590 are also payable until the recipients reach
  362
  age 60. These 27 cases in Wales were out of a total of 1,915 early retirements from the Department in 1993–94. Had all 27 returned to the Department before being given early retirement the costs incurred would, of course, have been the same. Had they remained employed, the Department would have been responsible for their salaries and pensions.

  Employment Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the work of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Appeal Tribunal is an independent judicial body which hears appeals on points of law from decisions of the industrial tribunals. In the 1993–94 financial year 990 such appeals were disposed of.

  United Airlines
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will reply to the representations he has received from the hon. Member for Uxbridge concerning proposals by the United States Association of Flight Attendants to close all facilities not based in the United States of America; what assessment he has made of the effect of such proposals on the employment by United Airlines of British nationals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have replied to my hon. Friend today. I am aware that the Association of Flight Attendants is seeking to persuade United Airlines to close its domicile in London which employs about 350 British citizens. I understand the concern felt by British employees of United Airlines about this matter. The establishment, by United Airlines, of London-based flight attendants has benefited both the airline and its employees. I hope that the present dispute will be concluded in a way which allows the benefits to the company to continue and employment opportunities at Heathrow to grow.

  Careers and Occupational Information Service
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what disciplinary action has been taken against officials in the careers and occupational information service as the result of the internal auditors' inquiry into contracts placed by COIC in 1993;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the results of the internal auditors' inquiry into contracts entered into by the careers and occupational information service in 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I can confirm that an investigation into the award of contracts by officials in the careers and occupational information centre has been held. The outcome is being dealt with under the Department's disciplinary procedures. These procedures have not yet been concluded.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of all contracts entered into by the careers and occupational information service in 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The value of contracts and orders placed by the careers and occupational information service in 1993 was £2,221,259.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a seasonally adjusted breakdown of economic activity from spring 1979 to date, similar to table 7.1 in March 1994 Employment Gazette, by male and female, for each age group (a) 16 to 19 years, (b) 20 to 24 years, (c) 25 to 32 years, (d) 35 to 49 years, (e) 50 to 64 years male, (f) 50 to 59 years female, (g) 65 years and over male and (h) 60 years and over female, dividing the employee and self-employed categories into full time and part time.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Seasonally adjusted estimates are not available from the labour force survey for individual age groups. Unadjusted estimates from 1984 for the age groups specified in the question can be obtained from the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Apprentice Scheme
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what Government funding is envisaged for his proposed modern apprentice scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Some 1.25 billion will be made available for youth credits and modern apprenticeships over the next three years. Employers will also play their part by contributing to the initiative.

SCOTLAND

  Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to cleaning contracts at Glasgow royal and Yorkhill hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  Comprehensive guidance on market testing in the NHS—formerly competitive tendering—was issued to all health boards and NHS trusts on 6 October 1993. This consolidated all earlier guidance which had been issued since 1987 when competitive tendering was introduced in the NHS in Scotland. The guidance addressed all aspects of market testing including a section on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Strathclyde PTA
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will include the Dumbarton district council area within the new Strathclyde passenger transport authority:

  (2) if he will make it his policy that when the boundaries of the new Strathclyde passenger transport authority are set, that there are no new council areas that are partly inside and partly outside the boundaries of the passenger transport authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The future boundaries of the Strathclyde passenger transport area will be decided in due course after consultation with appropriate bodies. No decision will be taken on the extent of the boundaries until after consultations have taken place.

  Exceptionally Gifted Pupils
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for national financial support for schools teaching the exceptionally gifted following local government reorganisation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following local government reorganisation, as at present, decisions on expenditure on school education, including the teaching of exceptionally gifted children will be primarily a matter for the education authorities.

  Community Care
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the basis for his conclusion in a draft Scottish Office circular that the private sector could provide a greater quantity and quality of service than that at present in the provision of community care.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer Friday 6 May 1994]: There is scope for the private sector to expand as overall provision of community care rises with increased investment of resources. By purchasing from a range of providers, local authorities will be able to offer a wide choice of services to their clients and maximise quality and value.

  Child Minders
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions govern child minders hitting children in their care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: There are no specific provisions in legislation relating to the methods of control which may be used by child minders.

  The Scottish Childminding Association recommends that, as a matter of good practice, child minders should not use corporal punishment. Scottish Office guidance on the Children Act 1989 also advises that such sanctions as smacking, hitting or shaking should not be used.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline his plans for making freely available to the public information, including inspectors reports, on the standard of care provided in private sector residential and nursing homes.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: In a consultation document issued last year, my right hon. Friend outlined his plans for taking forward a number of citizens charter principles in the inspection of social work services, including open reporting.

  The reports of the social work services inspectorate are already available to the public. Local authority inspection units are responsible for inspecting residential establishments in the private, voluntary and public sectors. Some local authorities already make their reports available to the public; others plan to do so later this year. A further circular on inspecting social work services will be issued later this year which will include a date by which all local reports should be made available to the public.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce trust status for social work services currently provided by regional councils.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: There are no plans to introduce such an arrangement for social work services.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a consultation document before he introduces performance-related pay for the police force.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: No. Agreements involving appraisal-related pay have been reached in the police negotiating board and submitted to my right hon. Friend. In addition, suitably representative working groups have been set up to advise on arrangements for performance appraisal in the police service.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in his calculations about the costs and savings of local government reorganisation, what figures he used for(a) cleansing services, (b) leisure and recreation services, (c) housing services, (d) planning services, (e) sewerage services, (f) water services, (g) transport services, (h) roads services, (i) fire services, (j) financial services, (k) economic development services, (l) architectural services, (m) social work services, (n) police services and (o) education services; and what percentage of the recurring revenue costs of each such service are attributable to labour costs.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 May 1994]: The Government's estimates of the costs and savings arising from the reorganisation of local government in Scotland were not calculated by reference to the service groupings requested and cannot therefore be broken down in this way.

  Employee costs1 as a percentage of local authority expenditure: 1991–92

  Regional services2

  District services2

  All authorities

  Employee costs as percentage of total gross revenue expenditure

  63·0

  29·6

  51·5

  Employee costs as a percentage of gross revenue expenditure excluding loan charges and capital expenditure funded from revenue

  71·5

  40·6

  62·1

  Notes:

  1 Employee costs includes the employee costs of support services and of direct service organisations and direct labour organisations.

  2 Includes general fund services, housing, water, sewerage and trading services. Expenditure by islands authorities by service has been included with the appropriate mainland authority type for that service.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to changes in the dates for implementation of proposals in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill depending on the progress of the Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: The Government have no plans to alter the dates in the Bill. Unless the Bill was enacted after the end of November 1994, the period between enactment and the establishment of the new authorities would not be significantly shorter than the period between enactment of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the establishmkent of the present structure. We are confident that the proposed timetable is realistic and achievable, even if some authorities persist in their present policy of non-co-operation.
  366
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the rights of workers under the European acquired rights directive in the context of local government reorganisation in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 May 1994]: The application to individual local authority employees affected by local government reorganisation of the acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 falls to be determined as a matter of law, not of Government policy.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has as to the number of local authority employees in Scotland who are likely to be made redundant,(a) at the point of local government reorganisation and (b) in the longer term.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 May 1994]: The Government's White Paper which was published last July estimated that local government reorganisation may result in a reduction in staffing levels of between 700 and 2,200. It is expected that much, if not all, of this will be met by early retirements and natural wastage.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of recurring revenue costs are attributable to labour costs for(a) regional services, (b) district services and (c) overall for local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 May 1994]: The table shows the information requested for 1991–92, the latest period for which this is available. The notes to the table explain the basis of the figures.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he proposes to make for emergency planning under the proposed new system of local government in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill, the arrangements for emergency planning will be a matter for the new unitary authorities to determine. Scottish Office officials stand ready to discuss the issues involved with interested parties.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received over his proposals for local government reform in the highlands, indicating how many have supported and how many have opposed the creation of a single highland council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: Since publication in July 1993 of the White Paper "Shaping the

  367
  Future—The New Councils". 51 representations have been received in support of the creation of a single unitary authority for the Highlands. Some 240 representations have either opposed this or favoured an alternative proposal.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which national health service trusts have sought approval for the purchase of motor vehicles for senior staff; what is the total value in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: NHS trusts are not required to seek prior approval for the purchase of motor vehicles. Information on numbers and costs is not held centrally.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has issued to health boards or hospital trusts on collective bargaining to take account of the new circumstances created by the existence of hospital trusts as employers.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: No specific guidance as such has been issued. In 1 April 1993 however a contract was let for the provision of a pay intelligence unit service to the NHS in Scotland. Part of this service covers advice and training to individual employers on local pay matters.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the co-ordination of wage and salary negotiations for trusts within(a) a health board area or (b) within Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: Existing NHS staff who transfer to the employment of NHS trusts are entitled to retain their national terms and conditions of employment—including pay. For these staff, pay negotiations are conducted on a United Kingdom-wide basis within the Whitley council and pay review body systems.

  NHS trusts are free to negotiate locally on the pay of staff on trust terms and conditions of service. These arrangements would apply to new staff and to staff who have elected to transfer to the trust's terms and conditions of service.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions the management executive of the Scottish health service has given to trusts concerning competitive tendering for hotel services; and what provision has been made for financial penalties on trusts which do not go out to tender.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 May 1994]: Comprehensive guidance on market testing in the national health service—formerly competitive tendering—was issued to health boards and national health service trusts on 6 October 1993. This consolidated all earlier guidance which had been issued since 1987 when competitive tendering was introduced in the national health service in Scotland. The guidance addressed all aspects of market testing including hotel services.

  Although no financial penalties are imposed on national health service trusts which do not put services out to tender, in line with the Government's White Paper "Competing for Quality", CM 1730, they are required to
  368
  prove that they are achieving value for money. The terms of the White Paper and the guidance apply equally to health boards and national health service trusts, which should include in their annual reports an account of their market testing programmes.

  Private Education Costs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total contribution from public funds to private schools in Scotland by way of(a) the assisted places scheme, (b) payments for the children of Foreign Office and defence personnel and (c) any other sources in the latest available financial year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: The information requested in respect of funding by central Government is set out below:

  Financial year 1993–94

  £

  (a) Assisted Places Scheme

  9,865,660

  (b) Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  265,409

  (c) Grant-Aided Schools

  2,586,906

  Grant-Aided Special Schools

  6,062,350

  St. Mary's Music School Aided Places Scheme

  634,512

  In addition, funding by the Ministry of Defence for the Queen Victoria school, Dunblane, which provides education primarily for the sons of Scottish soldiers, sailors and airmen, for the financial year 1993–94 was £2.96 million; and the total estimated boarding school allowance paid for children of defence personnel at boarding schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which information is available—1991–92—was around £3.30 million.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance is given in the formula for aggregate external finance to the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: With the exception of the specific grants component, aggregate external finance itself is not hypothecated to particular local authority services. But AEF is distributed amongst authorities having regard to grant-aided expenditure assessments. The level of GAE for 1994–95 includes £21.104 million in respect of nursery teaching staff, and £742.939 million in respect of school non-teaching staff, property and so on. The latter assessment covers the full range of education authorities' services and the portion which relates to nursery education is not identifiable.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 May 1994]: At present there are 271 portable telephones in use with annual running costs amounting to £106,130; 292 pagers/ electronic bleepers costing £33,334 annually and 30 car

  369
  telephones with an annual cost of £21,280. Equipment is used by officers requiring mobile communication facilities with allocations decided by local line management.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make local enterprise companies follow the Government's guidelines on open government in respect of their training functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The new code of practice on Government information which came into force on 4 April 1994, applies to central Government Departments, their agencies and a number of other public bodies. The local enterprise companies are limited companies and the code does not therefore apply to them or to their contractors.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made as to the areas in which industrial development is inhibited by lack of land supply.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: The latest figures from the 1992 industrial sites register show that there is a versatile supply of sites for business and industry in Scotland. At present rates of uptake, and even after excluding land on large sites of over 50 hectares which are generally reserved long term for single users, there is still some 25 years supply at national level. Most sites are available for development within one year and have either the benefit of planning permission or allocation in a development plan.

  No planning authority has indicated through the data which the authorities provide for the ISR that industrial development is being inhibited by a lack of land supply. The table, compiled from the industrial sites register, indicates the pattern of supply for 1992.

  Supply of industrial sites and land by region, 1992

  Region

  Number of sites

  Area (hectares)

  Borders

  26

  58

  Central

  23

  399

  Dumfries and Galloway

  33

  148

  Fife

  65

  632

  Grampian

  114

  528

  Highland

  121

  2,042

  Lothian

  93

  811

  Strathclyde

  370

  1,949

  Tayside

  96

  308

  Orkney

  4

  7

  Western Isles

  2

  2

  Shetland

  17

  587

  Total

  964

  7,471

  The issue of supply at the local level was addressed in national planning policy guideline 2—land for business and industry, October 1993. It is stated that planning authorities should have regard to the objective of providing not only an adequate amount of marketable land for business and industry but an improved choice and range in terms of quality, size and location. It stated that local plans should update the supply by re-allocating sites which stand
  370
  little chance of development to suitable alternative uses, and find additional sites of high quality, especially for business class development.

  The enterprise bodies, of course, also have a remit to ensure that business establishment and growth is not constrained by a lack of suitable sites and to work with the private sector to redress failures in the industrial property market. We would therefore expect the local enterprise companies to work, with others, to tackle situations which arise where lack of suitable land was inhibiting development.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made as to the supply of industrial accommodation in the 10,000 sq ft and above range in the west of Scotland; and what plans he has to address any shortfall.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. Scottish Enterprise does, however, hold data on industrial property and, following consultation with the Locate in Scotland office, believes that there' is a reasonable supply of industrial units up to 15,000 sq ft in size. Scottish Enterprise is, consequently, seeking to secure the provision of larger industrial units where there are only limited numbers available.

  Motor Trade
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of jobs in Scotland in(a) the manufacture, (b) servicing of and (c) retailing of (1) motor vehicles, (2) goods vehicles and (3) buses and coaches; and what plans he has to increase these figures.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: Information derived from the Employment Department's September 1991 census of employment, in the most disaggregated form available, is shown in the table. Estimates of employees in employment in the manufacture or repair of goods vehicles, buses and coaches are not separately available.

  The Government's economic policies, by securing low inflation on a permanent basis and sound public finances over the medium term, are the best guarantee of increased jobs in these and other sectors of the Scottish economy.

  Employment in Scotland in selected industries

  Employees in employment September 1991

  Manufacturing

  Motor vehicles1 and their engines and motor vehicles bodies

  1,800

  Motor vehicle parts

  1,700

  Services

  Retail distribution of motor vehicles and parts

  17,300

  Repair and servicing of motor vehicles

  16,900

  1 Includes passenger cars and commercial vehicles.

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has received from Locate in Scotland as to areas in which it is inhibited from helping inward investors by lack of industrial serviced sites.
  371
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: My right hon. Friend has received no such reports. Locate in Scotland has access to an adequate supply of industrial serviced sites and constantly reviews the situation in the light of demand.

ENVIRONMENT

  Westminster Council
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been(a) allocated to and (b) spent by Westminster council for flood prevention work in each of the last 10 years.

  1982–83—1989–90

  (1) Central Government Grants to Westminster City Council

  (2) Expenditure funded by grants, rates and revenue balances

  (3) 1/2

  £'000

  £'000

  Percentage

  1982–83

  37,660

  57,382

  65·6

  1983–84

  16,028

  62,425

  25·7

  1984–85

  17,586

  61,231

  28·7

  1985–86

  19,458

  64,297

  30·3

  1986–87

  20,782

  105,715

  19·7

  1987–88

  21,619

  98,197

  22·0

  1988–89

  22,210

  96,811

  22·9

  1989–90

  22,013

  108,686

  20·3

  Notes:

  1. Grants comprise Rate Support Grant and relevant specific grants. Figures for 1989–90 are based on budget returns.

  2. The functions of Westminster City Council changed following the abolition of the Greater London Council on 1 April 1986, and figures for years before this date are not therefore comparable with later years. Similarly the Inner London Education Authority was abolished on 1 April 1990 and figures for Westminster before this date are not therefore comparable with the figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 shown below.

  3. For the years before 1 April 1990 it is not possible to identify the amounts of domestic rates, as distinct from non-domestic rates, which were used to finance expenditure by Westminster City Council.

  4. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  1990–91—1992–93

  Under the community charge system, Revenue Support Grant, Non-Domestic Rate entitlement and community charges were paid into the Collection Fund for the area. Westminster City

  1993–94—1994–95

  (1) Central Government Grants and non-domestic rates entitlement

  (2) Revenue Expenditure

  (3) 1/2

  (4) Council tax requirement

  (5) 4/2

  £'000

  £'000

  Per cent.

  £'000

  Per cent.

  1993–94

  155,373

  234,389

  66·3

  13,977

  6·0

  1994–95

  160,722

  226,904

  70·8

  7,609

  3·4

  Notes:

  1. Grants comprise Revenue Support Grant, specific and special grants within Aggregate External Finance.

  2. Revenue expenditure is defined as expenditure met from revenue balances, specific and special grants within AEF, Revenue Support Grant, non-domestic rate entitlement, and the Council Tax requirement.

  3. The Council Tax requirement is the amount to be transferred from the Collection Fund to the billing authority's General Fund in respect of Council Taxes. It therefore includes amounts in respect of Council Tax benefit and Council Tax transitional relief.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money Westminster council has received in tourism grants in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government do not pay tourism grants to local authorities. However, allowances based on visitor numbers are made within the standard spending assessment system which has been used since 1990 to distribute revenue support grant to local authorities, and similar allowances were made in the grant-related expenditure assessment system which was used to
  372
  Mr. Curry
  I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the expenditure of Westminster council was provided(a) from central Government sources; and (b) by community charge or council tax subventions, in each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Curry
  The available information is as follows:

  Council's expenditure was funded largely by a demand on the Collection Fund, but this demand did not differentiate among the sources of income to the fund, and it is not therefore possible to identify its components.

  distribute rate support grant up to that date. The allowances made for Westminster City Council over the last 10 years are shown in the table.

  Contribution within SSA/GRE based on visitor numbers

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  5·5

  1993–94

  3·8

  1992–93

  3·9

  1991–92

  1·7

  1990–91

  0·7

  1989–90

  0·7

  1988–89

  0·6

  373

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  0·4

  1986–87

  0·4

  1985–86

  0·4

  In 1994–95, the allowance was extended to include day as well as overnight visitors; data for this purpose had not previously been available. Other significant changes in the allowance similarly reflect changes in the methodology or the definitions used. Notably, in 1992–93, more recent information was used, allowing estimates of foreign visitor nights to be incorporated for the first time into the SSA formula; and in 1991–92 the weighting attributed to overnight visitors in the formula was increased, following representations from many resort authorities, from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of resident population.

  Conservation
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many special protection area sites are currently designated in the United Kingdom;

  (2) how many Ramsar sites are currently proposed in the United Kingdom; and if he will place a map of these sites in the Library;

  (3) if he will place in the Library map refrences for the full geographical details of special protection area sites and Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom;

  (4) how many United Kingdom special protection area sites are in coastal locations;

  (5) how many Ramsar sites there are within two miles of a port boundary where the port is designated as a major port;

  (6) how many sites currently proposed for designation as United Kingdom special protection area sites are in coastal locations;

  (7) which Ramsar sites, or proposed Ramsar sites, would be eligible to be designated special protection area sites;

  (8) how many proposed Ramsar sites there are in England;

  (9) how many United Kingdom sites are currently proposed for designation as special protection areas;

  (10) how many Ramsar sites are currently designated in the United Kingdom; and if he will place a map of these sites in the Library;

  (11) if he will list the bodies in England, Wales and Scotland which are responsible for determining a proposed special protection area site;

  (12) if he will list the bodies in England, Wales and Scotland which are responsible for determining Ramsar sites.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland are responsible for determining Ramsar sites and special protection areas in England, Wales and Scotland respectively. They are advised by the nature conservation councils for the three countries.

  Some 76 Ramsar sites have been designated in the United Kingdom. A map showing protected areas in the United Kingdom, including Ramsar sites and special protection areas is reproduced on page 84 of "Sustainable Development—The United Kingdom Strategy", Cm 2426, a copy of which is in the Library. Information on the number of Ramsar sites within two miles of a port
  374
  boundary, where the port is designated as a major port, is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. There are a further 83 sites identified as being suitable for designation as Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom, of which 32 are in England. A list of Ramsar sites was published on 17 July 1991 Official Report, columns 201–6 and 217–22 and on 18 July 1991, Official Report, columns 254–55, which covered Great Britain sites only.

  Some 86 special protection areas have been designated in the United Kingdom, of which 54 are in coastal locations. Some 151 potential special protection areas, which were included in the lists published in July 1991, remain to be designated, of which 89 are in coastal locations. Some 49 designated Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom are wholly or partly also special protection areas. Some 72 identified Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom are also potential special protection areas. A list of map references for the full geographical details of designated special protection area sites and Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom will be placed in the Library shortly. The list of potential Ramsar sites and special protection areas is being reviewed in the light of the most recent scientific knowledge and information. When this work is completed, map references indicating the location of the sites will be placed in the Library.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, columns 854–55, which of the member states of the Environment Council did not support the United Kingdom proposals on integrated pollution prevention and control.

  Mr. Atkins
  No member state expressed opposition to the development of legislation on integrated pollution prevention and control and Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain expressed general support for the approach adopted. The environment working group were asked to take forward work on the details of the proposals as quickly as possible.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of the net effects on global warming of anthropogenic aerosols and particulates; and what assessment he has made of the global warming effects of particulates from diesel vehicles and the net effect of emissions from diesel vehicles on greenhouse gas emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  The impact of anthropogenic aerosol particles on the climate is highly uncertain. In its 1992 Report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the present-day effect of all particles was probably a net cooling, with the cooling effect of sulphate aerosol particles exceeding the warming effect of particles containing elemental carbon, of which one source is diesel engine exhaust. The panel is currently reviewing this subject, in preparation for a report on the radiative forcing of climate due to be published later this year.

  The main greenhouse gas emitted by diesel vehicles is carbon dioxide, and in 1992 these accounted for 6 per cent. of total United Kingdom CO2 emissions.

  Surface Water
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions were taken at the European Commission meeting on 11 May regarding the adoption of a draft directive on the ecological quality of surface water.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that the European Commission has not announced any decision on this matter.

  Local Government Reforms
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the effect on the local government superannuation scheme of the impending local government reforms and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Discussions have taken place with the local authority associations and other interested parties on superannuation issues. Our proposed amendments to the Local Government Superannuation Regulations 1986 will be issued for a period of statutory consultation shortly.

  European Environmental Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the newly appointed Director General of the European Environmental Agency, to discuss the role of the agency in developing a database of markets and resources for clean technology products.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Officials of the Department are in regular contact with Mr. Beltran, the newly appointed Director General of the European Environment Agency, and the United Kingdom is represented on the agency's management board, which is developing its work programme for this and future years.

  Waste Management
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that holders of waste disposal licences have been given adequate notice by local authorities of the timing and terms of the introduction of waste management licensing fees and charges under section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Local authority

  Publicly owned (a)

  Privately owned (b)

  Reinstated (c)

  Repurchased (d)

  Kingston upon Hull

  880

  9

  —

  4

  Norwich

  469

  17

  —

  14

  Wakefield

  1,210

  75

  2

  51

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what remedies are available for owner-occupiers who discover that their homes are of a Winget type and cannot be sold on the housing market.

  Sir George Young
  To be eligible for assistance under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985, owners of Winget houses must have purchased from the public sector before 26 April 1984, or within 12 months after this date if they
  376
  Mr. Atkins
  The charging scheme was the subject of consultation exercises in August and December 1992. The Department recommended in the December 1992 consultation paper that waste regulation authorities should inform all disposal licence holders of the proposed scheme and the manner in which charges would be set by reference to descriptions and amounts of waste. My hon. Friend announced on 29 November 1993,Official Report, column 380, our intention to implement on 1 May 1994, the waste management licensing provisions of part II of the 1990 Act. On 30 November 1993 the Department wrote to the local authority associations informing them of the basis on which the 1993–94 fees and charges in the December 1992 consultation paper would be uprated to 1994–95; levels; and providing an indication of the changes to the scheme being considered in the light of consultation.

  The scheme made under section 41 of the 1990 Act was laid before the House on 24 March, Official Report, column 395, and came into force on 1 May 1994. Paragraph 3(13) of the scheme requires waste regulation authorities to serve a written notice on licence holders stating the date on which the subsistence charge will be due; the amount of the charge; the descriptions of activities, waste and amounts of waste by reference to which the charge has been calculated; and the method of payment. Paragraph 3(14) requires the notice to be served by 31 May; and paragraph 3(12) provides that the 1994–95 charge becomes due on 30 June 1994.

  Winget Houses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Winget-type houses there are in each local authority possessing housing of this design; and of those how many are(a) rented in the public sector, (b) rented in the private sector, (c) owner-occupied, with method of repair undertaken and (d) private sector, without option for repair.

  Sir George Young
  The table shows the numbers of Winget houses reported by English local authorities at the outset of the housing defects scheme which were(a) in their ownership and (b) in private ownership and eligible under the scheme; and (c) reinstated or (d) repurchased under the scheme by 1 April 1993. Data are not collected centrally on Winget houses which are within the private rented sector or whose owners are ineligible for assistance under the scheme.

  bought in ignorance of the defect and at a price which did not take account of it. Provided that such owners apply to their local authority by 30 November 1994, they are entitled to have their homes reinstated to mortgageable standard, or repurchased at 95 per cent. defect-free value if the authority so determines.

  Hunting
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the powers of local authorities to control hunting activities on publicly owned land.

  Mr. Baldry
  The power of an authority to control hunting activities on its land depends both on the powers under which the land is held, and on any applicable local Acts, byelaws and covenants. The court has recently held that an authority, having acquired land under section 120 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the benefit, improvement or development of its area, cannot have regard to moral considerations when deciding to ban stag hunting on that land, but has to make an objective judgment about the proper management of the land.

  Environment Agency
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now intends to bring forward the Bill to pave the way for the establishment of an Environment Agency.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Queen's Speech announced that paving provisions for the Environment Agency would be introduced in this Session. We intend to introduce a Bill shortly.

  Habitats and Species Directive
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Environment Commissioner of the European Union in relation to the obligations of the sea fisheries committees of England and Wales for enforcement duties under the habitats directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: None.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of houses constructed in the last 10 years would qualify for a standard assessment procedure rating of(a) 55, (b) 60, (c) 65, (d) 70 and (e)

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: To answer the question as posed would require exact data on the characteristics of all dwellings built in the period. This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the proposed revisions to the building regulations, in addition to leading to an improvement in energy efficiency of between 25 and 35 per cent. compared with the current standards, will also require all new dwellings and conversions to dwellings to obtain an SAP rating.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark

War Pensioners: NHS Treatment
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations from the Royal British Legion and other veterans' organisations concerning the level of NHS treatment available for war veterans of pensionable age.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we have received none. However, we have today written to trusts, hospitals and family health service authorities to remind them that they should give priority to war pensioners, both as in-patients and out-patients, for examination or treatment which relates to the conditions for which they receive a war pension.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am putting this question on behalf of the Royal British Legion, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association and the Normandy Veterans' Association. There is some apprehension among those organisations that if war veterans are getting on in years—if they are aged between 75 and 85 —they may be denied treatment. All they are asking for is that these complaints be examined. Their leaders say that they should not have to face this anxiety. Some of it may be groundless, but these ex-servicemen who fought for their country can be reassured only by this House and Parliament.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, we have not received any complaints from the Royal British Legion. But if there are
2
complaints regarding individual cases, we would want to look into them. Perhaps I may say how much we appreciate the work done by the Royal British Legion.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it possible to have an assurance that treatment of lung cancer and heart conditions will not be withheld from, war veterans on the grounds that they smoke?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when clinicians treat patients they take into account a range of conditions and the situation of the individual patient. We leave those issues to clinicians.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness look into a number of primary issues that have been raised with me; namely, the proposal to limit service hospitals? The ex-servicemen and women claim that the Department of Social Security and the NHS create for them unnecessary problems. They feel that they would be much better served if there were a single department within the Ministry of Defence to look after their problems and apprehensions.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are anxious to treat everyone in the National Health Service as well as we can. War veterans get priority treatment of the conditions for which they receive a pension. As to service hospitals, a whole range of issues has to be taken into account and we would not want to be running establishments that are not fully used.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can we be given the absolute assurance that clinical judgment is always the only criterion which is used and that the prejudices of doctors and consultants, whether on the question of age or life style, are in no way involved? As the noble Baroness knows, some recent examples make one wonder whether clinical judgment is the only criterion.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Royal College of Physicians recently issued a report concerning discrimination. In categoric guidelines to its

3
members it says that it does not want clinicians ever to use anything other than clinical judgment when treating patients.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, has that point been made clear to the people running the new National Health Service trusts as they, not the physicians, are the final deliverers of the service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when it comes to priorities, clearly health authorities have to set them. When it comes to the treatment of individual patients, that is a job for clinicians.

Liberia: Peace Efforts
2.41 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken by the UN Security Council to restore peace in Liberia and to implement the Cotonou Agreement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Security Council, in its Resolution 911 of 21st April, urged the Liberian parties to implement the Cotonou Agreement. The council will review further the role of UNOMIL taking account of progress in the implementation of the agreement.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the Security Council meets on Wednesday to consider the current situation in Liberia, will it have before it the reports from the 300 military observers of UNOMIL; and if so, may we see them? Will those reports cover the activities of the so-called Liberian Peace Council which has been condemned by the US State Department for committing gross human rights abuses in the area that it controls? Will the Security Council be made aware that Dr. George Boley, the leader of the Liberian Peace Council, is actively recruiting mercenaries from an office in Monrovia itself, that he purchases weapons from ECOMOG commanders and that in the city of Buchanan he operates joint patrols under the protection of ECOMOG forces? Does this not indicate that ECOMOG itself is part of the problem, and should not the Security Council, either by changes in the command structure of ECOMOG or otherwise, see that it does not prolong the war but works for peace?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it would not be normal for us to see the report sent to the Security Council, but I shall have a better idea of the detail of what is going on when we receive a report this week from our ambassador accredited to Cote d'Ivoire who is in Monrovia today. As far as the so-called Liberian Peace Council is concerned, we believe that it may well be another obstacle to peace, along with other non-signatories to the 1993 Cotonou Agreement. We have to wait to see the outcome of the review which is being carried out in two parts. The first will be considered by the Secretary General on Wednesday, as the noble Lord said, and then, if there has not been
4
adequate progress, the Secretary General will be asked to prepare options regarding UNOMIL's mandate and continued operations. I note what the noble Lord says about George Boley and his operations in both Monrovia and Buchanan, and I shall look into the matter. I do not believe that it is right or fair to blame ECOMOG, which has basically created a good deal of the better situation—although it is still pretty awful— that now exists in Liberia.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness feel that members of UNOMIL, the military observer force in Liberia representing the United Nations Security Council, are able to operate effectively? Does she agree that those observers, who are monitoring both the conflicting parties with a view to their implementing the Cotonou Agreement, and the activities of ECOMOG, the peace-keeping force supplied by other African countries, have a vital role to play in seeing that the conflict does not again break out and take the devastating proportions of a year or so ago?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. UNOMIL and ECOMOG have a very vital role to play. They are now deployed throughout Liberia. They are monitoring border crossings, airports and seaports. They are ready to supervise disarmament and the encampment of factions. However, needless to say in a situation where the ceasefire is patchy, although largely holding, the progress towards disarmament is slow. There are some pockets of fighting. We must continue, through ECOWAS and the UN, with confidence-building measures but, by and large, we must take a balanced view of the whole scene. I believe that that is what UNOMIL and ECOMOG are seeking to do.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House are encouraged by her undertaking to look at the possibility—I say no more —of collaboration between certain elements in the peacekeeping force and certain factions to the dispute? Looking to the need for a viable future, can the Minister indicate what steps might be taken, using the British Government's considerable influence in the region, to assist the process of forming a Liberian national army or security force embracing all the factions and with a clear ethnic balance to work alongside any external peacekeeping forces?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is absolutely crucial there is no build-up of weaponry among any groups, whether they be part of the Cotonou Agreement or not. The problem lies among those who are not part of the 1993 Cotonou Agreement. It is premature to talk of any assistance directly from us in forming a new Liberian national army until not only the cease-fire is holding but also the September elections have taken place and there is some sign of normality returning to that country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister recall that under Article 17 of the Cotonou Agreement, it was provided that the free flow of humanitarian aid should be facilitated to all parts of that country? Is she aware

5
that one faction of Ulimo, that controlled by Mr. Roosevelt Johnson, is sitting astride the Monrovia-Kakata highway and blocking all deliveries of humanitarian aid to the interior? Cannot ECOMOG be pressed to force that faction to relieve the blockade and to allow humanitarian supplies to be delivered in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware that humanitarian aid is now reaching over 1.5 million people on cross-line and cross-border routes. As the noble Lord said, there are some areas both in the south-east and in the north-east which are still inaccessible. We are ready to provide further aid, but there is no point until the inter-factional fighting can be halted. That is exactly what ECOMOG and others are seeking to do. We must take this step by step. As the noble Lord knows, it is not an easy region in which to work, but we are ready to give aid provided we can get it there.

The Energy Savings Trust
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the objectives of the Energy Savings Trust, as set out in Climate Change —The UK Programme, can be achieved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Energy Savings Trust has an ambitious target, as part of the Government's climate change programme, of reducing UK emissions of carbon dioxide by the equivalent of 2.5 million tonnes of carbon by the year 2000. We are considering urgently what needs to be done to secure the necessary funding of the trust's various incentive schemes in the short and long term.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for confirming that it is a matter of urgency that the Energy Savings Trust should be provided with adequate funding. Does he agree that the situation has been complicated by the recent decision of the present Director General of Ofgas to reverse the policy of her predecessor and to suspend adequate funding of the Energy Savings Trust? Does he agree that that puts in jeopardy the strategic plan issued recently by the Energy Savings Trust? How quickly will a response as to how he is to proceed be made to the noble Lord, Lord Moore, the chairman of the Energy Savings Trust, who is unfortunately abroad and who told me that he would otherwise have been here today?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are aware of the seriousness and urgency of the matter mentioned by the noble Lord. We appreciate and understand the view of the noble Lord, Lord Moore. It is at the discretion of the Director General of Ofgas whether she passes the costs of energy-savings schemes through to the customer.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the Minister claims that this is a matter of seriousness and
6
urgency, but surely the Government's lack of commitment to this topic is shown by their decision to scupper the Energy Conservation Bill in the other plaice on 22nd April?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is no lack of commitment to energy efficiency and the Energy Savings Trust. This country has been in the forefront of countries across the world in saying what we are going to do with regard to that trust being responsible for reducing carbon dioxide by 2.5 million tonnes (the 1990 levels) by 2000. We have genuine concerns about the Energy Conservation Bill, which the noble Baroness mentioned. In particular, we are concerned that it would impose additional and unnecessary burdens on local authorities and central government. It would create new and unnecessary controls, and perhaps hinder our efforts to control public expenditure. We made those concerns clear on Second Reading and by tabling amendments.

Older People: Health Care
2.51 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will include the health of older people as a specific key area for consideration in the Health of the Nation strategy.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, health promotion and sickness prevention are important at any age. In the Health of the Nation White Paper we made it clear that all the key areas are relevant to older people; and many of the targets apply as much to older people as to younger.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. But does she recall that the Health of the Nation White Paper stated that rehabilitation and the health of older people were strong candidates for further development and that research was necessary before they could become targets? Is she aware that since then—some years on—many experts believe that the time is now right for those aspects to be made targets? For example, research into Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia is crucial. Access to chiropody, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and district nursing services is also crucial and could be targeted now if we had the will. Will the Minister give us an assurance that those matters will be considered for urgent inclusion as key areas in the national strategy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we keep the key areas under review. I hear what the noble Lord is saying, but your Lordships will remember that only last week a plea was made that we should include asthma. I am aware that there are many lobby groups—those who want to see children's and women's health included and others ethnic health. One of our difficulties is to ensure that we have priorities, because if every area is a. priority then we shall have no priorities.
LordMolloy: My Lords, will the Minister consider that there are many ex-servicemen and women who

7
suffer various ailments which are due simply to their war service? Will she once again ensure that they suffer no penalty for having lived so long?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that I replied to that debate quite fully a few minutes ago.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should, I suppose, declare an interest as I am 86, which is one year above the maximum age mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Does my noble friend agree that the health service is to be very much congratulated in some fields upon the help that it gives to older people? I know of at least one case where an old lady of 91 was given a hip replacement operation within a matter of days and another case where a similar operation was carried out on a man of 80.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. If we just look at the statistics we see that 60 per cent. of the NHS budget is spent on those who are over retirement age and who constitute only 16 per cent. of the population. I think that that indicates some priority towards elderly people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is no discrimination against old people within the district nursing service? I benefited recently very greatly from the district nursing service, and I certainly come into the "aged" group.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am a great fan of district nurses. I think that they do a tremendous job.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that GP services, particularly services relating to a number of aspects—chiropody and so forth—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, have developed in such a way as greatly to benefit older people? That is an element of the reforms upon which the Government can be congratulated.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I thank my noble friend for that. When we look at nearly all the indicators that affect older people, we find that the Government have increased the service.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the Carnegie Report cites that something like 2.5 million people over the age of 50 are engaged in caring for parents, spouses or disabled children in their own homes and that two-thirds of those people are suffering physical and mental problems as a result of caring. Will the Minister therefore ensure that specific provision is made for improving the resources available to voluntary organisations such as the Winged Fellowship and Crossroads which help provide care, especially by way of respite, to carers? Will she ensure that that is given a main priority position in the strategy and the definition of targets?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, we support a number of associations that specifically benefit carers, not least the Carers' National Association. We give not only considerable sums of money. We are also working closely with carers in formulating local policies and
8
priorities because we believe it important that they are involved in plans for the care of the people they look after.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, would my noble friend care to comment on the recent article in The Times which cast doubt on the value of the specialty of geriatric medicine? Does she recognise that many of the problems of older patients are specific to them, often involving multiple illnesses, and that the profession of geriatric medicine, or care of the elderly as it is increasingly called, is an enormously valuable part of the NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I endorse fully the comments made by my noble friend.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister consider much more obviously that respite care is important for many of the elderly? To follow what the noble Lord has just said, if they go into a hospital or nursing home for a period of time some of their problems can often be dealt with so that when they leave the carers have a less onerous job. It is just as important that carers have respite as that the people themselves can go in for what we call geriatric medicine.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Respite care is often the one factor that enables carers to keep going. It is an area that we have drawn to the attention of district health authorities as they look at the services which will be needed in the future. We ask them to work closely with voluntary organisations on that aspect.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are factors apart from medical ones which affect the health of the elderly, for example, that they should have suitable housing and a proper diet? Will she say what measures are being taken to advise them of the best way to keep healthy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are a number of ways, including the primary healthcare team, district nurses and health visitors—those involved in going into people's homes—and also through voluntary organisations which are sometimes expert in that field. As to specific housing concerns, I am afraid that I cannot reply to that as it is not part of my remit.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the Minister is right to point out that achieving the existing targets in the Health of the Nation would improve the quality and length of life of older people. But does she agree that the most important of those is a reduction in smoking? Will that be possible without the Government backing a ban on the advertising of tobacco?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are working very closely with the industry to reduce the amount of advertising. We are targeting young people in particular because we know that they are more greatly influenced by tobacco advertising.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, does the Minister welcome the advent of a new enterprise, the re-enablement units? The units are experimental—

9
certainly the one in my area is—and the idea behind them encompasses many of the remarks made by noble Lords. All available facilities are co-ordinated, including those in the voluntary sector. The underlying philosophy is that the chiropodist as a detail can be extremely valuable, even in the light of advice from cardiologists. The philosophy is directed to all disabled people but mainly and specifically to the elderly.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am conscious that this country is full of innovation and new ideas. I am not fully apprised of the idea outlined by the noble Lord, but I shall discuss it with him to see how we can further it if it is of great value.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Questions asked by my noble friends Lord Molloy and Lord Stallard indicate a general anxiety about the level of special services for older people within the National Health Service? The Minister referred my noble friend Lord Molloy to the recent report of the Royal College of Physicians which ensures equity and quality of care for elderly people. Is she prepared to say that the Government will act on the recommendations directed at them? They are:
"Clear guidance is needed from central government to facilitate planning between health and local authorities to provide for the older person and there is a need for government to clarify the rules concerning whether and under what medical circumstances care for individual patients is to be funded by health authorities or local authorities".
The final comment is of great concern.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we want local authorities, health authorities and voluntary organisa-tions to work closely together. That is why we are giving all public authorities involved in the field the responsibility of developing joint community care plans. We are doing what the Royal College of Physicians is advocating.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, my Question was not a criticism of the existing services. It was designed to ensure that older people have access to those services, which is not general throughout the country. Access is better in some places than in others, and I am trying to make it more general, which will ease many problems. Does the noble Baroness know that early in the next century more than 1 million people will suffer from Alzheimer's disease but we are not giving priority to the medical and social problems connected with that illness?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the director of research and development, the recommendation of whose appointment is due to the work of your Lordships, has looked at the issue of Alzheimer's disease. He wants more research into the disease. We respect the views of the noble Lord and appreciate that the disease is crippling and causes a great deal of misery not only to sufferers but to families and friends.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as we have a little time perhaps I may press the Minister further about funding, which relates directly to the question asked by my noble friend about access to care. Will the
10
Minister say whether the NHS will continue to fund
continuing care for elderly people, which is of great
concern?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, each year the National Health Service has an increased budget. We in the Conservative Party have given an undertaking to ensure that funding continues in line with prices and inflation. We have honoured that agreement, but clearly there are enormous demands on the National Health Service. We must take those into account, but every single year we have increased the amount of money spent on the NHS.

Value Added Tax Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to value added tax, including certain enactments relating to VAT tribunals. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether the Title be postponed?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This Motion normally passes on the nod. However, Members of the Committee may believe that attention should be drawn to the fact that there is an amendment to the Title, which reverts to the earlier system whereby the Title was much shorter and indicated the purpose of the Bill. It was an aid to interpretation.
The new style is exemplified in this Bill and Members can compare the Title with the final amendment on the Marshalled List. It is the result of the draftsmen being instructed so to draw the Title as to limit as far as possible debate and amendment. The time to discuss the respective merits is not now but I thought that I should draw the Committee's attention to the amendment. So far as I can see, it will make no difference by way of limitation to any amendments which are tabled or likely to be tabled. Therefore, the Committee may well believe that the usual practice of postponing the Title is in every way apt today.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has discovered an ingenious device whereby he has been able to refer to his amendment, which is the last on the Marshalled List, before we have

11
reached the first amendment. I shall take note of what he said but if he believes that the matter is worth pursuing it may be best pursued via the Procedure Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Secure training orders]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) When sentencing a young person to a secure training order under this section, the court shall take into account the distance from the child's home to the secure training centre; and the time that the child may have to wait before a suitable place in a secure training centre is available.").
The noble Lord said: I must say first that there is a strong need for secure training orders for the small number of young offenders who have a history of persistent offending and a failure to respond to community sentences. Clause 1 as it stands deserves and needs to be in the Bill. I shall expound on that more fully when we deal with the next item on the Marshalled List.
However, if the order is to be effective links must be maintained with the young person's family and the community to which he will return and in which he will serve the non-custodial element of the sentence. Continuity between community and institution and institution and community is vital. As I indicated on Second Reading, it is difficult to see how that can be achieved if only a small number of units are to be established to cover the whole country. If it is accepted that a very small number of offenders will receive a secure training order, there are unlikely to be many such centres throughout the country. It is not unrealistic to anticipate that a young person might be detained far away from home, with the severance of family and community ties and consequent bad effects on the family unit. Placement could be many miles from the offender's home and at a location not easily accessible other than by private transport. On Second Reading, I gave an example of a centre at Bristol for offenders from the Isle of Wight. I believe that the nearest centre will in fact be just about as difficult.
A difficult and expensive journey may well militate against even the most concerned parents and family members undertaking a visit. For the offender, receiving no visits may be seen as a rejection by the family. Significant travelling time may also present difficulties for the post-release supervision committee to attend appointments at the secure training centre and in the community with the offender's family, the receiving educational establishment and other agencies, organisa-tions and individuals. The complications are quite considerable.
Achieving a successful return to the community is facilitated if, during his stay at the centre, the offender maintains his links with his family, develops a constructive relationship with his post-release super-visor and is confident that plans are in place for the provision of education, training and job opportunities on his return home.
The first part of my amendment calls upon the court to take account of the distance and there may of course be examples where the particular kind of offender whom I described in my opening remarks still has to go to a
12
secure training centre. If that is so, so be it; but at least the court must know what it is doing. It is important that that should be in the Bill because it is a very important facet of what Clause 1 needs to contain to complement the basic setting-up instructions which are in the subsections.
The second point with which my amendment deals is the time for which a child may have to wait until a suitable place in a centre is available. Delay between a court making a secure training order and placement in a secure training centre leaves the offender unsure as to his immediate future. Late entry to the centre may result in the offender's assessment not being completed until well into the life of the order and thus will delay the meeting of his needs identified in the assessment by means of a training plan. Educational and vocational training plus addressing offending behaviour are key components of such a plan and need to be operative at the earliest opportunity in order to achieve the greatest benefit for the offender during his period of detention under the order.
I believe that the amendment is an important supplement to the current provisions of Clause 1 and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some encouragement when he replies. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps he would consider these points. Obviously, the two factors which my noble friend mentioned are both important and relevant to a sentence of this kind. However, I cannot imagine a court not taking those factors into account, even if the Bill did not make such a provision. It is possible for the court to take them into account, although there is no obligation upon it to do so. If by any possible chance a court so forgot its duty to the offender or to the public that it did not take them into account, then that would certainly be the subject of a successful appeal.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: Like my noble friend Lord Mottistone and, I am sure, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I strongly favour what is proposed in Clause 1. But I must confess that I have some doubts as to whether it is really desirable to place these two obligations upon the court. I am not quite sure that it is realistic to do so and I say that because the distances between the home of the offender and the nearest secure training centre to which the offender may be sent will vary enormously. Sometimes they will be quite close. My noble friend Lord Mottistone has very appropriately mentioned the distance between Bristol and the Isle of Wight. But that will be inevitable if we are to have five secure training centres for a very limited number of persistent juvenile offenders. That is unavoidable.
However, I think that for the court to have to refrain from making the appropriate order simply because of the distance may be defeating what those of us who believe in Clause 1 have in mind. Also, one should bear in mind that families vary enormously. Some parents will have done nothing whatever to deter their children from becoming persistent offenders. For the court to

13
say, "Oh, we must make sure that that family keeps in touch with the child", may not be the best thing in the child's interests or in the public interest.
There is a further point about the time factor. Of course, experience in the past showed that sometimes people sentenced to detention in detention centres had to wait in police custody until there was a vacancy. But that did not happen very often and, within my recollection, the waiting time was little more than a few days. But I suggest that if the Government are to have a system of this kind, they must make sure that they have available enough places in these secure training centres so that the courts do not have to wait. If the centres become rather full, then the Government must make more places available; and that could be done. Therefore, with deep respect to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I have some doubts as to the practicability of the amendment.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to a young person being sentenced to be detained in Bristol when his parental home is on the Isle of Wight. That prompts me to ask the Minister whether he can give more detail about where the secure units are going to be located. In the various briefings that I have received, I have noticed only one reference to a centre in Oxfordshire which is supposed to cater for children from all over the South West. That creates obvious difficulties. For example, if the parental home is in Penzance, the parents would have to travel all the way from Penzance to London; they would have to cross from Waterloo Station to Paddington; they would then have to take another train to Oxford; and then they may have to take private transport from Oxford to wherever the home is located in the county.
Therefore, it is not merely a question of distance but also a question of convenience. If parents have to make a number of changes throughout their journey, that will necessarily lengthen it, and may lengthen it even to the point at which it is not possible to get there and back in one day. In that case, parents would face the additional burden of hotel costs. While the Secretary of State has said that he will frequently pay the fare for the next of kin to visit their children in the secure units as often as possible, I am not sure that that commitment would include the cost of overnight accommodation in a hotel. That may be necessary and I ask the Minister to consider that.
That is a consequence of the fact that there are to be only five units. I am afraid that there is nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, or the courts can do about that. If the court in Penzance is told that it must take account of the fact that it would take eight hours for the parents to visit their child in an Oxfordshire secure training unit and eight hours to get back, but the court nevertheless believes that the child merits that sentence, all the court can say is that it is too bad that it involves 16 hours of travelling. The number of times that parents are likely to visit their children under such circumstances is very small. I think it was New Approaches to Juvenile Crime which pointed out that, in many of the cases at which we are looking, the parents concerned will not be husband and wife visiting their
14
son: it will be a single parent possibly with several other children who will all have to be taken on the visit. That will be so inconvenient as to make it inconceivable that many visits will be made to the child in the secure training unit, even if the Home Secretary pays the bill each time.
If we accept the Government's proposals, we must recognise that the child will be isolated without family contact, which most people agree is an essential part of any form of rehabilitation. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that in some cases parents will not have done anything to deter the child from leading a criminal way of life. But that does not mean that it is always a good idea to deprive the child of parental contact. Indeed, it may be a stabilising force in the young person's development if he has continuing links with his family home, even if his parents are not doing anything positive to make him adopt a better way of life.
While I have every sympathy with the idea behind the amendment, I want parents to have continued contact with children. Everyone, including the Prime: Minister, has said that that is an essential ingredient in the pattern of training for any young person. Having decided on five secure units and no more, I do not think that there is anything we can do to alter the fact that those contacts will be intermittent or non-existent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to my noble friend, perhaps I may briefly question whether such amendments are necessary or appropriate for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Surely, in any sentencing procedure the two elements correctly set out are wholly implicit. Indeed, I cannot imagine a magistrate, a recorder or a judge failing to take those elements into account.
Lord Elton: My noble friend's amendment: addresses two issues; first, the distance apart of the: proposed units, and, secondly, the possibility of delay in a place becoming available when a particular child has; been sentenced to attend one of them. As to the distance: apart, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke as though that was on the face of the statute. Of course, it is not. It is in the literature handed out by the Home Office and the correspondence of the Home Secretary from which it emerges that there are to be five such centres. If, on that basis, you divide the British Isles into suitable chunks, you finish up with very large distances. However, as I said, that is not on the face of the Bill and it cannot be tackled by amendment. I suggest to the Committee that the whole Bill must be judged in the context of what the Government propose to do with it. As we understand it, there are to be five such units; there: will necessarily be lengthy journeys; and if there are only 200 places, there may or may not be lengthy delays.
As to delay, there is an additional factor that Members of the Committee should bear in mind. Following recent developments in the courts, I gather that what is said in Hansard is relevant. It is therefore worth bringing that to the attention of the Committee, even though, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, much is implicit and need not be put on the face of the Bill. In their defence of what they now

15
propose, the Government have relied fairly heavily recently on a publication of the Policy Studies Institute called The Persistent Young Offender which describes in detail some of the children who are expected to fall into that net. One point that has arisen in respect of all of them—or, at least, with a great many of them—is that the period of persistent offending is apt to be very short. At page 123, the document goes as far as saying that,
"given the length of sentence, it is likely that some of the offenders may have ceased being persistent by the time they reach court".
I merely ask that that should be placed on the record so that the sentencers may see that the creature who was captured is not the creature they are sentencing.
Lord Gisborough: I am surprised to hear that the courts will necessarily know and will be able to direct where such youngsters should go. I believe that it should be up to the Home Secretary to make that decision. Moreover, as there are to be only five units some may well be full. Therefore, it is possible that youngsters will be sent to units which are far away. That draws attention to something which will arise again; namely, the greater need to ensure that secure accommodation provided by local authorities is jacked up so that it can be a solution on the doorstep. The matter is raised in the next amendment. There is no doubting the fact that all authorities, especially those with experience, say that, where appropriate, parental contact is desirable and that contact with local social workers is essential.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the purpose of my noble friend's amendment. My noble friend considers that family and community ties are important—I believe that we are all agreed on that—and that they will be stretched. My noble friend Lord Renton said that some families may be of no help. He is probably correct in that assumption. If young offenders go to such secure training centres because of the offences they have committed, one could argue that their families did not prove to be much help to them when they were close by. However, that does not mean to say that we should not do everything possible to encourage such family ties when the young offenders are in such centres.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out that a person may spend eight hours travelling from Penzance to Oxford followed by another eight hours on the return journey and that a single parent might have to take along all the other children on such a visit, thus causing considerable upheaval. I do not deny that. Indeed, we are providing a generous scheme under which the costs of visits by parents and relatives can be assisted by way of public funds. That will be a great assistance.
With regard to the two points behind my noble friend's amendment—
Lord Avebury: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but when I spoke about journeys lasting as long as eight hours I asked whether the Government would pay the hotel costs of the single mother and her five other children.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is stretching a point a great deal. The details of exactly what costs are to be allowed are yet to be calculated. I certainly take on board the noble Lord's suggestion, but I cannot guarantee that I will accede to it in the way that he may wish.
I return to the two points behind the amendment. First, there is the distance between the parental home and the secure training centre to which the young offender may be sent; and, secondly, there is the possible time that the offender may have to wait before a place in a secure training centre becomes available. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do not believe that the latter are points which it would be appropriate for the courts to be required specifically to take into account in every case when they are deciding whether or not to make a secure training order.
With regard to the distance from home, as I said, we have been prepared to support families in their visits. We propose to create five regional secure training centres to cover England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wishes to know where they will be situated. One is to be at Campsfield House in Oxfordshire, another at Gringley in Nottinghamshire and another at Medomsley in County Durham. A fourth is to be situated at Onley in Warwickshire. A decision regarding the whereabouts of the fifth, which will serve London and the South East, has yet to be taken.
The purpose is to ensure that each centre is of a size adequate enough to allow a comprehensive regime with sufficient resources and facilities to enable an individual's educational and training needs to be met. We have to balance the need to set up establishments of a reasonable size with the desirability of keeping young offenders as close to their home areas as possible. The secure training order is a sentence which will be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. A court will not pass the sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offending by the juvenile has been so serious that only his removal to a secure training centre, where his needs can be addressed, will give the public a respite from his offending. When the courts have reached this view, it really does not seem right for them to be required to take into account the fact that a youngster may be sent to a place which happens to be several miles from home. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that it would not be right to prevent a secure training order from being passed just because of considerations of distance.
What a court would be invited by this amendment to do would be in effect to say, "Yes, this is a case in which the offending is so serious that only a secure training order is justified, but no—because of the distance of the secure training centre we will not make the order". I really think that would be a fairly strange position in which to put a court. What sort of distance from home might a court consider unacceptable? Would it be 10, 50, 100 or 150 miles? The scope for inconsistency and for subsequent appeals would be endless.
The second part of the amendment deals with a situation which arises when a place in a secure training centre is not available. Clause 2 of the Bill gives the

17
courts the power to commit an offender to alternative accommodation which can be specified by the Secretary of State. The Government hope that there will be little need to resort to these powers, but we think that it is only prudent to have a position to fall back on if, from time to time, the supply of secure training places is temporarily outstripped by the demand for them.
I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. I do not think it is sensible to require the courts to take into account the likely length of time during which an offender might have to wait before a secure training centre place becomes available before they determine whether such a sentence is appropriate in the first place. The role of the court is to pass the appropriate sentences, and the role of the Government is to ensure that facilities exist where they may best be served.
Courts have a power to mitigate an offender's sentence by taking into account any such matters which, in their opinion, may be relevant in mitigation. There is, of course, nothing to prevent the courts from considering whether the distance between the child's home and the secure training centre, or the length of time before a secure training centre place becomes available, are relevant factors in any individual case. That is a matter for the courts. However, I really do not think it would be right for the law to require them to be taken into account. I hope my noble friend will agree that that would be right.
Lord Shepherd: If an order has been made in regard to a child being sent to one of these places, but there is not a place available, where does that child stay until a place has been found, or, if there are no places—I understand that courts have had difficulties in this area as regards other children under other legislation—can a court say, "We will look at the matter again"? In which case, who brings the matter back to the court for further consideration if a place is not readily available?
Earl Ferrers: Before sentencing a child, a court will take into account all the circumstances. If it is shown that there are no available places in the secure training centres, it will be possible for the court to send the child to another place which has the approval of the Secretary of State. That is in the Bill.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked a question which has only been partially answered. To what sort of place is the Secretary of State minded to direct that a court may send the child?
Earl Ferrers: The sort of place where the child will be secure from his previous practices of getting out and into contact with the public.
Lord Shepherd: What sort of place is that? Is it a police cell?
Earl Ferrers: Not for choice. It may be a place run by a charity or it may be a place run by a local authority, or it may be a place registered by the Home Secretary. All these places are possibilities but I have explained that it is not expected that more than 200 places will be
18
required. However, if more places are required, there are arrangements in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to approve such places.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has been less than complete in his listing of the places which might be used. In the debate on Clause 2 in another place the Government specifically, and almost violently, resisted the suggestion that places in the prison service or in police detention should be excluded as temporary reception areas. If the list which the Minister has just given is the correct one, I hope that he will agree with Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, which we shall deal with later.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, always tries to make a crafty point. I was asked what sort of place we were talking about and I told the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, what sort of place we were talking about. I was not asked to give an exclusive list.
Lord Avebury: I am sorry to intervene again but I wish to clarify a point. The Minister said that the courts would know what places were available when they passed sentence. I want to imagine the case where the training centre which was appropriate to the location of the offence was full up and the court had to envisage: using another training centre. For example, if the: offender in question comes from Ramsgate, he would normally be located in the training centre which is; supposed to cater for the South East. However, if that particular centre were full, would the court know that the place to which the child would be sent would be County Durham, for example?
I ask that question because the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, might like to reflect on the difficulties for travel that that sort of journey would create. Of course one is thinking about the extreme cases but that is what: legislation is all about. We are not considering the normal circumstances where, as the Minister says, there would be adequate accommodation in each of the five centres and the number of offenders in each of the regions would accurately match the provision which had been made in that region. We are thinking about the exceptional circumstances where a centre in one particular region is full up and another has places to spare. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is well aware, this happens all the time in the prison system. Prisoners are not able to be allocated a place in a prison which is near their home and which therefore enables their relatives to visit them without inconvenience. We must envisage that the same thing will happen as regards the children we are discussing, particularly when there are only five establishments in England and Wales. What I would like to be sure of is that when the courts pass sentence they will be aware of which particular training centre the child in question will be sent to.
Baroness Faithfull: I do not wish to stray into the next amendment, but unfortunately these two amend-ments come close together. Even if the secure training units are set up, there will still be secure places run by local authorities. Therefore if it is not possible to gel: a child into a secure training centre—I disagree with that, but let us suppose that that were the case—local

19
authorities run good, secure centres which would be near the home of the child in question and where there would probably be vacancies.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. She is, of course, perfectly right. I shall reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. When a person is going to be sentenced to a secure training order the chances are that the court will apprise itself of the position. I find it difficult to believe that a court would say, "That person will be sentenced to a secure training order" without it realising that all the secure training units in the country may be full up. Of course the court will discover that. It may be an option to send a child up to County Durham, or wherever it may be. That would be one of the reasons that the court may take into account in deciding whether or not to impose a secure training order as a sentence.
On the other hand the court may say, "Let us send this individual to a local authority secure accommoda-tion unit". The court could do that. It has a variety of different options. I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to find out exactly what will happen but this will be a matter for the courts to decide. There will be secure training centres. Obviously a court will send a child to the one that is nearest to his home. It may be that it would have to be further afield, or it may be decided to send the child to local authority secure accommodation, or any of the other alternatives I have suggested.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend and other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this short debate for expanding so well on the problem. I shall read carefully in Hansard what has been said before deciding what to do at a later stage. At this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to move that Clause 1 be deleted from the Bill which is before us today. As is known to the Committee, and has already been stated, Clause 1 recommends the setting up of five secure training units for children aged between 12 and 14. It is understood that they will be built on prison service land, and the locations of four of the units have been announced. My noble friend the Minister indicated where these would be. We understand that they will be run by a private sector firm, at a cost of £30 million a year for the next five years.
The Government tell us that the secure training order is intended for highly persistent young offenders, yet the Bill states that a child who has committed just three offences will be eligible for a secure training order. The children concerned will be those who have committed three or more offences.
Children who have committed serious offences such as murder can, of course, be sent by the court to one of the three treatment centres run by the Department of Health. We must applaud my noble friend the Minister
20
and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary for seeking to deal with the comparatively few offenders who commit breaking and entering offences and who damage cars and, as such, are an irritant to the public and to the police. We have sympathy with the police in dealing with such offenders. We have sympathy with the victims of such crimes. As one who has had her car stolen and the family silver taken, I feel for the victims. I am one. But to appease such victims it is proposed to set up secure training units which we believe will prove to be ineffective and in many cases may be the forerunner of a prison career.
Briefly, my reasons for opposing the clause are as follows. First, research carried out by the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Dartington social research department and criminology departments at many universities shows that incarcerating children far from their homes has proved to be ineffective. The approved schools and detention centres were closed because research showed that 75 per cent. of children re-offended within two years. There is no reason to believe that the new centres will succeed where similar institutions have failed and as a result have been closed.
On 2nd March 1993, Mr. Clarke, then Home Secretary, said that the secure training centres will be different from any other provision that has ever been made before. How different? For one thing, they will be within the orbit of a prison. They will be much worse. I cannot see that they can be much better.
Secondly, the secure training units will be far from the homes of the children. As has been said, a family in Plymouth or Penzance will have to travel to Oxford. During the previous debate parents were mentioned. Many of these parents find their children difficult to handle. Many are themselves inadequate. The parents need help as much as the children. If you are to help the children you have to help the parents. It is a dual role. If they are separated and parents are a long way from where their children are you cannot help them. Further, the Children Act 1989 provides that parents must be responsible for their children. Therefore, when working with the children we must also work with their parents. That is possible. It has been done and is being done.
Thirdly, children who lose contact with their families are those who on discharge tend to become homeless, meet up with a gang and re-offend. Moreover, research into suicides by young people in the prison system has shown that a frequent cause is depression, aggravated by lack of contact with the family.
Fourthly, will the private sector—for instance, Group 4 if that is the company which is to undertake this work —attract staff with training in and experience of the type of children they will have to deal with?
Fifthly, who will be responsible for the aftercare of such children? If it is to be carried out by the private sector, staff will not know or have working relationships with the schools, clubs, doctors and community in the area to which a child will return.
What, then, is recommended in place of the secure training order? We all agree that some children have to be held in secure accommodation. I hope that that is fully recognised. Secure accommodation must be available to the courts. Under the Children Act and the

21
Children and Young Persons' Act there is already a local authority structure under the umbrella of the Department of Health. There are in place 270 secure local authority units. The Secretary of State for Health has provided financial aid for 170 more places. There will therefore be two parallel services run by two government departments dealing with the same group of children. It is true that in the early 1980s some local authorities did not or would not set up secure units, in some cases on principle but in the main because of a lack of resources. How often do we cut back on current expenditure only to spend more in the long run?
We now have the assurance of the Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Association of Social Workers that their departments are committed to running and setting up local secure units and will work to integrate children back into their communities.
Sixthly, the Home Secretary has laid emphasis on education. I am not an educationalist. The noble Baroness, Lady David, will deal with that aspect, which is much better known to her than to me.
I wonder whether the Home Secretary's figure of 200 is correct. Until the passing of the Education Act 1994 the non-school attendance rate and exclusions from school were high. Under the 1994 Act teachers are enjoined to provide a service for non-school attendance and children excluded from school. Research on the Staffordshire truancy initiative showed that juvenile arrests dropped from 72 in 1992 to 37 in 1993. That means that many offences, although not all, are carried out during school hours by children who are not attending school.
I called at a secure unit recently where I spoke to a child of 12. I asked, "What are you here for?" He said, "I did breaking and entering jobs. I did 35 of them and I got caught on the 36th". I said that that was careless. I asked him what he stole. He said that he stole radios and such things and then sold them. I said, "Did you get a good price?" "Very good", he said. He was aged 12. He will go far. I asked, "What did you do with the money?" He replied, "I smoke". I said, "But you're only 12", and he said, "Yes, I know, but I like smoking". I asked him how long he had not been going to school because he had said to me, "If you behave badly and are really nasty to the teachers they push you out, so I behaved badly and I'm really nasty". He knew exactly what he was doing. He had therefore been excluded from school.
Before the latest education Act, children had to have only five hours' schooling a week. They were given three hours in one church school one morning and two hours in another; and then they were free. It was while they were free that they carried out most of their jobs. He said to me, "You always do your jobs then because all the ladies are out shopping and all the children are at school, and so are the teachers. So you can always break and enter". When the new education Act comes into force, those children will be dealt with in special units within the schools. The research from Staffordshire, which now has units in the schools, indicates that the numbers have dropped considerably.
There are innumerable schemes in the country which if developed would diminish juvenile crime. Instead,
22
those services are being cut back. Resources for the youth services and many other such schemes run by the voluntary sector are being cut back. My noble friend Lord Elton will speak on the success of community-based, supervised projects, which will prove effective but which, I think he will probably agree, also require resources.
Many noble Lords had wished to take part in the debate last Thursday, in particular my noble friend Lord Peyton. He wishes the Committee to know how worried he is about the £30 million being spent in this way when it could be spent in more profitable ways. I am not soft on crime. I do not believe that a crime can ever be excused. To excuse a man, woman or child is to diminish that person. But children require love and affection to enable them to feel for others and experience self-esteem. They should be given a structure and security and discipline.
The rights of the child have been underlined due in part to such episodes as were dealt with by Lady Justice Butler-Sloss in Cleveland and the other in Orkney. It is surely right that we recognise the rights of the child but we should also recognise that they carry responsibilities. I strongly support the argument that local authorities should continue to run secure units. I therefore say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that if local authorities continue to act as at present, and have the money to spend, then the children will be near their parents and their homes and will be able to be reintegrated into their communities.
Finally, I recommend an overall inquiry involving the Home Office, the Department for Education, the: Department of Health and the voluntary sector. Discussions should take place and a report should be made to Parliament. I further recommend that in each local authority a panel should be set up to co-operate in the prevention of juvenile crime in the area. Early detection of children in trouble is essential. The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on achieving a grant of £30 million from the Treasury. But surely that money, which is to be spent on a hundred children, should be used to develop the service already in place in local authorities and could be used in ways which would go a long way towards diminishing and dealing with juvenile crime.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln had hoped to speak in support of the amendment but the debate had to be postponed last Thursday and he is prevented from being here today. As duty bishop, the lot falls to me, although I wish to assure the Committee that I speak with personal rather than vicarious conviction.
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of supporting an amendment to the very first clause of the criminal justice Bill. That might at first seem a little churlish and I am slightly embarrassed in doing so. However, I do so because I believe that, while there is much in the Bill which will be of value, there is enough in the first clause to give me considerable cause for concern.
None of us would deny for one moment that for the seriously persistent offender tough measures need to be

23
taken. However, one of my concerns is that a vast amount of money will be needed to fund the secure training centres referred to in the Bill—a figure of £30 million a year has already been referred to—yet only a small number of offenders, 200, will be affected. I have to ask myself whether there is not a better way for those resources to be spent. By having only five centres throughout the country, children as young as 12 will almost certainly be kept at a considerable distance from their families, even if, as I believe will be the case, funds will be made available to pay the fares of relatives.
The circumstances of many families will be such that a long and complicated journey by public transport will not be undertaken on a weekly basis; and yet it is those very people who will be the main influences on the lives of the young people concerned when they are released into the community. Rather than spending vast amounts of money on a small number of centres, surely the focus must be to care for and rehabilitate the young offender in the community from which he or she comes.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln chaired a meeting in this House only a few weeks ago to enable some of your Lordships to meet the families of the boys who had tragically hanged themselves while in custody. Many of those families were under no illusions about the problems of rehabilitating their children into the community and were working with the professionals to help reform the children's characters. Those children who had taken their lives were for the most part driven to suicide by loneliness and separation from their families or had been so bullied by older boys that their lives had become intolerable.
Since 1989, 34 boys have taken their lives while in custody. That is a shocking figure and underlines the seriousness of separating the offender from the very support system—families and local probation officers —which could prove so vital at that stage. While there is a small number of boys who are convicted repeatedly of serious offences, the problem must be kept in perspective and constructive ways must be found to deter re-offending and to re-channel energies. Thirty-four deaths seems a high price to pay.
I find it disturbing that there is no hard evidence that confinement such as is proposed will actually work. Many alternative and successful facilities and premises which helped those young boys in their local surroundings have had to be closed for lack of funds. How much better it would be if that £30 million a year were put towards improving the local facilities, with sufficient secure accommodation on a local basis, and with more imaginative programmes aimed at prevention put in place. Children who offend persistently are often damaged emotionally, abused physically and limited intellectually. They need care and assistance, as well as strict supervision. Where there are families to whom the children will return, work needs to be done to ensure that the families are enabled to provide the necessary support. That can best be done locally, and resources need to be directed towards providing a protected and positive environment.
I firmly believe that the maintenance of the family links with the young offender are absolutely vital.
24
Secure training centres are strongly opposed by organisations actively working with young offenders. There is no hard evidence that the training centres will work and I believe that we need to find a better way.
4 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. The younger the offender is, the more difficult he or she is to organise; therefore, people skilled in child development are needed for their care. Will the staff wear prison uniforms? Who will be in charge of education? How much involvement will the probation service have? Who will be involved with the welfare of the children? Who will do the casework? Many of the children will have been abused and come from difficult families where alcohol and drugs are involved. Who will stop the bullying which, as we all know, is on the increase in normal schools? Will there be matrons? They are no longer employed in the young offender system.
If young children become part of the prison system at the ages of 12 to 14, some will come out boasting about prison life and be even more of a menace to society than when they went in. Can the Minister give any assurance that that will not happen?
The Earl of Longford: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. She speaks with unique authority and experience about such matters. However, I have considerable second-hand experience, I have with me a book which I wrote and which was published last year. It is called: Young Offenders, and is available to any Members of the Committee who wish to borrow it or spend the money on buying it. It may be seen from the book that I have visited most of the institutions that we have been discussing today. I have taken evidence from leading Members of this House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, herself. So I speak with far-reaching second-hand experience.
I entirely agree that to place those children under the Home Office, bringing them into the penal system and making them young criminals, is something to be regarded as a crime against humanity. I am not altogether opposed to taking young children away from home. That is what people who suggest that they should be placed in secure units are proposing. A secure unit is custody, it is taking the child away from home, we should not mince our words. However, I consider what the Government have in mind is—I was going to say "a wicked move", but one must never accuse political opponents of wickedness—gross folly.
Let us consider for a moment whether there is any positive way forward. For the purposes of the amendment, there are enough opponents of the Government's plan and I hope that it will be destroyed and forgotten as time goes on. However, we must ask whether there is a positive way forward. Personally, I believe that the answer lies in the direction indicated by the noble Baroness at the end of her speech when she talked about the need for a national inquiry. She proposed that the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office should

25
collaborate in it. I should like to see independent representatives taking part, with an independent chairman, perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Everest, but the other noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would do the job very well, anyone called "Lord Hunt" would do as chairman of the committee!
What is the point of the inquiry? Anyone glancing at my book, if they do not find it distasteful, may read the reply given on behalf of the Department of Health in Parliament in January 1993. In that reply, the department sets out the local government provision which exists today: about 30 units are mentioned. But what of the provision? It is fantastic: the largest unit is Aycliffe, a world-famous centre with every kind of educational and psychological provision. The smallest unit is for two young offenders. Many of the units are small and the distribution around the country is hopeless, with hardly anything in the south of England, broadly speaking.
Thus it is no good saying: "Leave it to local authorities and pour a little more money in". That is not good enough, it is just laughing at the problem. We need a national inquiry and I hope that that will be conceded, after this ridiculous clause has long since been forgotten. Let it be forgotten and at the next stage let the Government turn their mind to the idea of a serious national inquiry with a view to rational, secure provision throughout the country. Nothing else would be worthy of this House or the country. That is what is required.
The problem of distance will remain with us always: it will never be simple. If we decide to have small units for those at home, then the provision will be much less adequate in terms of education and therapy. If we decide on large units, then the young offenders will have to travel too far. There will always be that problem, but that is where a national inquiry would provide the best answer available. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No one would doubt for an instant the commitment, knowledgeability and humanity of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. However, as the debate proceeds, I have more and more grave doubts about the course which she and the right reverend Prelate propose to the Committee. This is not a debate about Clause 1 of the Bill, although that is what it is on paper. It is a debate about the first 22 clauses of the Bill. The amendment basically proposes taking out altogether Part I, which is one of the principal objects of the Bill. Let no one be in any doubt or under any illusion as to the seriousness, width and nature of what we are discussing.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was at pains to say —and as always she spoke the truth—that she was not soft on crime. I accept that and assure her equally that I am not hard on crime and I should like to say why. The reason is that you do not improve a man's or a boy's character by taking away his liberty. Perhaps I may assert in the presence of lawyers far more experienced in the branch than I that it has always been my experience of the courts and of the policy adopted by appeal judges in dealing with the lower courts that custodial sentences —prison or otherwise —are only to be adopted as a last
26
resort. The term of sentence or the period of incarceration is always to be the shortest possible: compatible with the safety of the public. I believe that to be the right philosophy. You do not improve a man's or a boy's character by shutting him up. Even less do you improve him by shutting him up for longer than is necessary. Therefore, I think we can be agreed as to our basic philosophical identity on this point.
However, we must remember that we are talking about 200 cases at a time, if my mathematics are correct —probably they are not, but I am not far out as to the scale—and there are cases so serious that, as a matter of practical politics, there is no other way of dealing with the situation than by a proposal of this kind. It may be that which was preferred by my noble friend Lady Faithfull on a purely local basis, or the kind which is preferred by the Government in addition to the existing local places which are and, as I understand it, will continue to be in position.
I mentioned one, which I shall not mention again, on Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned others. He cited the case of a,
"14 year-old from Tyneside who has 28 convictions and who has escaped 22 times from local authority accommodation".
He also referred to:
"Another 14 year-old boy in south London has admitted taking part in more than 1,000 burglaries of shops and homes in the past two years. On a single night he, and other teenagers, raided 23 branches of one particular store. He has stolen over 100 cars to ferry himself between burglaries, and the total value of all the goods stolen and the cost of damage caused is estimated to be in the region of £2 million. He has been arrested 40 times but is too young to be given a custodial sentence for the crimes he has committed".
My noble friend's comment at Second Reading was,
"That is pretty hot stuff'.—[Official Report, 2.5/4/94; col. 381.]
Whether it is hot, or not so hot, I shall not argue; but the public are faced with a serious practical problem as to how to deal with that situation. I am in support of my noble friend's solution.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull is perfectly right in saying that the secure places in local authority accommodation are essential and that such centres do good work, so far as good work is possible in this highly contentious and difficult field. But they are very small. There tend to be eight, 10 or 12 places in any given centre. If there were more it would mean that too many people were being sent there or that the centre was covering too wide a catchment area. This is a complement, or a supplement, to what is already in place. This is a reasonable proposal to put before the Committee as it is contained in Part I of the Bill.
It is said, truly, that in the ordinary course one would wish that a child who was given a secure place or a custodial sentence of any kind should be within easy reach of his family. I should think that in 90 per cent. of the cases that is true. But probably in a certain, and not unsubstantial, proportion of cases the family may be part of the problem. The treatment may require separation. Those cases exist too. In fact one has to deal with almost every variety of case. I am very far from thinking that this addition to the local authority structure is not a desirable way of carrying out the policy which has become a practical necessity.

27
There is one other factor that I would mention to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Obviously, local secure places are not establishments that one would wish to abolish. The question is whether they should be supplemented. I ask my noble friend, without expecting an immediate answer: is it possible to have a consistent policy without a background of national involvement? These cases, which are the extreme ones, are those with which the present Part I of the Bill attempts to deal.
I do not mention the victims. I have been burgled seven times, so like my noble friend I can, in a sense, claim to be a victim myself. The public are entitled to be protected from the kind of case to which my noble friend Earl Ferrers referred at Second Reading. One cannot blind oneself to the fact that these constant offences, mainly against property, are nearly always in the end associated with a greater or lesser degree of violence, which is on the increase. Would this Chamber be wise to take away from the Government's Bill not a clause, which on paper is the subject of debate, but a whole part of the Bill to which the Government attach national importance?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I am very conscious of the importance of this Motion and of the impact that it would have on the Bill. However, I must confess that ever since Mr. Clarke announced this proposal I have felt uneasy about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made a powerful case against the clause and against the reversal of the policies that were previously followed by this Government and by earlier administrations of both parties.
The proposals in this clause were not in the Conservative Party manifesto. I have checked that point. It seems to me that it is perfectly in order for this Committee, if it sees fit, to accept that there is indeed a problem, but to conclude that there are better ways of meeting it.
During my time in the Home Office I was not altogether unfamiliar with policies which failed to receive universal approbation. But I cannot remember one that has achieved such widespread criticism by professional bodies as has this proposal.
Without going over the ground that has been discussed, I should like to put forward quite briefly four of the more serious drawbacks as I see them. First, although I know that the courts are required under the Bill to pay regard to the existing statutory restrictions on ordering custody, the entry test—the breach of a single supervision order and three imprisonable offences— falls a good way short of the kind of repetitive criminal behaviour with which the noble Earl curdled our blood at Second Reading and to which reference was made in earlier speeches. Steal a bicycle, commit two minor shoplifting offences, and there you are!
Secondly, I am sorry to say so, but I find it very hard to accept the contention that, having learnt from previous mistakes, the Government really will see that these young offenders end up as law abiding citizens. "This time," they say, "everything is to be different.
28
The high quality training and education will do the trick". But in the course of a long career how often have I heard those hopes expressed of some new experiment; and how often have they come to nought. The Government claim that they are being tough on crime. The reality, alas, is that they are likely to be creating schools for criminals. After all, it is not many years ago since this Government published a Green Paper which said that even a short period of custody was quite likely to confirm young offenders as criminals—particularly as they acquired new criminal skills from more sophisticated offenders.
Thirdly, I cannot reconcile myself to the prospect of the centres being run by private firms. These children will be persistent offenders. But, contrary to what The Times seems to think (to judge by its leader today) most of them will also be emotionally and psychologically disturbed, just like other children who are in trouble. No outside firm will have had any experience of dealing with those children, who are some of the most difficult in the country, either in custody or under supervision. It is a very far cry from, say, running a remand prison.
My fourth point is one that we have discussed at some length and I need not go over it again. It is simply the fact that some of these children will be in custody far from home and far from the community, the doctors and the social workers who know them. The Government have said that the re-establishment of parental responsibility will be a prime objective, but I am afraid that this last minute concession about assisted visits is not calculated to achieve that miracle. The noble Earl has already conceded that in many cases the concession in practical terms will not be worth all that much.
I could continue for some time. Is what is proposed in consonance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? What is to happen about girls who are caught up by these provisions? That is a question which my noble friend Lord Acton asked at Second Reading, but answer came there none. How can Scotland manage without anything comparable? However, I must press on and talk about what might possibly be done.
The noble Baroness referred to the local authority secure units. I am very well aware that they are patchy in provision so that places cannot be found and are uneven in their standards. I realise that the extra places which the Secretary of State for Health is providing are not limited to very young children. But I am disposed to agree that developing the existing network of local authority units is to be preferred to the proposals envisaged in this clause. Those units came out rather well when research about young offenders was carried out by the Home Office.
Perhaps I may say that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was too dismissive of the units' possible contribution to this very difficult problem. The other day when two of my colleagues and I visited one of those units, we were impressed, first, by the standard of security. There had not been an escape for five years. That is perhaps more typical than is suggested by some of the myths that we hear and is perhaps more than some prisons can claim. We were impressed, secondly, by the amount of individual attention that it was possible to

29
provide with a generous staffing ratio. Unlike the Government, I feel that a small unit with adequate staff stands a better chance of success than one for 40 people with a prison environment. The Government's proposed centres would certainly be very hard put to it to match the standard of education which the local education authority was able to supply in the unit that we saw.
No one disputes that there are some young offenders who ought to be locked up. I believe that there is a need for a change in the law, in particular to give a specific power to the courts to order detention direct in a secure local authority unit. Indeed, I wondered whether it might be possible to amend this clause, leaving aside what follows, so as to make some such provision. However, I found that it was beyond my amateur efforts. On that approach, too, there is a clear need to boost the provision of secure local authority units so as to fill the gaps and achieve a general standard of performance—a consistent policy on a national basis, as the noble and learned Lord put it. There is also a need to have more resources for supervision, fostering and support. Magically enough, there seems to be plenty of money available.
Undeniably, there is a real problem of handling a small number of persistent young offenders. It is not surprising that the man in the street is fed up and feels that not enough is being done. But I cannot believe that these child gaols are the way.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I strongly support the opinions and the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. But I do not feel able to vote for her Motion, at least at this stage of the Bill.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out, if this clause falls, so do the first 14 clauses of the Bill. We shall not be able to deal with them or consider amendments to them. Eventually, the Bill will go back to the other place. One must not try to forecast what the other place will do but I think that it would be a strong bet that the Bill would merely be returned to us with the whole of the first part reinstated. Then what can we do? It is essential that this Chamber should have the opportunity to go through all the clauses in this part of the Bill to see whether we can persuade the Government to make substantial amendments. I shall pick up on the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, about whether, within the framework of governmental policy, we can find a better way of achieving that end.
I for one do not need convincing of the need to take out of circulation—that is, put into safe custody—a small but significant number of persistent uncontrol-lable child criminals from whom we cannot protect the public at the moment. Therefore I am prepared to accept the concept of giving the courts power to impose a sentence such as a secure training order. But at present I am unable to accept the form of treatment which goes with the secure training order. As I understand it at the moment, I find it wholly unacceptable and am bound to say so. If I am to be convinced, I need very much more information and explanation from the Government than
30
as yet are available. I request my noble friend on the Front Bench to try to work on that area in replying to this debate and to others that we shall have on the Bill.
I repeat: do not labour the need more than is necessary. There is great unanimity in this Chamber. I believe that the majority of people in this Chamber feel that there is a need to put into secure custody for a limited time a small number of highly persistent child offenders. The public demand it and have right behind that demand. However, we must consider very carefully what we do.
As I see it, what is wrong with the proposal at the moment is that, first, as has already been mentioned, it will take many of the children much too far away from their home areas and parental contact. It is true that in some cases the parental contact is of such a kind that the children might be better without it. But they can be kept from it. It is much more difficult to bring good parental contact to bear if the child is; several hundred miles away from the home, school teachers and other figures of the local community who can influence him.
Secondly, I believe that there is grave danger of discontinuity of treatment in the proposal. We are to put young children into secure units for a maximum period of 12 months—the maximum period for a secure order. Then they are to be brought back to their home areas and handed over to intensive personal care. But by whom? How will the transfer take place? That is extremely critical. There is discontinuity in moving those very difficult children from one group of carers to another which could produce a gap in the treatment. That might be absolutely fatal, even if—it is a big "if—the custodial part of the treatment had achieved the best effect that was hoped for it.
There is something else which I feel is wrong. It is too dangerous, for the sake of those involved, to bring together into one place as many as 40 acutely disturbed criminal children. I have heard it said by those who defend the scheme that these units would be much smaller than previous institutions. Yes, thank goodness! But they are still much too large. It would be far better to treat these people in small groups of two or three in local areas rather than gather them together. That is a danger which has not been examined.
What I also feel is wrong is the extremely high cost. I shall not elaborate at this stage, but many Members of the Committee have already pointed it out. Consider what we could do with £30 million a year in expanding the best treatment which is given at the moment in some local areas but not, alas, in all local areas. Providing the best transfer system throughout the country would make a real impact on our attack on juvenile crime in this country.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a number of questions. What is the relationship to be between secure places in the new institutions and those in local authority units? Will there be an overlap? Will the courts be able to say which child goes to which form of secure unit? What was the thinking behind the proposal? What co-operation and joint consultation took place between the Home Office and the Department of Health? Almost at the same time as the Home Office announced the prospect of 200 secure

31
places in the new units, the Minister of Health announced making provision for 170 new secure places in the present local authority system. Was that a carefully weighed-out balance?
What does one sort of secure place provide for compared with the other? Is there some coherent thought about the relationship between the two? Without some kind of rationale in that regard the whole scheme falls to the ground. Also, what will be the difference in cost between a place in a new secure training unit and one in the local authority unit? In that regard, we are told that the cost will be £30 million a year. How will that be divided up as between premises and staff? I have a feeling that, with the enormous amount involved in the cost of premises, that will be where the greatest extravagance in the system will prove to lie.
Can my noble friend say what is special about the proposed new type of training? It is clear that the Government are thinking seriously about providing a standard type of treatment and education which has not previously been available. But what is it? Who invented it? Can we be told something about it? Until we know what is entailed, the proposal cannot carry conviction. What qualifications will the staff require? How and where will they obtain them? Is there not a danger that the new centres will merely recruit their staff by head hunting those already employed as local authority social workers, thus creating a crisis elsewhere? Otherwise, where are those people to be found and what will be their job specifications? Also, what will happen in respect of the after-care when the custodial part of the order is completed? I referred to the critical moment of transfer. Before we are asked to approve the Bill, the Committee should be told more in regard to how the transfer is to be carried out and what safeguards there will be to overcome the danger of discontinuity.
Finally, prior to setting up the new centres, the Government owe Members of the Committee a carefully reasoned argument as to why it will be better to spend £30 million a year on setting up the new secure units within the confines of existing adult prisons, rather than improving and strengthening small secure units in local authority areas throughout the country. I strongly urge the Committee to think further about the Bill. I stress my last point because in that may lie the solution to some of our difficulties.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness David: I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carr. He asked many of the questions I intended to ask. Although he said that he would not support his noble friend Lady Faithfull, he did a splendid demolition job on this part of the Bill. His criticisms were extremely well put. We are told that there is going to be training and education. But we have not heard how it will be provided or what it entails. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that the fewer the children the better the education that can be provided.
I made it my business to find out what is the position at secure accommodation in my home county of Cambridgeshire. I refer to Salters, near Peterborough. It
32
provides full-time education which relates to the national curriculum and is adapted to the needs of each individual. At Salters there are six girls, whose ages range from 14 to over school age. Of course, their levels of education and attainment vary considerably. There is a high staff ratio—2.4 teachers for the six girls and a learning support assistant. There is a flexibility and a social dimension to the education. Educational targets are set for all the pupils. They work towards a national record of achievement and use the Associated Examination Board exams. They also use the ASDAM youth award scheme. That is different from the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme in that it includes academic and educational aspects as well as sport. There is a bronze, silver and gold award. Also, Salters receives European social funding for some girls over 16.
I spoke on the telephone to Miss Gillian Corsellis, an independent Visitor to the Salters establishment and at other local authority secure accommodation. She is a link person for Voice of the Child in Care and she has been a civil servant in the Department of Health. She has visited many units and says that extremely good work is going on in many of them; they supply the individual care and education that can be provided by smaller units. It may be that six is a rather small number but it is better than 40, which is far too many. It will be difficult to organise that well.
Also, who will teach and train in these establish-ments? Where will the staff come from? The social services are primarily responsible for secure accom-modation, but they have close liaison with local education authorities. There are also the children with special needs: there are a great many of them in these units. They must have the help of the local education authority to enable them to have the assessment and help that is necessary. I find it very difficult to imagine how anything like the services now provided by the local education authorities and social service departments can possibly be given in these new establishments. I hope that when the Minister replies he will explain in some detail how he will deal with this.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the principle of Clause 1, although I accept that it should be subject to amendment, certainly in the realm of education and along some of the lines mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Carr. It has been said that the £30 million cost may be better used to help local authorities to provide more secure accommodation and that community supervision programmes have a better record of preventing re-offending than secure institutions —as though the one excluded the other. As I understand the Bill, that is assuredly not the case.
The provision by local authorities, although excellent in certain areas—the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, used the word "patchy", with which I agree —would be dependent on funding. In the long run it is probably dependent on the earmarking of grants from central funds for specific uses, which erodes the very autonomy of the local authority. Members of the Committee may well think—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has just referred to me. It should be made clear that when we are talking about extra money —the £30 million or whatever it may be—we are not thinking solely of improving the secure units run by local authorities. We are thinking of boosting the educational and social services, the services which will look after these individuals when they come back into society.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I agree totally with the qualification he makes.
My next main point is that perhaps the Committee will think that there is need for some kind of uniformity in dealing with these persistent offenders, some kind of centralised control, and that there should be a national approach to the problem as distinct from a local approach, which, I understood, was the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. It is only because the existing institutions have such a poor record in preventing re-offending that some new secure institutions must be set up. No one has used the word "deterrent". I propose to use it because we have come to the point in our society where there must be deterrence.
A new secure institution should constitute a form of deterrent, a form of punishment and a form of discipline as well as provide training and education in a secure environment. At least that is my personal opinion, and because of that I support in principle Clause 1 of the Bill. A disposal of last resort for the persistent offender with appropriate and extensive new provision for rehabilitation—that is the long-term important differ-ence between the regime proposed in these new centres and the old approved schools that did not work so well.
There is no alternative proposal in principle which can set aside all the criteria I have mentioned and all the legitimate expectations of government. The catalogue of crime to which victims have been exposed by persistent offenders is well known—to your Lordships, to the public, to the police and to the courts. It includes burglary, theft, serious assault and offences with motor cars which have become a source of danger not only to the life and limb of the public but also to the police. It is totally idle to claim that what is seen on television cannot fuel copy-cat crime, especially with the young, who are only at home with a gang because in no true sense have they a home. Is it not also idle to claim that drug taking has no relationship with the commission of crime by the 12 and 14 year-olds to find the wherewithal to purchase their drugs? Something has to be done which is relevant and effective to contain and reverse the trend of crime committed by those too young to be sent to prison when all other forms of disposal have been tried and have failed and where the disorder manifests itself in a settled intention, often associated with truancy, as has just been said, to continue to commit criminal offences as part of the ordinary way of life.
Subject to amendment—I would support many aspects of amendments concerned with education, training, control, monitoring and so forth—I roundly support the principle of Clause 1.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether we can establish some common ground. A great deal of the diagnosis, if I may so put it, should be agreed, and that can inform the way in which we consider the solution we should be trying to find. Can we not accept that juvenile crime has been decreasing quite dramatically over the past 10 years or more? Indeed, I am surprised that that has not appeared in Conservative Party propaganda as being a great success of the Conservative Government. The number of juvenile convictions has decreased by well over 30 per cent. since 1979. In other words, the problem is not an increasing one, although no one denies that it is acute where it occurs. Secondly, can we not agree that incarceration does not work? Even the most dedicated staff, such as those at Lisnevin in Northern Ireland, where no one has anything but praise for the work that they do—
Lord Gisborough: Surely the decrease is the result of the number of cautions going up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord raises an important point. I am talking about arrests whether or not they result in a caution. The decrease is not the result of cautions going up. It is the result of the number of offences going down.
Perhaps I may return to the issue of recidivism. Even at Lisnevin, which is staffed by devoted people, about 80 per cent. of those who leave are re-convicted, whereas—I come now to the noble Lord's point about cautions—the success of caution is quite remarkable. The proportion of arrests which result in cautions has gone up from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., and 79 per cent. of those juveniles who are cautioned are cautioned once only. In other words, there is a 20 per cent. recidivism rate instead of the 80 per cent. recidivism rate after locking up. No one can deny those facts: they should form the basis of the judgment we have to make.
No one denies that there is a problem. But, surely, the judgment we have to make is whether the solution is to introduce new kinds of places for these children to go to or to change the powers. The Government have chosen to look for new kinds of places instead of changing the powers to send children to existing places. The debate that has taken place—
Lord Renton: The noble Lord may have overlooked Clause 20 of the Bill which enables the courts to send even those aged 12 to 14 to the same kind of local secure units as those of 15 and over.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are a number of points beyond Clauses 1 to 15 with which I actually agree. When we come to that part of the Bill, perhaps I shall be able to make that clear. At the moment we are debating Clauses 1 to 15, which refer to secure training centres and secure training orders.
I want to point out the difficulties which the Government have made for themselves in choosing to create a new kind of place rather than seek new powers. The danger of there being too few centres and of their being too far from the homes of the children concerned has been made absolutely clear. Secondly, there is the

35
problem that they are too large and too concentrated on those who have indulged in criminal behaviour. It is a common point that virtually all of these children will be disturbed themselves, coming from deprived homes and so on. If they go into local authority secure accommodation, they will be with other disturbed and difficult children who have not committed offences. The Committee may think that that is a problem for those who have not committed offences. I look at it the other way round. I suggest that, since they come from the same backgrounds, it is not the offence which is significant, apart from the need for incarceration, but the ability to deal with the deprivation and disturbance. It is easier to do that in a smaller, more local home.
The Government have also come up against the difficult question of the length of incarceration. Everybody who knows anything about it seems to be agreed that even when, as in Lisnevin, there is the power to provide for longer incarceration, a period of six to seven months is about the maximum that actually works; yet the Government find themselves obliged deliberately to increase the period to 12 months.
There is also the whole issue of the break with home, school, with supervision or supervision orders and with other action that has already been taken. We are not talking about children who have never come before the law in one way or another previously. There is also the issue of privatisation, but it is probably better to deal with that when we consider later amendments.
There are also all the difficulties with definition. There is the problem of what is meant by,
"three or more imprisonable offences",
which could mean imprisonable offences which are entirely distinct or imprisonable offences which happened at the same time. There is also the issue—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: On that point, I accept the noble Lord's problem and I should like clarification of that from my own point of view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that, but it confirms my view that everywhere you look in the proposal for secure training orders and secure training centres difficulties are encountered that have to be dealt with; and there has been no answer to them from any noble Lord. Indeed, apart from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is virtually the only Member of the Committee who has attempted to defend the provisions. Nobody has provided any answers to the criticisms that have been raised by Members on all Benches this afternoon.
With all those difficulties, why are the Government seeking to create new forms of placement and new forms of secure provision for children rather than looking at the powers? It would be so easy to deal with the powers. All that is required is an amendment to Section 12, as amended, of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which would give a power to order placements in local authority secure accommodation combined with appropriate supervision orders. It is not difficult to do. Indeed, it is a more realistic thing to do. The money could readily be made available from the vast amount of money that will be needed for the
36
provision which is now proposed. Is it not better to cut the Gordian knot and not to seek to spend many hours amending in detail a proposal that falls at every hurdle that it approaches? Is it not better to seek to take out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is proposing, the whole clause and to enable the Government and Parliament to think constructively about the better use of existing provisions?
Lord Elton: The conclusive answer to the noble Lord's question has already been given by my noble friend Lord Carr: if we remove Clause 1 from the Bill we will not have the opportunity to amend a provision which will otherwise come back to us intact from another place. That is one reason why I cannot support my noble friend in her Motion with which I so warmly sympathise.
The other reason is that there is a baby in the bathwater that she proposes to throw out—that there is a requirement for a sentence of this sort. I am persuaded by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when he said that while courts have a role in authorising placements in local authority secure units they have no powers whatsoever to require the local authority to make use of secure accommodation in particular cases; nor do the criminal courts have any sentence available to them in respect of 12 to 14 year-olds which involves detention other than in the case of the gravest of crimes. If we are to resort to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we need to keep that opportunity open, which means not voting the clause out of the Bill.
I remind my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and others that the person we are trying to deter is very often only just tall enough to see over that Dispatch Box upon which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, leans with such consummate and adult ease. We are talking about children—and small children at that. We therefore have a duty in conscience to ensure that what we commit them to is not something to which we commit them as we would commit a faceless criminal statistic. We are talking about children who are younger than most of our children and of an age of many of our grandchildren.
The question of how many such children there are now arises. We have not dwelt on it much and, in view of the passage of time, I shall not dwell on it for long either. The conclusion of the correspondence that I have had with my noble friend and the Secretary of State on this matter rested fairly heavily on the Policy Studies Institute's publication to which I have already referred, Persistent Young Offenders. That rested on three samples: one from a Midlands county and two from London boroughs. For the purposes of deciding the numbers to be provided for if the Government's proposed criteria were adhered to, the example from the London boroughs could not be applied for reasons of sampling, so the conclusions rest on the experiences of one Midlands county. Suffice it to say that there was a good deal of qualification about the conclusions that could be drawn from that, so I hope that the Committee will not think that 200 is the precise number of people who will turn up in any one year.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked what sort of people they would be and pointed out that

37
the criteria on the face of the Bill are radically different from the descriptions that we are given of the customer we are hoping to catch. When he replies, I hope that my noble friend will explain how it is that the sort of person he described in his Second Reading speech so far exceeds in criminality the sort of person described in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Carr and many others have referred to the size of unit. I must put on record the fact that I have taught for 10 years; I was the Minister responsible for prisons for three years and I have spent five years trying to keep young children out of prison by charitable means. We are now coming to questions at the nub of the issue. Concentrating difficult children does not reduce the difficulty of dealing with them; it increases it. That applies both to the administrative whole—I cannot believe that there would be classes of 40; the classes would be very small—and to small groups. If everybody in a small group has the same distortions in their perceptions of reality and proper behaviour it is far more difficult to deal with them than if there is a spread and if each can look to another for an illustration of how to behave and what is reasonable.
I shall not dwell on that point either, except to say that deciding that 40 is the ideal number may make sense in terms of the cost of administration, the sort of contracts that the Government wish to let to tenderers, and the sort of accommodation for which they hope to get planning approval, but, despite the enthusiasm with which it is urged on us, it does not seem to me to be an advantage in terms of the treatment that these children —I repeat that they are children—should have.
The children who are to be subject to a secure training order should, in my view, be subject to a secure education order because every one of them will be of an age when education is compulsory and they must receive it. The training—however that is defined—is an add-on, not a substitute. It is essential that the children are taught in manageable small groups. It is a great advantage—in fact, it is very nearly essential—that they should be taught near enough to their home education authority for their curriculum to be such that they can then be re-injected into proper education. If we give up that objective, we give up the idea of redemption altogether. We must get them back into the system or we might as well lock them up forever—and we are not going to do that in this Committee.
Amendment No. 6 will deal with the educational regime, and I shall pass on from that.
I return to the question of "tough on crime". We all want to be tough on crime. We want to be strict with children, but we do not want to waste money. We want to do it in the most effective way. I say two things to my noble friend, one of which has been said already; that is, if we throw this out, we throw out the subsequent 14 clauses. Clauses 1 to 15, not the whole of Part I, would probably fall with this. Nevertheless, that is a gaping hole. That would be throwing out something which in toto has been warmly approved in another place.
We are not in the same place as we were with the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill which we were looking at first. This is a measure which is proposed to us by the other place, not just by the Government.
38
Therefore there is no prospect of throwing this out and then not seeing it again. I think it will come back. We want the opportunity to have back something better than what we have which is susceptible to small further improvement rather than something subject to a complicated procedure in which it is almost impossible to achieve any amendments. That is a procedural point of great importance.
The other thing that I would say to my noble friend is that I believe that that is rendered respectable in terms of what we want to do as well as procedural terms, because there is a need for this sentence and if we do not have it we have not addressed a problem which, though small, is severely difficult for those who suffer from it. The Committee will see from what I have said that I shall support my noble friend at this stage, but at the next stage I shall be hostile to many aspects of what is proposed.
5 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As one of the signatories to the amendment perhaps I may say a few words. The question before the Committee is a simple one. It is whether the proposition which is before us today can be improved significantly by amendment. My view is that it cannot be improved by amendment. It is a question of principle: do we believe that these new child gaols—because that is what they are—are desirable?
Perhaps I may begin by referring to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsharn of Saint Marylebone. He made two points, and I agree with them both. First, he said that in the case of many of these young offenders the family is part of the problem. He is of course absolutely right. But that brings me to a point of comment upon that proposition: if the family is part of the problem, is it not rather important for us to consider the circumstances of, first, whether the family will remain in any form of contact with the child during the period of his incarceration? Secondly, where will the child go after it leaves the child gaol? It will go back to the family. Is it not therefore far more sensible for us to devote time and attention to considering how one can deal with the difficult problem of those disturbed children and often disturbed families? It is my view that it is far more sensible for local authorities to deal with this problem, as they do at the moment, and, if the child has to be kept in custody, for that child to be kept in local authority secure accommodation.
The second point the noble and learned Lord made was that the public are entitled to be protected. Of course he is absolutely right. I think that all of us, whatever our views on Clause 1, agree with that—a point made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
What we know about this issue is fairly straightforward. There are a few children who repeatedly commit criminal offences. We accept that. A number of those children must clearly be kept in secure accommodation. There is no argument about that either. But that does not begin to justify Clause 1. There are three major objections to what the Government are proposing. First, why have the Government chosen to ask—this question has already been asked by others

39
—for parliamentary approval for the creation of these new child prisons rather than to develop the alternative of increasing the amount of local authority secure accommodation?
The noble and learned Lord referred to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Second Reading when he talked of a child offender who had escaped on 22 occasions from local authority care. That was entirely right. The second point, as I am sure the noble Earl will recognise, is that, as far as I am aware, that child escaped from non-secure local authority accommodation, of which there is a substantial amount.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene in support of his argument, secure local authority accommodation is really secure. The example to which I should like to refer is Leeds. It has been going for a number of years. It has 27 children, and there has never been an escape.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord for making that point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said also that local authority secure units are small. In most cases he is of course entirely right but, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, pointed out, most people who know anything about the subject agree on one thing; that is, that it is highly desirable that these children should be kept in small, intimate units. That is regarded as one of the substantial advantages of the present system. It was the Home Office who testified to that most vigorously. The Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper No. 96 said that those units provided better education, training and regimes generally. That seems a fairly persuasive argument.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I want to make this point lest there should be any misunderstand-ing between us. I was not condemning local authority units for being small, I was pointing out that the provision in Clause 1 was additional and complemen-tary to local authority provision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, I am coming to that point, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, in a few moments. I shall be asking what is the purpose of the new units when we have such excellent arrangements already in existence. That argument has not so far been answered by anyone.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will recall the debate which we on these Benches initiated on 6th July 1992 on the subject of child runaways. One of the arguments put forward on that occasion—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will be glad to hear—was that the public deserved to be protected from the unsatisfactory arrangements which existed in such cases. We greatly regretted that the Government had not taken more vigorous action to deal with the problem. On that occasion, a number of peers from all parts of the Chamber said that a number of child runaways committed a substantial number of offences before they were recaptured. We pressed the Minister to increase the amount of secure accommodation in children's homes to deal with the problem caused by a few score children.
40
Unhappily, two years later, the Department of Health has still not been able to increase the amount of such accommodation. Indeed, the situation in some respects is even worse, because the amount of such accommodation has been reduced during the Government's lifetime. In 1980, there were 353 places in secure accommodation, now there are fewer than 300. Led by the London Borough of Wandsworth, which cut the number of places significantly, some councils merely shut them down to save money, and the Department of Health, I fear, just watched that happening without taking any vigorous action to deal with it. Now, I am glad to say, Mrs. Bottomley has initiated action to deal with that problem, and has decided to increase the number of secure places in children's homes. I welcome that, although I regret the fact that it has taken so long for corrective action to be taken.
However, if the proposal is to be carried out, why on earth has the Home Office become involved, asking Parliament to approve the creation of a parallel system? How can it be right to ask a court, when sentencing a child offender, to chose between these two parallel systems with establishments accountable to two different government departments? It is extremely difficult to understand the justification for this policy.
Secondly, why is it thought that this new custodial system for children will work any better than the others which were tried and which failed under governments of different political persuasions? There were borstals, which had failure rate in the region of 80 per cent., and approved schools, which had similar failure rates. There were detention centres and also short sharp shocks. At one stage we had children marching to classes. The only trouble with that was that it was immensely popular with the offenders concerned. They were most keen on the idea of pretending to be soldiers but were less keen on involving themselves in a course of serious education. In detention centres the failure rate was spectacularly high, as was the amount of bullying and intimidation of young offenders in many of these establishments. That is a critically important argument. Those establishments too were shut down.
Why, after that repeated pattern of failure, are the Government insisting on marching down that road once again? They say, "This will be quite different". They say that, for example, there will be a high-quality educational regime. But there is already good quality education in local authority secure accommodation, as the noble Baroness pointed out a few moments ago. As regards the Prison Department, there was a good educational regime in many borstals. Indeed, much of the early work in dealing with post-school illiteracy was done in borstals. It was pioneered there. However, closed conditions run by Prison Department establishments have repeatedly failed. If the clause is accepted —and I hope that it will not be accepted—nothing is more certain than that these centres will fail too.
It is wrong to repeat all the errors of the past. It is even more senseless when local authority secure units exist and when their number can be increased at no greater cost—and probably at a great deal lower cost

41
—than is involved in the new arrangement. That point was made a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley.
I turn to the third objection to the proposal. It was dealt with in part during the debate on Amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. As the Minister confirmed, there are to be only five centres; in County Durham, Warwickshire, Oxford, Nottinghamshire and in the South East. As was said by my noble friend Lord Avebury, that means that a child offender from Penzance will have to go to Oxford and a child in Anglesey will have to go to somewhere in Nottinghamshire. What does the Committee imagine will happen to the family relationship in disturbed families in such situations? I fear that the effect will be extremely damaging. As regards many of these offenders, family relationships are poor and I fear that they will become even worse as a result of the creation of these new centres.
I hope that the Committee will reject Clause 1. The proposal, if enacted, will do nothing but damage a number of vulnerable and disturbed children. It will not ensure that they will turn away from crime. The situation is quite the reverse. I believe that the right response to the problem of difficult child offenders— and it is a major problem—is to extend the range of secure accommodation in children's homes. I hope that the Committee will take that decision today.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: I sense that before long the Committee would like to move towards resolution of the issue—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Windlesham: It has been a notable debate and fully worthy of the significance and importance of the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I shall be brief and concentrate attention on one particular aspect that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and touched on by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
We are all in agreement—and the Government have affirmed it—that the aim of this new power is to deal more effectively with a very small number of persistent offenders. Where in the clause is that aim defined? The word "persistent" is not defined. Clause 1(5) provides that:
"The court shall not make a secure training order unless it is satisfied",
by three conditions. The second condition is:
"that the offender has been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences".
The subsection provides for imprisonable offences, not indictable offences. This wider category includes all those offences which are punishable by a sentence imposed by the magistrates' courts of up to six months' imprisonment.
The new sentence relates not only to Crown Courts. It could catch the people whom the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the Home Secretary in another place have described as being the target of these new powers. However, it could also cover a number of others. Should
42
the clause survive, which remains to be seen and will shortly be decided, will the Minister, in reply or at a later stage, consider whether Clause 1(5) (b) should not more properly be worded:
"that the offender has been convicted of an imprisonable offence on three or more occasions"?
Lord Gisborough: We are all agreed that some of this small proportion of youngsters must be kept out of circulation. However, the problem is that they come out again, as has been mentioned. The Committee has heard that the efforts of approved schools and the like have; resulted in 80 per cent. of those concerned re-offending If the proposal goes ahead, I hope that it will begin with a pilot scheme rather than the whole scheme. The result of one pilot scheme can therefore be judged at less cost.
Secure accommodation should be the answer, and Leeds is a good example. However, the problem is that many of these secure establishments are not secure. As regards the secure accommodation near my own home, boys go in one end and come straight out the other—it is like a sieve. The Government should place on local authorities a duty to make secure accommodation secure. When local authorities want to make cuts in their expenditure, that is where they skimp on costings.
Many Members of the Committee know about horses. The problem with a recalcitrant and difficult horse is usually the result of diet, food and exercise. If they are given the right diet, the right amount of food and lots of exercise it is extraordinary what can be done with them. Rarely have many of these youngsters had a regular, decent meal—they have lived on trash food. I should like to see a regime based more on the concept of Outward Bound courses than one which merely locks them up in prisons. I believe that that may work to some extent.
It is all very well dealing with the present but we must look to the future. It is interesting to note that in Michigan education is provided for three to five year-olds. By the time they reach the age of 27, only 7 per cent. of those educated between the ages of three to five are offending compared with 35 per cent. who were not educated at that age. It is reckoned that one dollar spent on that education saves seven dollars at a later stage.
I shall not vote in favour of this Motion because I believe that it is important that we should have further discussions on this clause. However, I support the noble Baroness in principle.
Viscount Tenby: In view of the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, which I gather received the approval of the Committee, your Lordships may be relieved to hear that I have torn up most of my notes.
I strongly suggest that what is needed is not five secure training units but more money spent on local authority secure accommodation. That should be available throughout the country and, most important, it should conform to uniform and centrally laid-down standards in matters like security, education and aftercare. I cannot emphasise that last point too strongly because it is absolutely crucial in putting forward an alternative strategy.

43
I suspect that the present committal system is what is wrong rather than the nature of the confinement. Youth panels have insufficient powers in respect of those matters. They are often required to remand cases to local authority care for assessment and a secure order can be made by the panel only if and when a local authority asks for it. Why cannot panels, like their senior counterparts, remand a case to custody in an appropriate local secure unit pending assessment?
I do not know how many Members of the Committee have visited secure accommodation. If they have not done so, they may well be suffering from the illusion that they are not as secure as perhaps a prison. Indeed, the tabloids are full of stories about escapes from such places. However, on investigation it usually turns out that those escapes are from non-secure accommodation. In proper secure accommodation, such as that which I suggest should be the norm throughout the country, the escape rate is rather less than in senior prisons.
I have also visited the impressive secure unit in south London mentioned by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbey dale and there are others like it; for example, in my own county of Hampshire. But the blunt truth is that such accommodation is not available throughout the country, nor is it always of the same high standard. Indeed, it is not always used by local authorities in the way in which it is meant to be used.
I beg the Minister and his advisers to review the whole cumbersome and inadequate machinery in relation to the implementation of secure orders. Let us make sure that secure accommodation is available and used everywhere; that there are sufficient funds for young offender community support schemes along the lines of the initiative in Hampshire between the county and the National Children's Home in making available foster parent placements; and let us ensure also that bail support schemes are properly funded. If we do only that, mini-gaols, or whatever emotive phrase is used to describe them, will not be necessary. There will be a chance that some, although not all—I am afraid that I am a realist in these matters—persistent young offenders may be saved from a pointless and desperate life.
Baroness Seccombe: I do not wish to repeat what I said on Second Reading but this matter seems to have created a head of steam, so I feel it right to speak again in favour of secure training centres.
We are talking about comparatively few hardened young criminals. The vast proportion of young offenders are dealt with by the various options open to the courts. The implementation of this clause would give an independent judiciary a way to respond to the situation which exists because those young people have not responded to any other form of treatment.
Much seems to be made of the fact that children will be away from their families. Sadly, their families do not appear to be able to prevent them offending nor do they appear to have any control over them. In such circumstances, I believe that a period away to enable everyone to take stock would be a very good idea.
44
I understand that there would be generous visiting provision and travelling expenses would be reimbursed. I have been deluged by briefing, most of which concedes that a secure place is the only way to deal with some offenders. Indeed, on 11th January in another place Tony Blair said that the Labour Party did not disagree that those,
"out of control and making life hell … must be in secure accommodation".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/94; col. 39.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly why the Labour Party in another place put forward a whole series of amendments, to which I have referred already, which would replace the Government's proposals by more effective local provision.
Baroness Seccombe: The difference is, however, that some people believe that secure accommodation should be controlled by the local authority. I must say that I find it rather arrogant of those agencies to criticise units being run by the private sector. Very stringent conditions and regulations will be laid down, and surely it is the quality of the people and the care which is important rather than who employs them.
I feel particularly strongly that those difficult and persistent offenders must not be allowed to continue and must not contaminate the minds of others in the local authority units who may be in those units for many reasons: some may not have committed any crime; some may have been abused; while others may be disturbed and needing care and protection. I believe that it is almost wicked to think of mixing them with persistent offenders, as that would only add to their troubles.
I am not quite sure whether I heard my noble friend Lady Faithfull correctly, but if I did it saddens me to hear that one young offender was told that he was careless when he was arrested for his 36th burglary. Burglaries are very traumatic experiences for everyone. Some old people who live alone never recover from such an experience. I wonder what effect such a remark had on that young person.
Having special centres, each of them larger than a local authority unit, will result in more suitable educational and training programmes being devised. The provision of such intensive care for a minimum of six months will allow a real opportunity to work with offenders, to try to turn them away from their offending and to make headway towards making them decent citizens of tomorrow.
We are not dealing with normal naughty youngsters. We are dealing with young criminals who cause distress and anxiety to decent-living people. There are many examples of their catalogues of crime. Last week I read of a boy from the North West, now aged 14, who since the age of 10 has committed 70 offences including theft, taking and driving away, burglary, aggravated vehicle taking and robbery. That has brought misery to a whole community.
We must take action because the situation cannot be allowed to continue. The police and magistrates are frustrated. Indeed, I believe that we are all frustrated and

45
helpless. Secure training centres are the best way forward and I urge the Committee to support that measure.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I should like to express my support for the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!. However, because most of the arguments have already been put, I merely raise two points. One is based on the fact that I represented an inner-city area for 30 years in another place. Indeed, I lived in that inner-city area. Too often we heard, especially during the time before an election, "We are going to do something about the educational problems in the area" and some scheme would be put forward. Nothing happened. If it was not unemployment, then it was housing. But very little was done. In my view, the position is exactly the same with the current scheme. It looks good and it is on all fours with short, sharp shocks. When one looks at what has been done via the Home Office and the Department of Health over the years as regards recidivism among people who were held in secure accommodation, it can be seen that it did not work then. And it will not work now.
I know that people read in newspaper reports about inner-city problems. As I said, I lived in an inner-city area and I am concerned about crime in those areas, as, indeed, are the people whom I represented. They experience it every day. But the number of youngsters about whom we are talking is very small. I support Members on both sides of the Committee who have pointed out that secure accommodation is already available. Let us build on what we already have rather than have the proposed scheme.
I have another point to make which may be of interest to the Committee. With the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who now sits on the Liberal Benches, I introduced secure accommodation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may tell the Committee about that experience. I presume that the Home Office has studied that experience, though I accept—and, indeed, I shall argue —that Northern Ireland is quite different from here.
When I arrived in Northern Ireland the general who had responsibility for young persons and prisons approached the noble Lord and myself. I then obtained the relevant figures. In the six months before the spring of 1974, when we arrived in office, 39 boys had been charged with terrorism or scheduled offences; that means murder, carrying weapons, playing a part in carrying explosives and, indeed, in detonating them. The general asked what we were going to do about it. I imagine that he had put the same question to previous Secretaries of State. It was not a new problem. So we introduced a Northern Ireland young persons Bill which was piloted through this place by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who was the last person on earth to do anything repressive if there was another way of dealing with the matter. In fact, that was one of the matters that greatly influenced me.
That Northern Ireland young persons Bill stood for only one year and was allied with the emergency provisions legislation. It was introduced for only one year because we were not sure what we were doing. I
46
suggest to the Committee that the part of the Bill that we are now discussing should apply for only one year. It could then be further discussed in this Chamber and we could assess how things were going.
The officials concerned had to consult the Secretary of State and obtain his signature. The Secretary of State himself had to sign the form which would put the child into the Crumlin Road prison. It was the only place that was safe. In the normal remand homes para-militaries went in and pulled out the children the day or evening after they arrived. If I remember rightly, we used what had been a hospital in the Crumlin Road in the middle of Belfast.
We put the institution in the middle of Belfast so that parents visiting would not have to walk past the sectarian housing of another tribe, and vice versa, with the Catholics or the Protestants. We had to give thought to the situation because parents could not move about freely in the area.
From the figures that were given to us, we saw that, of 66 who absconded from ordinary remand homes, three had been sentenced for murder, two for attempted murder, 21 for firearms offences, 21 for armed robbery, five for explosive offences and one for intimidation, and there were many more. On those grounds, we set up a secure unit for the Province of Northern Ireland. We were right to do so. As much as I oppose what is being done at present, I would support secure units if that was what was happening here.
I wonder whether the Government have studied that experience. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made sure that the educational provisions were good. That was 20 years ago, but I warrant that even now the same number of young children help with explosives and are involved in murder on both sides of the divide. All it did was stop them from offending for a while. No one pretended that it would convince anyone; indeed, you do not convince anyone in Ulster by locking them up. You do that for safety reasons and for nothing else.
I wonder whether I am wrong and whether that experience was a great success. Perhaps after a while when such youngsters were released they said, "We no longer support the UVF", or, "We no longer support the provisional IRA; we have learnt our lesson because we have been locked up". But I doubt it. The present proposal will not work. It is misconceived. Let us build on what we already have and use the money in mat way. My former constituents want something done. They do not want airy-fairy talk and pretence. Indeed, in recent years too much concerning law and order has been pretence based on emotion rather than reality.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Perhaps I may tell the Committee about one of my many experiences in over 20 years as a magistrate in juvenile courts, or youth courts as they are now called. A boy in our area was a one-person crime wave. His modus operandi was so well known that there was no difficulty in recognising his signature on the burglaries that he committed—often several on the same day and often committed almost straight after his latest court appearance. He always freely confessed and openly sneered at the fact that there was nothing that we could do to stop him—until, that is,

47
on the last occasion when he came before me. He discovered that he had miscalculated the situation because now I did have the power to send him to detention, and I promptly did so. So far as I could discover, that young man was never heard of again, at least not in our area.
The latter is not an isolated incident; it is typical of experiences in every juvenile court. The majority of our young people, whatever their circumstances, are decent and law abiding and they will continue to be so for the rest of their lives. However, it is also a fact that the substantial part of the crime in this country is committed by juveniles. Furthermore, the majority of the crimes in any one area is often found to be the responsibility of just a very few youngsters.
I should like to remind the Committee of the present powers of the youth courts for dealing with juvenile offenders. I believe it to be most relevant to today's discussion. There are absolute or conditional dischar-ges; fines, which are often payable by parents; supervision orders, which many local authorities perform only perfunctorily; 10 to 15 year-olds can be ordered to go to an attendance centre for a maximum of 24 hours in two-hour units; and 16 to 17 year-olds can be ordered to do from 40 hours to 240 hours of community service or up to 36 hours at an attendance centre. Moreover, 15 to 17 year-olds can be sent to detention in serious cases for two to 12 months.
What happens at an attendance centre? There is one hour of PT followed by one hour of help with reading, if necessary, or the youngsters can do crossword puzzles. They are also shown how to fill in forms such as driving licence applications, job applications, tax forms and so on. For a large number of juvenile offenders, those penalties are sufficient. Indeed, 87 per cent. of them respond to the first caution, while others need just one visit to the youth court to administer the necessary shock to the system. But, regrettably, there is a hard core of what the American calls "scoff-laws"; in other words, persistent offenders who terrorise whole neighbourhoods by burglary, mugging and criminal damage and who sometimes kill themselves and innocent bystanders in car crimes.
I wonder whether any Members of the Committee saw "The Cook Report" on television last Thursday night. It included the story of the so-called "Sutton Posse" who admitted to a thousand robberies involving £300,000 in their neighbourhood. They even defiantly used to leave printed calling cards announcing that it was they who had committed the crime. The public simply will not tolerate the continued immunity of such persistent young criminals from punishment. Being sent to a secure training unit is a sentence of last resort and when everything else has been tried and failed.
Before such a sentence can be given, a juvenile must have committed at least three or more imprisonable offences and a supervision order must have been made and failed. It is a method of punishment in place of the defective and discredited theories which have certainly failed our young people and which, most importantly,
48
have manifestly failed to deliver the one thing that the public is entitled to receive; namely, personal protection.
I would like just briefly to touch on some of the objections to the provision of secure training units. We are told that we should deal with the causes of crime, and so we should if we could ever agree what those causes are. Has the world really ever been free of crime? The right reverend Prelate sitting here would tell us that the first crime was committed in the Garden of Eden. We shall not discover either the causes of crime or the cure overnight, if we are ever lucky enough to do so. But until that happy day arrives we still have to deal with the here and now. We must ensure that old age pensioners are not brutally mugged in the street, or beaten up, or tortured in their own homes by juvenile robbers, or that pedestrians are not mown down in the street by young so-called "joy riders" who are in fact car thieves.
We are told about the possible expense of the measure. But ask the victim of a burglary whether he thinks that the expense is a consideration, or ask the unfortunate parents of a persistent young car thief who eventually ends up in an horrific accident. In any case, a great deal of the expense will be incurred in the education, therapy and training which these centres will provide and that expense will be offset by the amount of crime that this measure will prevent.
Then there are those who are worried about possible cross-contamination of young criminals by others. But many of those who advance that argument also want these persistent offenders to be looked after by the same authorities who care for children with special needs or abused youngsters who have no criminal involvement whatsoever. The fact is that the best use of resources will be to keep these persistent offenders in a small number of specialised, highly disciplined units, with staff trained to deal with violent and anti-social criminals who have no respect for the law.
I wish to make one final point. However tolerant one is prepared to be and however understanding, that small minority of persistent young criminals who have been sentenced to all of the alternative penalties that the system has to offer and who have committed at least three offences that would have sent an adult to prison must be shown that it is no longer the case that there is nothing that can be done to them. A line has to be drawn and they must clearly understand that it is thus far and no further. I hope the Committee will put the public first and foremost by rejecting this amendment and by drawing that line.
Lord Annan: I have very little to add except to ask the noble Earl whether he does not think the time has come now when we might resolve this matter.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Whether or not I consider it is the right time is a matter for my own personal preference. The main point is whether the Committee thinks it is the right time to resolve the matter. I delayed getting to my feet because I noticed that one or two Members of the Committee and the noble Baroness were trying to get to

49
their feet. However, I shall take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and do my best to draw this debate to a conclusion.
I think that all of us knew that we would have a fairly spirited debate on this subject and I do not think that we have been disappointed in that. Everyone knows of the knowledge and interest of my noble friend Lady Faithfull in this subject, and indeed of her expertise in and specialist knowledge of the subject. However, I was slightly amazed to read in the leading article in the Guardian today that she is described as,
"the Conservative Conscience of the Lords".
That is a fairly generous attribute and one with which not everyone might necessarily agree. The article continued,
"They know she does not engage in campaigns against her party lightly".
All I can say is that when I have stood at this Dispatch Box on almost every subject with which the Home Office has been involved my noble friend behind me has said almost always, "They are wrong". However, on this occasion I think that she is wrong and on this occasion I think that the newspaper was also wrong.
As the Committee is only too well aware, crime is now being committed by people at a progressively younger age. Often it is found that a high percentage of crime in an area is committed by a small number of people. Regrettably these people are often very young. As my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said, often the lives of people in a community are ruined by those young criminals. I believe it is a fundamental role of Parliament to ensure that the public are protected against crime and criminals as far as is possible. It is also the role of Parliament to ensure that the courts have the powers which they need both to protect the public and to deal with the offender.
When people offend—especially juveniles—it is usually right that they should first be given a chance to get back on the rails without being placed in custody. But when they offend seriously, constantly and continuously, and when they have rejected that which the courts and society have offered them to enable them to change their ways, and when they have continued to cock a snook at the law, the public and the society in which they live, then a different approach has to be taken. The public have the right to be given a respite from the activities of these people. That is what the secure training order is being established to do.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham reminded the Committee of the example that I gave at Second Reading and other Members of the Committee have given other examples. I do not believe that either the Government or Parliament should sit idly by and pretend that the existing arrangements are satisfactory for dealing with the youngsters we are discussing when clearly they are not, and everyone knows it. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, the police, magistrates and communities are frustrated but the youngsters just grin and pursue their nefarious activities.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that something has to be done, and that is why we are proposing these new secure training orders. But
50
then of course came the great cry, "It will not work". My noble friend Lady Faithfull said "It will not work". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said "It will not work". The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said "It will not work". And of course the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as one would expect, said "It will not work". The noble Lord asked why the Government were going down this road as it would fail. I shall tell the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the Committee why we are doing this—because something needs to be done.
It is all very fine to say that approved schools have not worked, community homes have not worked, borstals have not worked and detention centres have not worked. What are we then supposed to do—nothing? Of course not. We are proposing to establish these new secure training centres. But then the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, "Ah, but there is no hard evidence that these will work". Of course he is perfectly right. There is no hard evidence because they have not been introduced. They are a new idea and it is quite right that these new ideas should be pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, also said the system would not work and that we could not believe that everything would be different because of this regime. I cannot guarantee that and I cannot even guarantee to find the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in the Chamber. I see him now in his place. I thought that he had disappeared behind the Bar—not into the bar but behind the Bar in the Chamber. Of course one cannot guarantee that these new ideas will work, but that is no reason for not trying.
The contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was to suggest having a national inquiry. I do not know where that would get us. All I would say to the noble Earl is that the Home Affairs Select Committee undertook a substantial inquiry into juvenile offenders only last year. We will of course agree to look at the arrangements for managing custodial establishments for juveniles. These new secure training centres will serve two distinct but equally important purposes. First, they will provide specific relief to the communities whose life can be totally ruined by the activities of these young people, and let no one underestimate the benefit of that. During the first half of the sentence the youngsters will be held in secure premises. They will be kept out of the way and for that period at least they will be unable to carry on their offending.
The second purpose is to try to break the pattern of offending. That is why the centres will provide these young people with the care, discipline and education which they so clearly need. There are those who say that this kind of sentence is not necessary and that it is even wrong and that these youngsters are after all only children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said that this measure will separate people from their families. But the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that many of these people and their parents are involved with drug and alcohol abuse. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that sometimes it is necessary to separate these people.

51
But on other occasions it is necessary to continue the relationship with the family. That is why we are making special arrangements for that to happen.
I do not think that this kind of sentence is wrong. Most people agree that some offenders have to be locked up. There simply is no alternative. Even my noble friend Lady Faithfull said that. So did my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and my noble friend Lord Carr, with all his experience as a former Home Secretary. The fact is that the courts have no powers to order the detention of 12 to 14 year-old offenders other than in the gravest of cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the offender I mentioned at Second Reading. The noble Lord said that he had escaped from insecure accommodation. That is precisely the point. The courts have no power to put a person into secure accommodation. It is up to the local authority to decide whether secure accommodation should be used. We believe that the fact that a person has absconded from insecure accommodation is a very good reason for having a secure training centre.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It may also be a case for having more secure accommodation. If the noble Earl is saying that the present law is unsatisfactory as regards the powers of the courts to make orders in relation to local authority secure accommodation, why have they not addressed that in this Bill rather than create these new centres?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord says that that is an argument for having more secure accommodation. But he said, in his usual pungent way, that we ought to vote against the Motion that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. To do so would remove from the courts the power to sentence an offender anywhere, whether to a secure training centre or to local authority accommodation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the Minister saying that there is no way in which the Government could devise an amendment which would give the courts the power to sentence a child to local authority secure accommodation?
Earl Ferrers: We have produced proposals, and they are in the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is so dismissive of these suggestions, cares to read the Bill he will see that it is possible for the courts to sentence a person to a secure training unit or to any other place which has the Home Secretary's approval.
It is true that there are powers available to local authorities to place youngsters in secure accommodation, but those are the powers of the local authorities. They are not the powers of the courts. The courts can only permit a local authority to continue to keep a child in secure accommodation; they cannot require it to do so.
Clause 1 sets out the criteria for the secure training order. They are stringent criteria. The order will be made only when the person before the court is 12,13 or 14 years old, has been convicted of three imprisonable offences and has failed to respond to community
52
supervision, either because he has re-offended while subject to a supervision order or because he has failed to comply with the requirements of a supervision order.
The secure training order will be used only when the offending is so serious that only a custodial sentence will do or, in the case of a violent or sexual offence, such a sentence is required in order to protect the public from serious harm.
I know that a number of Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lady Faithfull, feel that some of these children have to be locked up but that that should be done by adding to local authority secure accommodation rather than creating new places to be run by the Home Office. Many Members of the Committee said that. My noble friend Lord Carr was worried about the difference between the secure training centres and local authority secure accommodation. I say to him that at present the courts do not have the power to render a person liable to local authority secure accommodation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may try again. If the courts do not have those powers, is it beyond the wit of the Government to produce legislation which would give them those powers? If they did that, would that not solve the problem and remove the need for secure training centres?
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord will contain himself a little longer I shall come to that point. The local authority accommodation deals with a variety of young people. Those young people have different needs and there are different reasons for their being there. Some are alleged offenders who are there on remand, some are there for their own protection, some are absconders, some are highly disturbed, and many are not offenders at all. We do not believe that it is right to put this category of persistent young offenders with that disparate group of people for whom local authority accommodation is provided.
The boy of 12 to whom my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred is a classic example of a child who needs special attention and should not be mixed up with all the other youngsters. Persistent young offenders need special treatment. They need a specific regime to tackle offending, and they need resources and activities which will help to deflect them from their previous life of juvenile crime.
We believe that that can best be done in five dedicated units, each of which will hold some 40 youngsters. The units will be large enough to ensure that they can provide good quality regimes. They will be specifically tailored to deal with those particular problems. That would not be possible if the offenders were dotted around the country in twos or threes in local authority units.
A number of Members of the Committee asked me what will happen. I can tell the Committee that secure training centres will not be part of the prison system. The staff will not wear prison uniforms. The staff in the centres will include trained teachers. They will be required to have the skills and experience to provide welfare and care work. The centres will be required to develop policies and systems to prevent bullying and

53
self-harm. As part of the assessment procedure the centres will work with probation officers and social services staff who are involved with the offenders.
Some noble Lords said that units for 40 people were too large. There will be small living units of eight to 10 places, individual bedrooms and intensive staffing. Those will be vital components in ensuring that a subculture of bullying does not emerge among the children. Contractors will be required to assess offenders on arrival at a centre for the risk of suicide and self-harm and to operate a monitoring policy. The Home Office monitor will ensure that those requirements are met and satisfactorily carried out.
In line with the principles of the Children Act, children in secure training centres will have free access to an independent complaints investigator. The secure training centres will require a multi-disciplinary team of staff—teachers and medical staff, residential super-visors and so forth—who will have to be appropriately qualified in their respective disciplines.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was concerned about girls. Girls will be subject to the order as well as boys. They will be accommodated in the centres. The centres will of course be required to take account of their particular needs and requirements and will be involved in responding to and meeting those needs.
My noble friend Lord Carr asked what consultation there has been with the Department of Health. These are government policies, involving the expansion of the local authority estate necessary for remands, which used to be local because of frequent court visits, the need to see lawyers and so forth.
My noble friend was worried about discontinuity between the secure training centres and subsequent supervision. I can tell him that assessment of aftercare needs will begin during the secure part of the sentence, wherever the sentence is served, and whether the assessment is undertaken by the social worker, probation officer or another person. The Home Office will select the most appropriate supervisor and will take into account the need for continuity of treatment and the need to reinstate the child into the community.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise to the noble Earl for intervening. He referred to accommoda-tion for girls. Is it proposed that the secure centre for girls will be a single sex centre? If so, is it likely therefore that there will be only one such centre nationwide, or are they likely to be joint centres? If the latter is the case, can the noble Earl say what provision will be made for the obvious dangers to which that could give rise?
Earl Ferrers: It is unlikely that there will be one particular unit for girls. I shall have to confirm this to the noble Baroness, but it is likely that they will be mixed sex centres. But of course there will have to be special provision in order to prevent the problems which the noble Baroness quite rightly has in mind.
In the Government's view the measures are entirely consistent with the United Nations Convention on the
54
Rights of the Child, the standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice and the European Convention on Human Rights.
As regards education, the centres will provide 25 hours of education. Each youngster will be assessed on his educational attainment level and will receive a broad and balanced curriculum appropriate to his needs. There will be liaison with the youngster's local education authority when he returns to mainstream education on release. The education staff will be trained and experienced in teaching this age group.
Some reference has been made to cost. The system may well cost less than £30 million. However, it should be remembered that the cost will relate to running the project as well as the amortisation of the capital because the contractor will be providing the capital to build the building. The cost will depend on the results of the competitive tender. The crucial point is that everyone agrees that some of those children need to be put into custody. Some local authorities charge up to £3,000 a week and the average cost is £1,700 a week. We believe that the secure training centres will be cheaper than that.
I know that some noble Lords may be thinking of voting that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill because they think that local authority secure accommodation would be a better answer to the problem than the secure training centres proposed by the Bill. We have had many noble Lords saying that this afternoon. I say this to them on that.
To vote against Clause 1 standing part of the Bill will remove the ability of the court to order a child to be sent to secure accommodation anywhere, either to secure training centres, or to local authority accommodation as made by some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, want. The power of the courts to order the detention of those children anywhere will be removed if your Lordships do not agree that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
Your Lordships will no doubt wish to bear in mind that, although there was a full debate on Clause 1 and all that it contained in another place, there was not even a vote on the Question that Clause 1 shall stand part, either in Committee or on Report. Another place agreed that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill; and even the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, Mr. Blair, said,
"Our dispute is not about the powers. We agree that the courts need them".
It is curious that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of
Haringey, should say this afternoon, "Let us vote
against Clause 1 of the Bill".
Lord Richard: It is exactly what he said.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, says that that is exactly what the noble Lord said. The point I seek to make is that, when the measure was in another place, the party of which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is such a distinguished member, was quite content that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants to do away with Clause 1. (I shall give way in a moment.) With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, what did the Liberal Democrat Party do? In Committee, it was content that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. At

55
Report there was no objection to any of the 15 clauses standing part of the Bill; and the Liberal Democrats were not even present at Third Reading. Now the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says, "Ah, we must vote against this issue on principle". I think that the principles of both the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and Lord McIntosh, are poor.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he will recall what I actually said, I made the distinction between two possible approaches to a problem that we all agree genuinely exists. The two possible alternatives are these: to provide new places, as the Government propose; or to provide new powers, as we wish to do. There is nothing inconsistent in any way between that approach and the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to remove the unamendable proposals (I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on that) in Clauses 1 to 15. One cannot change them unless one recognises that the real danger is the attempt to deal with the problem by providing new places rather than new powers.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has tried to wriggle himself out of a hole. The actual fact of the matter is that in another place, his party was content to have Clause 1 stand part of the Bill and in this Chamber the noble Lord advises the Committee to vote against the issue.
I am bound to tell the Committee that it is your Lordships' duty—and it is the Government's duty to advise your Lordships too—to see that the Bill leaves the House in a sensible state. I am bound to tell the Committee that, if noble Lords were to remove Clause 1 from the Bill, then Clauses 2 to 15 could not sensibly remain part of the Bill. So, if Members of the Committee were to be moved to vote against Clause 1 of a Bill—and I hope that common sense will prevail —they would in effect be voting against the first 15 clauses of a Bill. I am bound to ask whether noble Lords think that that is the correct course to take. Your Lordships' House is, of course, a revising Chamber. But this is not "revising" stuff. It is not "amending" stuff. It is wrecking stuff. It is leaving out a great chunk of a Bill which has had the approval of another place. The Committee would be doing that on the very first occasion of debating the matter, without giving the Government or anyone else the ability to consider and ponder over anything that your Lordships have said today and without giving noble Lords the opportunity even to consider Clauses 2 to 15.
If another place were to decide not to accept the Committee's decision and to seek to put the clause back into the Bill, the first and only time that the House would be able to discuss Clauses 2 to 15 would be in the very restricted circumstances of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments. Apart from any effect which the removal of Clause 1 to 15 will have on the Bill's attempts to deal with juvenile crime—and it is a very important part of the Bill—I suggest that it would be an unwise course for the Committee to take; and I
56
think that it might be seen to be highly provocative too. I therefore have no hesitation in advising that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: I shall be brief. I cannot possibly emulate the skill, rhetoric and humour of the Minister. I shall not deal with the individual points made. There is no need to go over them again.
However, I realise that many people on this side of the Chamber consider that it would be wrong to put my amendment to the Committee today because it would not give us the chance to amend the Bill. How could we amend the Bill? The Home Secretary very generously saw me on 24th March. He told me that there was no way that the Bill could be changed or altered with regard to secure training units. On 11th May the Home Secretary generously agreed that I could take a deputation to see him. The deputation consisted of a chief probation officer, a representative of the National Association of Probation Officers, a very experienced, outstanding London magistrate, the President of the Association of Directors of Social Services, representation from the British Association of Social Workers and the clerk to the North Hampshire Justices and chairman of the Criminal Law Committees Justices' Clerks. I did not take representatives of voluntary organisations. I have to tell the Committee that representatives of all the children's voluntary organisations—the NSPCC, the Children's Society, the National Children's Home and Barnardos—would have come with us. I am grateful to the Home Secretary in that he gave us an hour of his time. However, at the end of that hour he said, "We are going forward with the secure training units".
We know that he is going forward with them. He has the grounds in the grounds of prisons. He already has the specifications, which most of us have seen. We believe that he has put the plans out to tender. He obviously cannot accept the tenders until the measure has been through your Lordships' House. But how could we amend it? There is no way in which we could do so.
I am sorry that various members of my party believe that I am not recognising the convention of withdrawing the amendment and considering whether to bring it up at the next stage. But the Home Secretary is bound to say, "Resist it". He has no option; he has everything in place. Therefore it is with great sorrow but with conviction that I seek the opinion of the Committee.
6.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 182; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Astor, V.

Addison, V.

Balfour, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Aldington, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Birdwood, L.

Annaly, L.

Blatch, B.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Boardman, L.

57

Borthwick, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lawrence, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Leigh, L.

Brentford, V.

Liverpool, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Long, V.

Brookes, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord

Cadman, L.

Chancellor.)

Caldecote, V.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnarvon, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Morris, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mottistone, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Courtown, E.

Norfolk, D.

Coventry, E.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Palmer, L.

Davidson, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pike, B.

Digby, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dudley, E.

Prior, L.

Dundonald, E.

Quinton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Foley, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Grantchester, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Greenway, L.

Shannon, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Haddington, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hanson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hardinge, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmar Nicholls, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hemphill, L.

[Teller]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hertford, M.

Suffield, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holdemess, L.

Swinton, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hood, V.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hothfield, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Kimball, L.

Westbury, L.

Knutsford, V.

Wharton, B.

58

Whitelaw, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Wise, L.

Wynford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Annan, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kitchener, E.

Avebury, L.

Lester of Heine Hill, L.

Barnett, L.

Listowel, E.

Bath, M.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bottomley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bridges, L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Brightman, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brimelow, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Crook, L.

Mulley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dainton, L.

Nathan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Scanlon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, I.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stedman, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L,

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strafford, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Tenby, V.

Healey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henniker, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Warnock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Windlesham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
Clause 2 [Secure training orders: supplementary provisions as to detention]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 20, after ("place") insert ("other than to accommodation provided by the prison service or to police detention").
The noble Baroness said: If there were no vacancies in local authority secure places or secure training units, then Clause 2 would allow a child or young person to be helped for 28 days, and for that help to be repeated until a vacancy is found. This amendment would prevent children and young persons being held in police cells and police detention. There is already concern about 15 and 16 year-olds who are on remand being held in prison and there is an agreement to phase that out. If 12 to 14 year-olds are dangerous they can be held under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and sent to youth training centres. In the present circumstances, 15 year-old boys can be remanded to adult prisons and remand centres. There is concern about the number of suicides among juveniles held in Her Majesty's prisons. This amendment is to safeguard the children being held in prison cells. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend just said that the aim was to prevent them being held in the prison service. But the amendment says, "or … police detention". They may well have been arrested by the police and have been brought to court by the police. That is a factor to which, if I may say so, she should apply her mind and let us know why she thinks that that would be wrong.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may elaborate a little. My noble friend's amendment deals with a case in which a person comes before the court and where accommoda-tion in a secure training centre is not immediately available. I believe that the Committee will agree that it would be entirely inappropriate for a person of 12 or even 14 years—and these are the people about whom we are talking—to be sent back to police cells for an indefinite period of custody, where there would be no exercise and no education, and where they would receive no looking after as a child at all. Most Members of the Committee have protested about this treatment being served out to adult offenders. It must be doubly wrong for juveniles.
The alternative is one which, in the eyes of Members of the Committee, is perhaps a less horrible one; namely, sending them to prison service accommodation. The prison service has a variety of accommodation at its disposal, ranging from local prisons for adults to accommodation for juvenile offenders. My noble friend proposes that such children should not be sent to any of those places under any circumstances. At a later stage it may be as well to go into that question more closely. I would support her very strongly in not allowing children of 12 to be sent to adult prisons. I suspect that I would support her strongly in not allowing such children to be sent indefinitely to young offender institutions under this provision. This provision is only in the Bill because
60
it is thought that that sort of provision is unsuitable for these children. Therefore, it must be illogical for the Government to suppose that it should be.
It seems to me that my noble friend has to answer two questions. First, why should it be permissible under the Bill (if it is) to send a child to a police cell indefinitely? That is wholly unacceptable and I would vote against that with resolution. Secondly, what sorts of prison service accommodation has he in mind to which the court might be able to send a child if the Government have failed in their undertaking to provide sufficient places for the child to be sent to a secure training unit? On the latter part of the answer, my noble friend may with difficulty be able to persuade me to support him; but it will be a struggle.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I am sure that he would acknowledge that there may be a small practical difficulty. It is this. Between the court giving sentence and the child being seen in the secure accommodation under Clause 1, which may be many miles away, the child has to be cared for somehow. Having been in the hands of the police when being brought to court and having to remain in custody, and secure transport being needed to take him to the secure accommodation, to rule out any possibility of the police having a responsibility—which this amendment would give them—I should have thought would, quite frankly, be impossible.
Lord Elton: My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong. I believe the same difficulty arises with all sentences; namely, that there has to be somewhere for the prisoner to be disposed of in transit. That provision is already in statute. What this amendment seeks to remove is the power of the court to direct, of its own volition, that a prisoner shall be held in a police cell. As I understand it, as things are now if a person is given a sentence of penal servitude in a prison he is taken there by the police, and if the prison cannot accept him he is held overnight in a police cell. If that happened to a child it would not be by the direction of the court; it would be as a result of the administrative machinery by which the court order to deliver him to a prison was administered. And it would be subject to further provisions because of the age of the child. We shall address those provisions in a later clause, when the Government will seek to reduce the age at which there is an absolute bar to a child being held in prison accommodation.
I hope that I have made myself clear to my noble friend. I do not propose that the alternative is to let the child loose. The alternative ought to be to go to local authority secure accommodation and, failing that, to agree to a police cell.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, did the Committee a service in the debate on Clause 1 by reminding us that we ought always to be talking about "children", and really about quite small children aged 12 to 14. If we look at the experience of even 15 and 16 year-olds in young offenders' institutions such as Feltham or Glen Parva—and even more if we look, for example, at the terrible history of

61
the recent suicides of 15 year-olds in Swansea Prison —all of the arguments that apply against having children of that age in those institutions (arguments which were confirmed by the House of Commons Select Committee only last year in its report on juvenile offenders) surely apply in even greater force in the case of 12 to 14 year-olds.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: There are only two choices for a child in a young offenders' institution. One is to be put on a landing where, most certainly, the life of a child of 12 or 13 years of age would be absolutely impossible in terms of bullying and harassment. Alternatively, such children would have to be segregated under Rule 53, which is equally unthinkable. To lock up a child by himself or herself in those circumstances would be utterly inhumane. I am certain that the noble Baroness is absolutely right in seeking to exclude that possibility.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David: Since the mid-1970s it has been an aim of successive governments to phase out remanding juveniles to Prison Service establishments when there is some secure accommodation available, as there usually is, with local authorities. In his annual report for 1989, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons wrote:
"Probably the most disturbing aspect to emerge from our inspections was the number of juveniles"—
he was referring to 15 year-olds, not 12, 13 or 14 year-olds—
"who continue to be held in penal establishments… In many ways these youngsters have less in common with men in their late teens than is generally realised. They are often despised by the older group, resented for their childishness and become the victims of intimidation".
He went on to say that if juveniles have to be held in custody, they should be in the care of the local authority. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 2(2) allows action to be taken in the particular circumstances when the secure training centres have no place for an offender who has been issued with a new secure training order. We hope and believe that that will not happen very often.
The criteria for the sentence are stringent ones. There will not be many candidates who will be eligible for the secure training order. But there could be circumstances in which a place in a secure training centre might not immediately be available.
The clause allows a court to commit an offender to alternative accommodation. It allows the Home Secretary either to direct where this alternative accommodation shall be or—this was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton—to contract with suitable providers of such accommodation (such as local authorities, child care organisations or providers of children's homes registered under the Children Act 1989) to look after the offender.
Subsection (4) of Clause 2 allows an offender to be transferred from a secure training centre to alternative accommodation where this is necessary; the offender, for example, may require emergency hospital treatment or psychiatric care. We would not envisage that prison accommodation or police cells would be appropriate in
62
either of those cases. However, I should be reluctant to rule out, by statute, that they should never be used. There could be quite exceptional circumstances in which there might be little other choice: for example, if there were a fire or some other emergency which totally destroyed the secure training centre, or,—heaven forbid!—if there were an outbreak of bubonic plague, and places had to be found for the offenders.
I can give the Committee an assurance that there is no way that either prison accommodation or police cells will be used in order to deal with an excess demand for secure training centre places. I hope that my noble friend will find contentment in that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that the noble Baroness will not do so because the noble Earl has used the kind of argument employed in 1980–81 to justify the power which at that stage did not exist. Following the industrial dispute when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was Home Secretary, a new provision was written into the statute book giving the prison department the power to put people into police cells.. Before that time, there was uncertainty as to whether or not that was lawful. Since then, we have had a new prison system established with literally hundreds of adult offenders being put in police cells. In the circumstances of the early 1980s, that was part of an emergency provisions Bill; but the one clause that remained in that Bill gave that particular power.
The noble Earl says that only in the most exceptional circumstances will anyone be kept in prison or in a police cell. We have heard that argument before. I repeat that hundreds of people on a regular basis are now being kept in police cells. We have to face that fact. If we do not have some limitation on this power, at some stage in the future we will find 12 and 13 year-olds either in a Prison Service establishment or in a police cell.
The noble Earl is well aware, because we have debated this point on many occasions, of the deep resentment felt in the police service that it is having to carry the responsibility of holding Home Office prisoners. That will be as nothing compared with the police service's attitude if it eventually finds that it is having to keep 12 and 13 year-olds in police cells. Then; is no conceivable apparatus within the police service to look after children in those circumstances.
I hope very much that the noble Earl will reflect on this matter between now and Report stage. I do not know what the noble Baroness intends to do. However, I hope that there will be some limitation of that authority. It will cause serious disquiet among many people concerned about this part of the Bill if there is no limitation at all on the use of Prison Service accommodation or police cells.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Understandably, there has been a general consensus about the undesirability of young people of the age under discussion being in prison cells of any form. The noble Earl appreciated that, as one would expect. We welcome the fact that he said that it would not be routine and that it would not be the automatic reaction to a shortage of accommodation, even if temporary. It would only be a last resort. As the

63
noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, the normal alternative should be local authority secure accommodation.
When a Minister gives the kind of assurance that the noble Earl gave, the desirable course is for it to be translated into an amendment of the Bill. It is not difficult to devise a form of words that would exactly express what the noble Earl assured the Committee. It is a mistake always to try to draft on the hoof. I hope that the noble Earl, before the next stage of the Bill, will have the draftsman devise an amendment that covers his assurances to the Chamber.
Lord Hunt: The point at issue arose much earlier on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I believe that most Members of the Committee now present were in the Chamber at that time. The question arose as to what would happen if the secure training centres were full. I understand that the question was put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The noble Earl gave a number of examples of alternatives that might have to be used. He did not mention prison accommodation and he did not mention police cells.
The whole point of the amendment is not to create a situation in which it would be highly unlikely but to enable it to be completely out of order for the Home Secretary or the courts to make use of police cells or prison accommodation for children as young as 12 to 14 years-old.
Lord Elton: My noble friend undertook—he will correct me if I am wrong—that there would be no recourse to police cells except in very exceptional circumstances. It is difficult to imagine circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify a child of 12, who has no doubt just come to court from a police cell, being put back into the police cell for a period not exceeding 28 days—for goodness' sake! That is what the Bill provides. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to be more precise in the undertaking and establish it in statute. Although we now have a situation where what is said at the Dispatch Box has some bearing in the courts, nothing is so secure as what is written on the face of the Bill. The more strongly my noble friend says that it is unthinkable it should happen, the less objection there can be to putting it on the face of the Bill.
If my noble friend feels that that situation should never happen, I hope that he will table an amendment saying so—almost by tomorrow. In so doing, he will no doubt notice that there is a difference between the two amendments. He spoke to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. As I heard her, my noble friend only addressed Amendment No. 2, which is the one I spoke to and which deals with the difficulty of disposing of children at the first instance. My noble friend then went on to Amendment No. 4, which deals with such cases as "bubonic plague" and lesser emergencies. I accept that those are different and possibly the terms of the undertaking might be less rigorous in those circumstances.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may make a suggestion which is intended to be helpful to all sides and will therefore almost certainly be rejected out of hand. Clause 2, which we are discussing, applies—unless I have misread it and I nearly always misread everything nowadays, only,
"to a person … in respect of whom a secure training order … has been made under section 1".
Surely the right way of approaching the problem is to make sure that the order is not made until the court has found a place available. It will be perfectly possible to ensure that that happens in one way or another and that may be a way out, because it will not be necessary to amend the clause. I am only trying to be helpful.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is entirely right. A provision of that sort may well deal with the problem. What causes us disquiet—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Elton, recognises—is a provision within the statute which provides an arrangement whereby there is a risk "in exceptional circumstances" (whatever that may mean) of a child being kept in either a prison or a police cell. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, suggested a way out of the problem and I hope that the noble Earl will indicate that he is prepared to look at it between now and Report stage.
Lord Renton: There is experience in the past which is entirely analogous to the experience we now anticipate. I speak with some knowledge of having had responsibility in this regard.
When in the past a court sentenced people to detention, it had first of all to find out whether or not there was a vacancy in a detention centre not far away. Sometimes the answer came back, "Yes, in three days' time". Meanwhile, the accused person, who was a young person, had to be kept in custody in police cells. That is what happened in practice. It was not the custom of the courts, certainly when I was exercising responsibility in a minor way as a recorder, to take no decision whatever until a place was found to be available in a detention centre. If it had done that, the accused person might have had to wait in police cells for much longer.
I should have thought that it was far better for the court, as envisaged in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 2, to make the order but for the Government to provide what will happen in the meantime.
Lord Elton: My noble friend Lord Renton points out that the remedy of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham applies in all cases where there either is or is not accommodation immediately available. He then turns to the question of a situation where accommoda-tion is available, but not immediately. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton accepts that a child of 12 would spend the intervening time in police cells.
I merely ask the Committee not to agree with my noble friend. When I was a Minister for the Home Office I visited police cells where young adult offenders were detained. The conditions are not right for children. I may say that they are not right for adults either but would be disastrous for children with nothing to do and nowhere

65
to do it. No trained care whatever was available throughout the day and I ask my noble friend to put that alternative behind us.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I obviously did not explain myself clearly. I said that if a court makes an order under Clause 1 and the accommodation is not immediately available, the arrangement should be made as envisaged by the Home Secretary in Clause 2. The question is whether or not those arrangements should, in exceptional cases, include police cells. We must allow a minor degree of flexibility for exceptional circumstan-ces and say that the Home Secretary should not be precluded from using police cells if necessary.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Renton. However, my recollection is that in fact the court was unable to make a detention centre order unless it had earlier ascertained that such accommodation was available. It was not that the accused was then detained elsewhere. In the 1960s, before a court could make a detention centre order, it had first to inquire whether or not accommodation was available. If such accommodation was not available, then it had to find some other way of dealing with the individual. That is a possible way in which the concerns of my noble friend Lady Faithfull may be met on this occasion: that is, for the Bill to say, in effect, that the court must satisfy itself that secure accommodation is available before making a secure accommodation order.
Lord Renton: I agree with my noble friend. However, there were circumstances which were allowed for and envisaged when the court was told that accommodation would be available in a short time. The time was stated; the court was allowed to make the order, and it did so.
Baroness Faithfull: It is wrong to put a child in police cells under any circumstances. I feel very strongly about that, having spent a night in a police cell with a child whom I knew would be in a much worse state the following morning if no one was present.
Perhaps the Minister can explain something to me. As I understand it, the Department of Health has allocated funds for 170 more secure places which can be used as remand homes for remand cases. That being so, surely there is no need to use police cells. I shall be grateful if my noble friend the Minister can tell us about those 170 places, which 1 understood were to be used for remand cases.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is quite right. Arrangements are being made for a further 170 places to be made available for secure accommodation. The reason for that is that an immense need for them has arisen. Your Lordships have often said so in the past. It would be wrong, on top of that, to overload those places with another 200 or so places which will be needed in secure training centres.
My noble friend is perfectly right that they could be used for people who are subject to a secure training order. Clause 2 of the Bill states:
66
"Where accommodation for the offender at a secure training centre is not immediately available… the court may commit the offender to such place and on such conditions … as the Secretary of State may direct".
And the court may well direct a person to such a place. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and others, that nobody wants to see children placed in police cells. Nor do we. My noble friend Lord Elton is quite right when he says that they are not fit for children. They are not, and they are not designed for children. It is not the Government's intention that children should go there. However, I suggest to the Committee that it would be a pity to remove by statute the possibility of them ever going there in case of an emergency and something going completely wrong. I have given the Committee some indication of the kind of things that might happen. It is not our intention that they should be used but there could be circumstances when such offenders had to go somewhere and those were the only places available. It is not a question of leaving them there, as my noble friend Lord Elton suggested, for 28 days.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am still trying to be helpful. I pointed out that Clause 2 only arises after a secure training order has been made. If the court asks for information as to whether a training place is available, it ought not to make a secure training order at that moment of time until the secure training place is available. It ought to adjourn the proceedings. That lit can do from time to time in the ordinary course of magistrates' court or Crown Court procedure. That is what I was trying to suggest. There is a way out which does not contravene either side to this dispute.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I very much hope that the noble Earl will say that he will look at the proposal of his noble and learned friend between now and the next stage of the Bill. There is, as he will appreciate, serious concern on this question. I very much hope he will say, the noble and learned Lord having made this suggestion, that he will look at it between now and the Report stage.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Earl replies, will he also address himself to the helpful suggestion previously made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale?
Earl Ferrers: I recognise the concern that has been expressed and it would be wholly inappropriate if I did not undertake to consider what your Lordships have said. I realise that there is a point of anxiety, and, if that anxiety can be met, that will be fine. I cannot give any indication that it will be possible but I am certainly prepared to look at that point and also at the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On the last suggestion, surely if the court withholds any kind of decision the child will remain in a police cell.
Earl Ferrers: I would expect that before making a secure training order a court might well find out whether there was a place available. The warrant of committal by

67
the court will either commit the person to a secure training centre or, if no place is available, to such place as the Secretary of State may direct or arrange. In that case it will be for the Secretary of State to direct where that child should go. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would direct him to a police cell or to a prison.
Baroness Faithfull: There are other avenues open. I speak now as a former director of social services. My staff and I felt strongly that children should not go to police cells under any circumstances. In fact, we enlisted policemen's wives to look after these children temporarily until a secure place could be found. If we do not make it absolutely certain that they may not go to police cells, there will be lots of emergencies and it will always be said that there is an emergency. However, having said all that, I shall withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Minister will come up with something at the next stage of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lady Faithfull and her friends may feel that under no circumstances should these children be put into police cells. She will realise that a great many people think that under no circumstances should these people who are due for a secure training order be let loose on the public. That is what we have to try to resolve.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There are a number of other ways of dealing with that problem. I take the noble Earl's point but there are alternative methods. There is no conceivable reason why the police should become involved. As the noble Earl will be aware, there would be the most passionate concern expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers if it started believing that it would have to deal with 12 year-olds in police cells.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("that paragraph") and insert ("paragraph (a) above").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which is consequential on an amendment made in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Supervision under secure training order]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 18, after ("person") insert (", being an employee of a registered charity which with a local authority has entered into a contract for the supervision of young offenders").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the aftercare provision of those leaving secure training centres. The amendment would provide that the aftercare should be carried out by the probation service, social services departments or a registered charity working in partnership with a social services department. When a child leaves a secure training unit, is it intended that the aftercare should be carried out by the staff of the secure unit or is it intended that the probation service or social services should carry out the aftercare? If private firms are to run the secure training
68
units I am against them providing the aftercare. They will not know the network of services that the child can and should receive in his local area. They will presumably have to travel far and will not be in close touch with the child on a weekly or day-to-day basis. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Given the wide distance between the secure training units that we expect, I would very much hope that my noble friend will not be saying that it would be an employee of a private sector secure training unit who followed the child into his home area. I support my noble friend in advancing the cause of the use of voluntary agencies. The charity Divert, which I founded just over a year ago, is at present in the process of working with a lot of social work departments, the probation service and the voluntary sector in order to introduce each to other. Under the present Home Office policy of partnership in the community, there will develop, or it is intended that there will develop—my noble friend may be able to tell us more about it—a strong continuing support which is made up of the social work departments, the probation service and the voluntary sector. My noble friend's department has ring-fenced 5 per cent. of the probation service's money for the voluntary sector. This would be an extremely valuable way for that money to be used. I hope that he will look at this seriously.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: In moving this amendment my noble friend Lady Faithfull drew attention to the intention behind the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to limit supervision to social workers, probation officers and employees of local charities who had entered into a contract with the local authority. That is to be contrasted with the terms of subsection (2) as it stands, which refers to, "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate". A measure of flexibility is built into the formulation of the clause as it stands which would be absent if the amendment were agreed to. My noble friend Lady Faithfull expressed her anxieties and asked what that formulation was. One of the thoughts behind the formulation in the Bill as it stands is that there may be occasions when the most suitable person for taking care of the supervision (even after the period in the training centre is over) would be the person who had been responsible for the supervision of that child while in the training centre and had thus got to know the child, his ways and the people who had been involved with him outside. That person would therefore have a particular knowledge of the child and would be a suitable person to provide the supervision.
However, I accept that, if the child came from a long way away, it might be difficult for somebody in the training centre to get away to carry out the required supervision. We have tended to talk of the extremes and of the cases where the children are hundreds of miles away, which is inconvenient, but there will be children who come from relatively close to the centres. In such cases and where the kind of relationship to which I have referred has been built up, the most appropriate person

69
to carry out the supervision may well be the person from the training centre. He or she could then provide the necessary supervision even when the child was outside. We think that such flexibility is desirable.
The formulation chosen in the amendment would be very restrictive because it would limit those who could be involved to people who were employees of voluntary organisations with a contract with the local authority. That would mean that people who were employees of voluntary organisations which had excellent reputations but which did not happen to have a contract with the local authority would be ruled out. It would also rule out the possibility of the supervision being provided by somebody who had previously been employed by such an organisation. Although having ceased to be so employed such a person could nonetheless be capable of delivering the service, having previously built up contact with the child.
It is for that reason that we think that the flexibility that is envisaged in the formulation in the Bill is desirable and why we think that the formulation chosen in the amendment would be unduly rigid. That is not to say that it would not frequently be the case that the most natural person to provide the service would be a social worker, a probation officer or an employee of just the kind of organisation which has been mentioned. That may very well often be the case, but the question is whether we should build into the Bill the flexibility of which I have spoken. I respectfully submit to the Committee that that amount of flexibility is desirable, bearing in mind that the supervision will be subject to inspection under the rules that will be made under Clause 3(9). Where that supervision is undertaken by a body other than a social services department or a probation department, it will be subject to social services inspection. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will ask one or two questions about that rather extraordinary reply. The noble and learned Lord must have used the word "flexibility" on about 12 occasions. But what does "flexibility" mean? It means, "to allow a Minister to decide and not be troubled by the language of the statute". That is what "flexibility" means.
What is being proposed here? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can assist us. Given that the establishments are apparently to be run by private security organisations, is it being suggested that in some cases the aftercare responsibility will be passed to such a body? I should be grateful if we could be reassured on that point. I think that the Committee is entitled to a clearer answer—apart from one using the word "flexibility", if I may say so—about what precisely is suggested.
After all, in the debate on Clause 1 we heard that the 12 year-old of whom we were talking cannot go to such a centre until he has committed three previous criminal offences. That being so, he will certainly have been in contact with the local social services department and almost certainly with the local probation officer. That
70
child returns from Oxfordshire to, let us say, somewhere on the south coast of England. I shall not take one of the extreme examples. Is it being suggested that somebody who knew him well—I think that that is what the noble and learned Lord suggested —who presumably would be an employee of a private security organisation would in such circumstances supervise the case?
If that is not what is being suggested, I should be glad if we could be reassured on that point If the noble and learned Lord were to say that there is absolutely no question of such a person being involved, I should be content. However, as I am sure he realises, the formulation of the noble and learned Lord's argument created suspicion in the minds of even fair-minded people like myself. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can put our minds at rest.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Although we have not yet discussed the matter in detail, perhaps I may explain that, when the running of the training centres goes out to tender, those who tender for the work will have to submit tenders that meet the requirements of the specification that will be put out by the Home Office:. That specification will require that the companies provide very much more than people who can just run a secure unit. It is not to be thought that they are all to be people like warders or those concerned solely with security. As has already been said, the companies will have to provide people who can provide education. Some of the people involved will be teachers and some will be responsible for training. Even if it were said that those people were technically employees of whatever company happened to be running the centre, they would not necessarily be security guards, as it were; they would be people with a particular skill in the area concerned, whether it be education or whatever.
What I was saying to the Committee was that where somebody had been involved in that way with an individual child while he or she was in the training unit, it might be appropriate for that person to continue to have contact with the child in the role of providing supervision. However, I also stressed that that would often not be appropriate because if the training centre was too far away it would be physically impossible for the person employed by the training centre to provide the aftercare. I also pointed out that, on the other hand, there would be occasions when the child, on returning to his local authority area, was nearby and where such supervision could therefore be provided by the training centre person. I was merely saying that such a person might be suitable, and therefore that degree of flexibility —I do not shrink from using the word—which would allow the Secretary of State to say that such a person in such a situation could provide the supervision, is desirable. That is not to say that it would be used often, but it would be available to be used in an appropriate case.
Baroness Seear: Does not the Minister recognise that the term,
"such other person as the Secretary of State may designate",
is extremely wide and vague? After all supervision of such people is not something that can just be done by a well-meaning friend or someone who thinks that they

71
would like to take on the job of supervision because they have nothing better to do. Could not the noble and learned Lord think of some way of tightening this provision rather than just leaving it so open that almost anyone could be appointed, especially now that the matter is going out to contract? The contract could be with an organisation which would then arrange supervision, without there being any control over who it will be. We should have some guarantee that the person who will do the supervision has the background, experience and knowledge that skilled supervision requires.
Lord Elton: In answering that, will my noble and learned friend say whether the type of person described in my noble friend's amendment might in fact be employed even if the amendment is not in the Bill?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Yes. I hoped that I had made it clear in my original answer that such a person would be the kind of person who would usually do it. I was saying that that amount of flexibility —to use the controversial word—would allow the Secretary of State to appoint someone who did not fall within one of those categories but who nonetheless had, for example, what the noble Baroness speaks of: the necessary training and skills. One might think of someone who might, for example, have been employed formerly by the social services department or the probation service but who may have left temporarily because, for example, she had had a baby, but who nonetheless had all the skills necessary to provide the required supervision. In such a case the Secretary of State might well designate such a person. That would be wholly desirable. It would be unfortunate if that were not possible because of the formulation of the provision.
I of course accept that it would be wholly wrong for the Secretary of State to designate people who did not have the appropriate qualifications. I do not believe for one moment that he would do so, always bearing in mind that there would be provision, as I have already said, for the inspection of the supervision. Therefore, it would be wholly unlikely that anyone who did not have such qualifications would be appointed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Is it a fact that the noble and learned Lord would be happy to accept an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to appoint only someone who has a recognised social work or other qualification?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It would depend upon what the amendment said, but if the spirit of what I have said could be captured in an amendment then obviously the Government would examine that amendment. The power is designed to be used in the way I have suggested, and an amendment of the kind put down by my noble friend Lady Faithfull would be too restrictive.
Baroness Seear: Does the noble and learned Lord recognise that we need the word and not the spirit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and learned Lord will also recognise that he has just given a series
72
of interesting answers, but if it applies to aftercare supervision it applies also to the qualifications of staff in a privatised secure training centre.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That is obviously the case. The people who will be providing those services have to be suitable people. We have never said anything else. It is foolish to assume that the people who will be providing the services will all be security guards. The people who will be providing these services will be providing particular kinds of services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not happen in privatised prisons. That is all.
Lord Wigoder: Before we reach the next stage will the noble and learned Lord be good enough to consider —I am not attempting to draft on the hoof, as was so vividly expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—some expression such as, "the supervision of a probation officer, social worker, or such other similarly qualified person as the Secretary of State may designate"?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am willing to take away that matter and consider it.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: We may be missing the point, because good after care depends upon having a relationship with the child when it is in the secure training centre, or, alternatively, it means that the person who is dealing with the child before it went into the secure,training unit should have had a relationship with it. Good after care cannot be carried out unless there is a relationship between the child and the person who is carrying it out. Just to tell someone, whether trained or not trained, that they are responsible for the after care, if they know nothing about that child and do not have a relationship with that child, is not enough.
The amendment shows how wise it would have been had we not passed Clause 1, because then this point would not have arisen. Having said that, I wonder whether it can be stated, perhaps in advice or a schedule, that the person responsible for the after care should be appointed at the very beginning when the child goes into the unit. I simply do not know how someone in Plymouth will supervise a child in Oxford, unless the probation officer or social services person visits the child while it is in the secure unit.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with much that the noble Baroness is saying. My noble friend Lord Wigoder and others have, as usual, been involved in a damage limitation operation. The substance of the argument put forward by the noble Baroness is right. Probation officers visit people who are in prison. They are then responsible for their after care when they leave prison. It is a strange procedure when we talk about appointing someone from within the establishment who will have no prior involvement in that child's life.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The point which I sought to make was, in one sense, a reflection of the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, which

73
was that there may be cases where the person who provides the supervision outside would most suitably be the person who had built up a relationship with the child while the child was in the training centre. I said that that might be wholly exceptional. I accept that it has always been envisaged that in order for there to be proper supervision it may be necessary to start building up the relationship early, and it might be appropriate therefore for just the kind of visits to occur which have been mentioned. It will be part of the scheme of the training centre that it should be making arrangements which will ensure that the training is suitable when the child leaves at the end of the secure period.
Baroness Faithfull: I think that we have gone as far as we can possibly go on this subject. I still ask my noble and learned friend whether something could be put into the Bill to ensure that the person carrying out the after care is, first, trained; and, secondly, has a relationship with the child, however that may be arranged. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall bring it back at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House be resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Licensing of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1994
7.20 p.m.
Lord Annaly Lord Annaly rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, and with the leave of the House, I will also speak to the second Motion standing in my name.
The first of these two orders amends a 1965 Order in Council which designates headquarters and a defence organisation for the purposes of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964. The second amends a 1965 Order in Council which provides for the application to visiting forces and international headquarters of law applicable to home forces.
Later this year a number of changes to the NATO command structure affecting the UK will come into being. The post of Commander-in-Chief Channel lapses on 30th June and the headquarters of Allied Forces Northern Europe in Kolsaas, Norway, closes. The
74
following day reorganisation of the major subordinate: command structure in Allied Command Europe will be. completed, when the headquarters of the new North Western Area is activated. This area will comprise the land mass of the United Kingdom (for the first time) and Norway and the sea and air areas surrounding them. I will arrange for maps and organisational charts outlining these changes to be placed in the Library of the House.
The new NATO headquarters of the North Western region, to be designated Headquarters of the; Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces North Western Europe, will be situated at High Wycombe and will be commanded by a British officer. At the same time two new principal subordinate command headquarters will be activated in the United Kingdom: the headquarters of the Commander Allied Air Forces North Western Europe, also at High Wycombe, and the headquarters of the Commander Allied Naval Forces North Western Europe, at Northwood, which will assume Commander-in-Chief Channel's current responsibilities. Some 330 alliance personnel will be located at the new headquarters in the UK, of whom 130 will be UK personnel.
To reflect these changes it is necessary to amend the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 1965 (SI 1965/1535) to designate in UK law the new headquarters. We are also taking this opportunity to designate the: NATO Airborne Early Warning Force headquarters in Mons, Belgium, and the NATO E-3A component in Geilenkirchen, Germany, whose visiting staff are treated as members of an international military headquarters but have not yet been formally recognised as having that status under UK law. The purpose of the first order is therefore to establish the status of the various headquarters and visiting forces.
The second order, which amends the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1965 (SI 1965/1536), provides for the application to the visiting forces and these headquarters of the law applicable to home forces.
The changes that I have described will effectively complete the adjustments to NATO's command structure agreed at the end of 1991. They represent an important step towards a lighter, more flexible command structure which will enable the alliance to respond more quickly and effectively to the increasingly challenging and diverse demands of the European security situation.
The NATO summit in January charted the next steps for the adaptation of the alliance, and we can expect the new headquarters in the UK to play an important role in giving practical effect to the initiatives agreed there. This will help to keep the UK at the forefront of work to ensure that the Alliance remains centre-stage in European security arrangements in the years ahead. I commend these orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Annaly.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, having carefully studied what was said in another place about these orders, and being content that the two orders should be taken together, we on these Benches welcome them. They have no particular party political significance. Indeed, they have little significance at all except as consequential movements in what is clearly a bigger reorganisation.
I have only one question to ask the Minister. In view of the ending of the Cold War and the reconstruction of the whole system of NATO, should we not in the shorter term be considering a review of the whole structure? A great deal that is still in position has become outdated. Is there any plan in the short term for a reorganisation of the whole structure of NATO?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, the establishment of Headquarters Allied Forces North Western Europe will effectively complete adjustments to NATO command structures agreed at the end of 1991. There are clear advantages to the UK in the establishment of a new major subordinate command here: it will allow us to maintain significant influence at an increasingly important level of command within the alliance's military structure; and there will be cost savings from home basing for the UK complement of staff and economic benefits to the local area from the presence of visiting forces.
The changes to the command structure that I have described have already led to considerable savings in manpower; the UK has been able to reduce its overall contribution by more than 30 per cent. As I have said, these changes represent an important step towards the more flexible command arrangements that the alliance will need in future to enable NATO to respond more quickly and effectively to the challenges now facing us. For the time being the priority will be to get the new headquarters up and running and these orders represent a necessary part of this process.
It might be helpful if I set out the context of changes in the strategic environment which make necessary the changes in the NATO command structure. The alliance has continued to adapt imaginatively to changes in international security situation since publication of its Strategic Concept a little more than two years ago. NATO's strategy was developed with the likelihood of further significant change in mind. It is clear from subsequent developments in the European Security situation that this was prudent.
Events in former Yugoslavia have had a significant impact on NATO's further development. They have provided a graphic illustration of the kinds of risk to European security that we are likely to be faced with in future. It is clear that peacekeeping/peace support operations will be an increasingly important role for the alliance in future. Alliance Ministers consequently agreed that the alliance would consider requests to undertake peacekeeping missions in support of United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on a case-by-case basis and that peacekeeping should be included among missions of NATO forces and headquarters. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's question.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for an answer which I regard as totally satisfactory. We are happy to support the orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1994
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Annaly.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
These regulations extend the requirement of higher survivability standards to all existing roll-on/roll-off, or ro-ro, passenger ships when operating to or from ports in the United Kingdom. Similar provisions are already in force for new ships—that is, those built after 29th April 1990 —by virtue of the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction and Survey) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.
Conclusions of an extensive research programme, sponsored by the Department of Transport following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster, have confirmed that the standards of survivability introduced for new ships provides adequate protection against rapid capsize after sustaining collision damage while operating in moderate seas.
The steering committee, which was set up to monitor the Ro-Ro Ferry Safety Research Programme and which is made up of representatives from all sides of the shipping industry, recommended that a higher standard of damage stability be applied to all existing ro-ro ships. To this end the committee recommended agreement to be sought at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and, if unsuccessful, to approach European maritime administrations with a view to a regional solution. Should both approaches fail, it was further recommended that the United Kingdom consider unilateral action.
The department, on accepting the recommendations of the committee, proposed that the higher standard to be applied to existing ships should be that standard introduced internationally for new ships.
Noble Lords will appreciate that the recognised procedure for introducing international safety measures is to submit proposals to the IMO. That procedure is

77
fully supported by the United Kingdom. However, despite lengthy discussions at the IMO, the application of that higher standard to existing ro-ro ships was not accepted.
Having exhausted all the avenues for international agreement, the Department of Transport, officials from the European Commission and member states of the European Union, together with Norway and Sweden, opened discussions which have led to a regional agreement. The introduction of these regulations upholds the obligation of the United Kingdom with that agreement and will ensure that all ro-ro passenger ships travelling to and from United Kingdom ports comply with the same standard of survivability previously restricted to new ships. The regulations provide for penalties to be imposed for contravention.
I am confident that the regulations will be an important contribution towards improvement in ro-ro passenger safety. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the regulations which, as he said, follow the dreadful accident and sinking of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" in March 1987. Correspondence between my honour-able friend Mrs. Joan Walley and the Minister had a great deal to do with the speeding up of the investigation and the ultimate production of the regulations.
It is unfortunate that international agreement could not be reached but it is good that agreement has been reached at least with some of the contiguous, important maritime nations. We can only hope that it will extend even further in future. As we know, the problem applies in particular to the English Channel, which is one of the most congested waterways in the world. I understand that something like 40 million passengers travel by ferry from the United Kingdom through that extremely busy shipping lane.
I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the position with regard to catamarans. It may be that he would rather write to me on the subject. I should like to know whether they are covered by the regulations. Of course, the regulations apply only until something happens as regards the size, volume or increase of speed of traffic which causes us to change them. However, apart from the point regarding catamarans, we approve of the regulations and believe that they come before the House not before time.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I welcome the regulations and I congratulate the Government on bringing them forward. As my noble friend said, after the terrible disaster which resulted in the sinking of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" in 1987, long discussions took place and research programmes were undertaken in order to reach agreement at the IMO on a much higher standard of safety, which had been defined. Unfortunately, as my noble friend said, agreement could nor. be achieved. The Government rather expected that.
78
They gave an undertaking at the time that if agreement could not be reached at the IMO, they would go forward unilaterally or if possible with our European friends.
I know that the negotiations have been difficult, and long-winded, as often happens in relation to the IMO. However, it is extremely satisfactory that we have reached agreement with our European friends, and I congratulate the Government on carrying out the undertakings which they gave some years ago with regard to safety on existing ro-ro ferries.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lard Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for their warm welcome of these important regulations. Both noble Lords mentioned the "Herald of Free Enterprise". Of course, the SOLAS 90 standard would not have prevented that tragedy, the causes of which were addressed in an initial set of recommendations based on the findings of the inquiry
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about catamarans. My advice is that they must comply with the same standards. The fact that they have a double hull does not exempt them from those standards. I shall take further advice and if that is not the case, I shall write to the noble Lord. Once again, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moyed accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.36 to 8.20 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 [Breaches of requirements of supervision of persons subject to secure training orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I have one question to put. I was not perhaps quite quick enough to ask a similar question on Clause 3, but it applies equally in respect of Clause 4. In subsection (3) (b) I see that the court may,
"impose on the offender a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale",
just as in Clause 3(7) the offender is to be given notice by the Secretary of State. Those are rather remarkable things to be done to a 12 year-old in person. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend is sufficiently supported and advised to be able to tell me whether the imposition of the fine will, in the first instance, be. notified direct to the offender; and, secondly, under what circumstances an offender aged 12 will be expected to be able to pay a fine up to,
"level 3 on the standard scale"?
If, as I expect, my noble and learned friend tells me that it will actually bite on the child's parent or guardian, perhaps he can tell me how. I hope that I have asked the

79
question at sufficient length to enable my noble and learned friend to prepare, devise or possibly solicit advice from the quarter from which it is normally sent.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that my noble friend will agree to me writing to him on the detail of the matter. In fact, this very morning I asked the question posed by my noble friend in respect of Clause 4(3) (b). Like my noble friend, when I read the clause I was somewhat surprised to think of a 12 year-old paying the fine. At that time I was given an assurance that it would in effect bite on the parents. I understand that that is so by virtue of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. However, I do not have the provision with me and I should like to give my noble friend chapter and verse in my answer. Nevertheless, that is my understanding. As to the other part of my noble friend's question and the other point that he raised, I shall have to write to him.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will be kind enough to do so before we reach the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We should all have the good fortune of reading the answer. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord asked to be enlightened about the provisions of the clause this morning. However, I do not believe that he has received a full answer. Many other Members of the Committee will also be interested. I should be mildly surprised if it was the 1933 Act, but nevertheless I am not well informed on that particular point. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will write to me. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will be similarly interested in that reply.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I shall be only too happy to scatter the correspondence about as appropriate. It was precisely because I was slightly surprised that it was the 1933 Act that I noted that fact in the margin of my notes.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Provision etc. of secure training centres]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I have another question in this respect. I am sure that I should know the answer, but we have been dealing hitherto with young people who have not achieved the age of 15; namely, 12 to 14 year-olds. However, Clause 5(2) (d) refers to,
"secure training centres, that is to say places in which offenders not less than 12 but under 17 years of age in respect of whom secure training orders have been made under section 1",
and so on. I should like to know where those extra people are coming from and how my noble and learned friend defends the theory that children should be treated as children in a separate unit while they are flooding such units with 15 to 16 year-olds.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that it is partly by virtue of arithmetic that the point arises. A young person can be made the subject of a secure training order if he or she is between the ages of 12 and 15. If an order is imposed on a young person who is just under 15—that
80
is, at 14 and a bit—for two years then he will be 16 and a bit and still be subject to the order. Although no one can be of the age of 17 that is why a person can still be the subject of such an order at the age of 16.
Lord Elton: I believe that we shall need to debate at the next stage whether that changes the character which most of us thought such secure training centres had. If they are to be devised to contain young people up to the age of 17 we have moved from the lower to the upper school, so to speak, in education terms. It may not be appropriate for children aged 12 to be dealt with in the same place and in the same manner as young men of 17. I am sorry that I did not give my noble and learned friend notice of that question. However, I hope it will suffice for me to give notice that I shall want to ventilate the matter at the next stage.
Lord Hylton: I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to give an assurance—if possible tonight or, if not, at a later stage—that 12 year-olds will not be mixed with 16 and-a-half and 17 year-olds. There is a world of difference between people of those respective ages. For example, there is a whole difference between pre- and post-pubescence. Indeed, it could be most undesirable for the older element to have anything whatever to do with the 12 year-olds.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Is it the case that this is being done to make the centres more commercially attractive to the private sector? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help us in that respect?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is not a question of making it more or less attractive to the private sector; it follows quite simply from the provisions of Clause 1 through which we passed a while ago without such a point being thought to be controversial. As one can see from Clause 1(1) the provision applies to young people,
"of not less than 12 but under 15 years of age".
Moreover, on reading further into Clause 1 one finds that the period is not less than six months and no more than two years. As a result, I believe that, arithmetically, it is plain on the face of Clause 1 that there will indeed be children who may be up to the age that I indicated. Of course, I take the point that it will be necessary for the circumstances in the centres to be such that the people are all appropriately cared for. How exactly that will be done is a matter which will have to be assessed by the individual contractors. Where one has a range of ages, what is appropriate for one at the lower end of the scale will clearly not be appropriate for those at the upper end of the scale. Those are matters which clearly the contractors will have to take into account.
Lord Elton: Before we leave the question of arithmetic, I should like to point out to my noble and learned friend that Clause 1 states that only half the sentence shall be served in detention. Therefore the appropriate arithmetic is 15 plus 1 and not 15 plus 2, unless of course my noble and learned friend is allowing a whole year for the processes of justice to wind through by which time the phenomenon of frequent offending will, according to evidence from the Policy Studies Institute, almost certainly have gone.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Although I cannot put my finger on it at the moment, I am pretty sure that somewhere in this Bill the Committee will find a provision to deal with the situation when someone is in breach of an order while he has been released and is in training. In that circumstance he may be called back to complete the balance of the training order in the training centre. So it follows that the people concerned may be nearly 17.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Who would be responsible for deciding whether there had been a breach of an order? The noble and learned Lord may remember our previous discussion. Apparently we shall have a situation whereby some of the employees of a private security organisation will have this responsibil-ity of aftercare. The question of whether someone is in breach of an order is, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, of considerable relevance. Who will decide that matter? It will not presumably be the probation officer or the social services officer because they will not be responsible for the aftercare. I would be interested in the reply.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I believe the noble Lord will find some indication on this matter in Clause 4, which indicates that, where there has been a secure training order and it appears on information to a justice of the peace that there may have been a breach, he may issue a warrant for the offender's arrest requiring him to be brought before a court. If it is proved under subsection (3) of Clause 4 to the satisfaction of the youth court that the person has failed to comply with the requirements, that court may order the offender to be detained in a secure training centre. In that circumstance it would be the youth court which would take the decision. It is in that circumstance also that the fine— with which we began these interesting diversions—can be imposed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am much obliged but I am afraid that that does not wholly deal with the point I was putting. I apologise if there was any lack of clarity on my part. The point I was putting was a rather different one. It is not a question of what happens when the matter goes to the court. I understand that. That is determined in the same way as a probation order or a community service order would be determined by a court. The question is a different one. For the first time we will have a new group of people who will be in some cases responsible for the aftercare. They will not necessarily be probation officers or employees of social services departments. They may be employees of a private security firm. What I am asking the noble and learned Lord is this: who is responsible for taking that case to the youth court? After all, the employee of the private security firm may be 38, 40 or 50 miles away. Who will be responsible for ensuring that there is no breach, because, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, a breach does not necessarily involve the commission of a criminal offence? There may be some
82
inadequacy in terms of reporting arrangements or something of that sort. I would be grateful for any clarification which we could be given.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Without notice I cannot give a definitive answer. However, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord. People who are charged with supervision will be people whom one might expect would bring this matter to the attention of the authorities. Therefore such a person might be a person who was acting as a supervisor, whoever he happened to be. I suppose also there could be other people—I suppose there could even be police officers—who would become aware of the fact that there had been some breach of the order. In that circumstance the: information might come to light through that means. 1 cannot give a definitive answer as to whether any other way is envisaged, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord on that matter.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Management of secure training centres]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) Rules made under this section shall ensure that the education provided in secure training centres shall—

(a) be suitable to the ability and aptitude of each offender;

(b) satisfy the requirements of the National Curriculum;

(c) include any special education provision which at the date of sentencing had been identified under the provisions of Part III of the Education Act 1993 as necessary to meet the special educational needs of the offender; and

(d) be determined in consultation with—

(i) the offender's local education authority, and

(ii) where appropriate, teachers and other professionals involved in the offender's previous education,
with a view to integrating the offender on his release in an ordinary local school".").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment to draw from my noble and learned friend some further details about the intentions for the regime to be followed in these centres. Immediately I use that word I remind myself of all the dangers we have to avoid in establishing them because of course a regime is not something one finds in a school: a regime is something one finds in a prison. We are talking about school children of 12, 13, 14 and 15 years of age. We therefore have to remind ourselves what the purpose of their being there is.
We are all agreed that one of the purposes is to protect the public. However, not all of us are agreed that another purpose of equal importance is to try to retrieve these young people from the sort of lives on which they have embarked and to return them to productive lives within society, learning in their schools, co-operating with their friends and turning into good members of society. If we assume that they are irredeemable—I fear that some people in favour of these places regard them as receptacles for the irredeemably lost members of society—that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do not believe that there are any such people who are not under some medical or psychiatric difficulty. It is a question of

83
finding the right treatment. That treatment for people of that age must include education that is not only suitable to them but also compatible with education in the schools to which they will return at the end of their sentence.
If they do not go back to school, as I have already had occasion to say, they will rapidly come back to the detention centre. The purpose of the detention centre education programme therefore must be, first of all, to bring them back on course—most of them will be severely truanting children who will have lost a third or more of the education they should have received already. Secondly, they must be brought into step, as it were, with their fellow school pupils whom they will rejoin at the end of their period in detention. As I have already said, that requires close co-operation and co-ordination with the local education authority— wherever it is—in the case of each child.
I would be grateful also if my noble and learned friend in addressing this problem—I know he will say some reassuring things, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said them earlier, and I should like to hear them again, perhaps at a slower speed—would tell us more about this. I believe that this would be a suitable occasion for my noble and learned friend—if it is he who will spring to his feet, and I cannot tell who it will be at this moment —to say whether the detention centre is under the education Acts to be a school. What is the relationship of the detainee, first, to his home local education authority and, secondly, to the local education authority of the education area in which the detention centre is situated? We cannot treat the child as being taken permanently out of the system without entirely prejudicing our hopes of getting him back into the proper behaviour we expect of him in society.
I have not perhaps addressed this question with the passion which it deserves. Perhaps that is as well because we want it to be dealt with with the cool precise logic that it deserves, but it lies at the heart of what a detention centre is for. I am tempted to move an amendment on Report which changes the term "secure training order" and "secure training centre" to "secure education order" and "secure education centre" as I believe that education is the central activity in such a centre to which training is added and not the other way about. If we do not understand that, we will get it wrong. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I am very pleased to support the amendment. I was amused that the noble Lord referred to detention centres and not secure training centres throughout his speech. However, that is really what they are. It was a very significant remark.
Ofsted is reported to have said that it is very anxious about the educational arrangements which will be provided in the centres. There are a great many questions which have not been answered about the education and training to be provided. For example, will HMI report on secure accommodation education? There was a report in 1992 which I read and which was extremely interesting. It was quite clear from the report
84
that there is very good provision. There is also mediocre provision and some bad provision. But it can be very good.
Earlier, when we were discussing Clause 1, I described the education provided by Salters, which is the Cambridgeshire secure accommodation unit. At Salters they are doing all the things mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am not sure whether the offenders' parents are consulted. I expect that they are, although that was not known to me. All the other points in relation to the national curriculum are happening. There is more than that. There is vocational help.
It is important that the factors we are discussing appear on the face of the Bill. Under Section 116 of the Education Act 1944 children in custody have no educational rights. Their parents, LEAs and the Secretary of State are all absolved of duties under the Act towards any child detained by order of a court. So it is important that primary legislation elsewhere secures their effective education.
We have been assured by the Minister on a number of occasions that there will be education and training. If the Government are sincere about that, they should be prepared to accept this amendment or at any rate say that they are prepared to come back at Report stage with something rather more positive than a vague reference to education and training.
It is also extremely important that these children should be able to go back to schools in their own area when they come out of what the noble Lord calls the detention centres. That is vital. That is why I believe it is better if they are somewhere near their home so that they can keep contact with their teachers, schools, probation officers, social workers and so on. It would be very much easier to integrate them when they come out than if they are miles away in a different part of the country. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: This amendment is at the heart of what might make the establishment of these institutions acceptable. There will be a great deal of overlap between people who are detained in the centres and people who attend schools for children who are emotionally and behaviourally disturbed. They will be the same kind of children, having probably been excluded from their schools or having truanted persistently because, as we have heard, most crimes by juveniles are committed when out of school. These children probably attended school only sporadically in the years before finally coming to what may seem like the end of the road for them. Therefore it is of enormous importance that their education should be central. I do not care whether it is called education or training; but it must be education.
It is a paradox that a number of schools for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children have been closed as a result of inspections which have shown that they were not conforming entirely to the national curriculum. That was often because they could not immediately expect such children, who were incapable of learning, to follow the national curriculum. The children could not settle down to work and had to be

85
introduced gradually to the national curriculum. Good schools have been closed for that reason. It would be extremely paradoxical if the national curriculum were mentioned on the face of the Bill as something which is at least a target for the children who will end up in the centres.
It is demanded in paragraph (c) of the amendment that any special educational provision which has already been identified should be included. It is my contention that there will not be a single child in one of these institutions who will not have special educational needs, whether or not those have been identified previously. The one thing of which one can be certain is that their life of crime means that they will not have got on with their school work. They will need special educational provision, particularly with a view to getting them back to where they should have been before they started their persistent offending. If one does not have the goal that these children should rejoin the mainstream at their school and take up their life again, there is no point in what is proposed and it would have to be acknowledged that the institutions are nothing but mechanisms for keeping the children off the streets for one or two years.
We must adopt an attitude of hope towards these children. The only way to give concrete meaning to that hope is by educating them, not just in the national curriculum but in all kinds of ways, including sport and music. That is so important that it must be detailed to some extent on the face of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I am very happy to follow my noble friend Lady Warnock because the point I want to make is somewhat akin to hers. I added my name as a supporter of the amendment because of my knowledge of a probation project near Farnham, Surrey, which has been running since the late 1970s. It is constituted as a charity and it continues today. It was visited by Mr. Douglas Hurd when he was Home Secretary.
The project has concentrated on the age group between 16 and 21. It was discovered as the project developed that virtually all of its clients had missed out on the benefit of the schooling which they should have received by the time they reached the project. That may have been due to truanting. It may have happened because their parents moved frequently, or because they were homeless. There may have been other factors. But the project's clients had not had the advantages of the development of mind and character which normal education should have produced in them. That was why to a large extent they found themselves either offending or at risk of offending. Therefore, the project built into its programme a system of remedial education tailored to the needs of each individual client.
There has been mention of the benefits of smallness and intimacy. Those are qualities which the project has consistently achieved, to the great benefit of its clients. It has been said from the Government side of the Committee that in the new system there will be 25 hours a week of education. I welcome that. It was also stated that there will be liaison with the local education authority before the release of detained persons. There was mention too of a training element in the programme
86
as well as the educational element. Those seem to be reasons why the Government should find it quite easy to accept at least the spirit of the amendment. There may be defects in its drafting but, if so, perhaps we can rely on the Government to come forward with a better amendment at the next stage.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amend-ment. It seems vital to have the educational requirernent written into the Bill; and I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said.
These are children of school age. They should have full-time education. If some children are in need of remedial education, it should be available. If a contractor such as Group 4 is to be in charge, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the Committee a little about Group 4 and what experience it has in the education field. Education must be the best way to teach those young people to live within society; and it is the one link with normality. Surely we want these young people to be normal people who will grow up within society.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: This short debate has stressed matters upon which I believe we can all agree. It can only be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the provisions which leaves any noble Lord in doubt that the Government place great importance on training and education. Those concepts overlap, but nonetheless both have a role to play.
These centres are not to be thought of as oubliettes into which we shall confine and consign those children, forget about them and think that there is no hope for them. On the contrary, they are training centres and we hope that by instituting these centres we shall be able to train and educate those young boys and girls so that they come out of the system as people who are not so likely to offend again. That is the idea underlying the provision. It is in no sense an add-on provision, but very much part of the whole scheme which underlies the Bill.
It is fair to say that one does not find, for example, matters relating to education spelt out on the face of the Bill. It would also be true to say—noble Lords may think that it is equally a criticism of the Bill—that one will not find a lot of detail on the face of the Bill as to the accommodation to be provided for children. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has already addressed an important matter in connection with accommodation, this evening. The Bill proceeds on the basis that such matters will be subject to negotiation with the contractors in terms of a specification.
So far as one can trace the matters on the face of the Bill, for example, Clause 6 amends Section 47 of the Prison Act 1952. In effect it allows rules to be made for those secure training centres. Among the matters to be covered by the rules will be minimum standards. For example, minimum standards will be provided to back up the provision of education.
How will such standards feed through? The Home Office will provide a specification to the organisations, companies and people who wish to tender to run these centres. We have heard much of Group 4 this evening. It is gaining a lot of publicity and advertising. I hope that it takes comfort in thinking that it may be awarded the

87
contract. But whether or not it is, as I stressed to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, at the end of the day, such contractors are not there simply to provide security services to lock up these boys and girls in these training centres. On the contrary, the contractors will have to meet the specification. They will have to say how they will provide the services required.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. Shall we be able to see the specification? That seems extremely important if we are to be convinced by what he says.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Baroness raises a point to which I was about to come. One of the difficulties for noble Lords in dealing with the matter is that they do not have the specification in front of them. When the Bill was in another place a draft of those specifications was available at that time and was taken into account. That specification has been subject to ongoing revision, as your Lordships appreciate. Therefore we do not have an up-to-date version for you. However, before we come to Report stage your Lordships will have the latest revision of the specification available in the Library of the House. I believe that that will assist somewhat the consideration of these points.
Baroness Warnock: Perhaps I may intervene to ask whether the specification has been drawn up by the Home Office in collaboration with the Department for Education, or has the Home Office done it entirely on its own?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I cannot answer that question exactly, but given some of the matters that are contained within the specification, I should be surprised if there had not been consultation with the Department for Education. I shall verify that matter. If I do not have the answer before I sit down, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I may intervene to ask the noble and learned Lord this. He has called attention to Clause 6(3) which sets out the rule which will provide for the inspection of secure training centres and the appointment of independent persons to visit those centres. Is it intended that there should be any rule which will define the standards, in particular in relation to quality of education and training, which are to be achieved by the contractors responsible for those training centres? First, will rules define these standards?
My second question is of more importance if the answer to the first is in the negative. Does the specification itself prescribe standards that are to be achieved in the areas of education and training which therefore would be a yardstick for the independent persons' inspection?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Yes, I believe I have already indicated that rules under Clause 6 will incorporate national standards. In turn, those will be reflected in the specification which will go to the people who will tender for the provision of these centres.
Lord Elton: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will forgive my intervention. But before we leave the matter perhaps I may refer to the point that I too was going to raise. I cannot see how what he says is encompassed by the provisions in the Bill. The rules are to provide for the inspection of secure training centres and the appointment of independent persons to visit secure training centres. There is no power in that provision to make a rule about the standards to be inspected. Will there be classrooms, pupil rooms or whatever? The provision relates merely to how they are to be inspected. That is what has aroused our concern.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As my noble friend said, the provision in Clause 6(3) is inserted in order to provide for external inspection and so on. The rules for running the centre, including the standard of provision of education, will be made under the powers which will exist merely by incorporating amendments to the 1952 Act which are contained in the other provisions of Clause 6. That is a special provision to allow matters dealing with inspection to be covered.
The aim, therefore, is to set out all those matters in the specification. It may be that some matters, understandably raised by Members of the Committee at this stage, will become clearer when the Committee has a chance to study the specification, particularly in connection with education. That is what we are dealing with now. It will also cover matters like accommodation and training, so far as one can divide the two.
Education is absolutely fundamental to the develop-ment of the training plan for any offender. It will be essential that so far as possible one bears in mind the point which has been stressed by a number of Members of the Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. That is the need to remember that, if the plan is to succeed at all, the aim must be that when the children end their time at the training centre and leave supervision after their training they will go back to join their fellows in schools. We hope that they will be better pupils than they would have been before that. We hope that they will be able to take their place fully in the normal school system.
For that reason, one of the points which the specification will contain is a requirement that the people providing education will need to take into account and assess an offender's educational needs. They will also have to devise a programme for him which, so far as possible, will reflect the national curriculum, for the reason which Members of the Committee have stressed. It will also be necessary for the centre to keep in touch with the local education authority from which the child came and even perhaps with the teachers who taught the child before he or she came into the centre and to whom he or she may return in due course. It will also be necessary to ensure that the course work for examinations which the child may have to take is maintained. All those are essential and are exactly the matters which will be provided for in the specification. Members of the Committee may, therefore, be reassured when they have a chance to see the specifications.

89
One matter which was raised was whether or not the training centres would be schools. As I understand it, technically they will not, but—and this may reflect more the substance of the provisions—they will be inspected by the officers of standards in education who are the successors of Her Majesty's inspectors. Thus the centres will be under the same kind of inspection.
9 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the reports be published?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am being given the signal from the Box that they will be published, so I can assure the Committee that they will. Therefore, in those circumstances, the Government have very much in mind the points raised by Members of the Committee. The scheme of the legislation is not to put such matters on the face of the Bill, and Members of the Committee should judge the matter when the specification is available. In the meantime, in the light of the explanation which I hope I have provided to the Committee, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, why can we not call the centres "secure centres for education and training"? We all know that they will become known as training centres for a life of crime unless the term is spelt out.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I doubt whether simply changing the name in that way would change an erroneous perception anyway. The substance of the matter is as I have indicated.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may comment on what the noble and learned Lord has just said. We had expected that he would mention the rules, but unless this amendment or something similar is accepted, there will be no right to education for those young people. If the Minister is sincere in what he says, then he should accept an amendment which specifies that education is to be a right.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that I am sincere in what I have said. I am equally sincere in saying that it will be necessary for the children to have proper accommoda-tion. Neither of those matters needs to appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Elton: There may be a difference here which we should address at a later stage. I do not believe that it is proper to have an order of this nature which leaves everything to trust and nothing to declaration. We must have on the face of the Bill what the legislation is for, otherwise, as we have often seen in the past, a provision is devised for one purpose but used for another. It gradually drifts away. I well remember the day on which my then right honourable friend Mr. Leon Brittan announced that there would be no prisoners left in police cells by the end of the year in which he spoke. That was true for about three or four days. Since then, the numbers have fluctuated between scores and hundreds.
90
One has to have more than a declaration of intention from a Minister, no matter how senior, how honourable and how well intentioned, if one is to achieve certain objectives. What we wish to achieve here is the proper education of children in a way that may enable them to be returned to society as productive members rather than as its enemies for quick return.
To deal with the other points, I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and to the Committee for referring always to "detention centres". The matter had arisen in a schools context; it was a natural reaction. I have to admit that I was perhaps a little flurried by having opened a letter from my former regiment shortly before I came to the House asking me to fill in the pro forma statement of what I wanted to be in my obituary. In a similarly Freudian way my reaction was to ask whether there was a deadline for this information.
More seriously, my noble and learned friend has agreed that the purpose of this sentence is corrective. That I applaud. He says that there is no reference to education in it because there is no detailed reference to accommodation. But of course there is provision. Accommodation is mentioned but is not spelt out. Education is not stated as an aim. We are not told what the purpose of the detention is. I believe that that has to be on the face of the Bill. My noble and learned friend has sought to give comfort to the Committee by saying that the specifications will be negotiated with the contractors. If the negotiation is only between a government department—the Home Office—and the contractors, it is not likely to contain a good deal that we may think desirable. I should like to know what education authorities and other experts in the matter will have been consulted and will have given a view on the specification before it is published and agreed upon.
My noble and learned friend said that the specifications will be published, to Members' comfort. What if they do not comfort us? Are they to be subject to a parliamentary process and will that process be the negative or affirmative process? If they are not subject to a process, or if that process is not to be the affirmative process, the fact is that we shall have no say at all in what happens in them. Therefore the moment for comfort is not then but now. I told my noble and learned friend that this was a probing; amendment. So it is. He has not addressed ways in which it might be approved. I fear that I shall have to bring it back. I shall invite my noble and learned friend to intervene before I sit down if he wants to correct me on any points that I have made so far. But, subject to that, I shall have to return with what I call a serious amendment at the Report stage. I would not be satisfied that this Bill should go on to the statute book without saying what it is for in this respect. I give my noble and learned friend an opportunity to intervene.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: There are just two points. In case by a slip of the tongue I suggested—as I may have done—that the specification would be subject to negotiation, it would be the particular terms of the contract in any case which would be the subject for

91
negotiation. The specification itself will be a matter to be determined by the Home Office. As I said, Members of the Committee will of course have a chance to see it and will be able to debate matters further in the light of the circumstances when they see what is provided.
The only other matter that I would mention is that one finds in Clause 5(2) a reference to the fact that secure training centres are places where children may be detained and given training and education and be prepared for release. So the idea of training and education is very much there on the face of the statute.
Lord Elton: Returning to the specifications and to my noble and learned friend's assurance that there will be 25 hours of education available a week, I remind him that there are 168 hours of the week, for every one of which the contractors will be responsible. That leaves an awful lot of other hours to be disposed of and used profitably and strenuously in such a way as to get the young people ready for bed at bedtime and not ready for more mayhem. Their enthusiasm and interest need to be engaged so that they feel that they are doing something, and are not simply having things done to them— although in fact that is what is happening.
My noble and learned friend says that the specifications will come to the House, and that we shall be able to debate them and comment on them. Perhaps I may ask him, therefore, in what form they will appear. Is this to be a statutory instrument, which is of course not amendable in this Chamber? Or will it be some form of primary legislation? —which I cannot believe that it will be. How else are we to be able to have an opportunity to affect what goes into these orders? I am not trying to be difficult. If we are to have these places —which I regret—then I am very keen indeed that they should be effective, and that we should be tough on crime and not on the taxpayer. That is to say, we should get value for money and do some good for the children. I am not confident that we can rely on that being done if we do not have sight of this and have an opportunity to influence what is in it. If my noble and learned friend can say that a procedure will be devised which will enable us to do that, other than simply a statutory instrument, I shall be most reassured to hear it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: All that I can say to my
noble friend is that the specifications will not be matters that are subject to an order, but they will be documents which have been put out for bids to be made to contract on them. I was saying that Members of the Committee will have an opportunity to see them and to comment on their adequacy or inadequacy. I am certain that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and all the other people who are involved in determining the specification will bear in mind the observations which noble Lords would have on these specifications.
There are a number of requirements under the specification, including the schemes which the contractors may have for doing the very thing that my noble friend mentions. For example, what is going to be done constructively with these children for the balance of time that is not devoted to education? That is an absolutely vital point. It is exactly the kind of thing that
92
the specification will spell out. We will wish to see what the contractors propose. It is on the basis of what they propose—not the money; it is on the validity of the schemes that they will be proposing that the bids will be judged.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: The noble and learned Lord has given us some reassurance but it is not enough. Perhaps he would look again at Clause 5(2) (d), which he will find on page 5 of the Bill. It is the amendment to the Prison Act 1952. It describes the secure training centres and goes on to say that they are places where offenders:
"may be detained and given training and education and prepared for their release".
Perhaps the wording could read:
"may be detained and must be given training and education and prepared for their release".
That may be a provision to which one could point as being required to be done. If "may" governs the giving of "training and education", they are still optional.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: With her usual perspicacity the noble Baroness has made a close point on the drafting. The point that I seek to make is that it is an empowering section. It says that these offenders "may be detained" but I read that as indicating that the detention is for the purposes of giving them training and education and preparing them for their release. In the light of the noble Baroness's point, I am quite happy to look at the matter and examine whether it may be made more explicit. But that is undoubtedly the point that is involved.
Baroness Seear: I am sure that it is intended—or rather, I accept that it is intended—but that is not clear as the passage reads. We are still very much concerned with getting the words right, even though, as we have been told, debates in this Chamber and speeches reported in Hansard are taken into account. It would be appreciated if the wording of that paragraph could be strengthened and the provision made into an obligation so that we could point to it and say that they "must" be given education and training.
Baroness David: It is the only occasion on which education is mentioned in the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With regard to the specification, the noble and learned Lord told the Committee that the Standing Committee of the other place had the opportunity of seeing the early draft of the specification. He said very helpfully that we would have a copy of the new specification before Report stage. It is a point of some importance. Will that be the final specification or is it yet another draft? It would be helpful if he could clear up that point.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That is in some ways a two-edged question. If I were to say that it was a final draft, then what I said about taking into account the observations of this Chamber on that draft might seem to have been falsely said. I can say that it will be the latest draft, the one which is as up-to-date as we can make it. If the Committee has any other comments to make on it which lead to those concerned with the

93
matter thinking that there should be amendments, then I have no doubt that there will be amendments. But the specification may be changed in the light of experience in the running of the centres. It may be found that not everything in the specification is exactly as it should be. It may be open to improvement. Therefore, it cannot be said that it will never be changed. There will be the possibility of amending it and, we hope, improving it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: As I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the specification will be a pre-contractual document. It will be an invitation for a tender which may or may not lead to a contract. He indicates that it will include standards which are to be achieved by the successful contractor in, say, such areas as education and training. Could he confirm that that is so?
Secondly, I seek clarification of the answer that the noble and learned Lord gave to my previous question. It may be my fault that I have to ask the question again. Did he intend to indicate that under the Prison Act 1952 there will be rules specific to secure training centres, that they are yet to come and that they will cover, among other things, standards in education and training? Are such draft rules, therefore—if such are intended—not much more important to our deliberations even than the specification which he promised that we should have sight of?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As the noble Lord will see, the purpose of Clause 6 is to enable rules for these new "creatures" to be made under the 1952 Act. If one did not have such an amendment, it would not be possible to make such rules. The rules will include the kinds of matters that I have already mentioned.
At the end of the day it is important for the Committee to consider what it is that we shall be asking the people who are tendering for the centres to provide. The Committee needs to know what are the specific matters the people who are contracting to run the centres will have to provide; for instance, the kind of accommodation, training and education.
Inevitably, a specification of that kind will be more detailed than a mere setting of standards. The Committee may find that most helpful. I am not able to say whether or not there is in existence at the moment a draft of any rules which will be made under the power in Clause 6; but from the point of view of considering the matter, what will be most helpful to the Committee is seeing what it is that the Government will require of the people who are to run these centres.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: But is it not the rules which will provide authoritatively the standards which the contractors must achieve? If so, are not the rules the primary document and the specification merely giving effect to them?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The rules, which will incorporate standards, will set the general standards to be met. But when one wants to find out how that will be worked through into practice and what we will actually require, the specification will be the important
94
document. That will be closer to the people who will be providing and it will be that document which will be made available to your Lordships.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. However, I take the point just made that the specification flows from the rules. It is no good being unhappy with the specification if its shortcomings flow from an inadequacy in the rules. Therefore, I hope that we shall have sight of the rules in draft before we have sight of the specification in draft.
The situation seems to be analogous with occasions in other criminal justice Bills where the Secretary of State has been empowered to bring into force codes of conduct and your Lordships have requested and the Government have acceded, sometimes not too willingly, to publish in draft codes of practice before the Bill is enacted. I do not want to make difficulties. My noble and learned friend is now aware of all my concerns and my determination to do something more concrete about it at Report stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask a question of his noble and learned friend. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a suggestion with regard to the draft rules and asked whether we can see them. It will obviously be a highly developed document. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether or not we shall be able to do so?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not have the information as to whether or not they are available at the present time and therefore I cannot undertake that your Lordships will see them before Report stage. However, I have taken on board the points made about the Committee's desire to see the specific rules and I shall raise that matter and write to your Lordships accordingly. I have taken on board also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, regarding the specification in the clause to which she referred.
I am now informed that, in fact, it is not envisaged that the rules will be drafted before Royal Assent on the Bill. It does not appear, therefore, that we shall have the rules before that stage.
Lord Elton: If I heard my noble and learned friend right, he said, most disappointingly, that the rules will not be available until after Royal Assent. I regret to hear that. It colours the mood in which I shall return to this matter on Report.
I have almost sat down so often before that I am hardly expecting to sit down now, but before I do so I shall add a gloss to something I said earlier. I referred to Leon Brittan and his undertaking to empty police cells. I did not say that I was the Minister for Prisons at that time and therefore shared the blame for the undertaking and failure to make it stick, but it is a good example of what can happen.
I am grateful to your Lordships and particularly to my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Contracting out of secure training centres]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 37, leave out from ("While") to end of line and insert ("a contract for the running of a secure training centre or part of a secure training centre is in force the centre or part").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which clarifies the reference to a contract which is made under subsection (2) of the clause as being a contract for the running of a secure training centre or part of a secure training centre as opposed to the provision of a centre. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: Clause 7 enables the Secretary of State to contract out the provision and running of the proposed secure training centres. The clause simply refers, in line 33 on page 6 of the Bill, to "another person", but in practice no reputable child care charity has formally indicated an interest in running the centres. In practice, therefore, the clause implies the contracting out of secure training centres to private, profit-making companies.
We know that the running costs of the five secure training centres will be in the region of £30 million per annum. Despite the fact that Clause 7 has yet to be considered by this House, invitations to the private sector to tender were issued in April. That is confirmed by a Written Answer on 21st April in another place (at cols. 636 to 637 of the Official Report). The contracts themselves, as for private prisons, will be secret, reducing the level of public accountability to an unacceptable degree. Speaking in Committee in another place, David Maclean said he was willing to put cost per head information in the public domain but, and I quote him:
"I shall not publish detailed contractual information".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 25/1/94; col. 239.]
Contracting out to the private sector flies in the face of a recommendation made only last July by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in its report (Paper 441) on juvenile offenders. While noting the Government's view that contractual arrangements can result in high standards, the committee also referred to concerns,
"that private sector providers of secure training order centres may be more interested in profits than in the welfare of inmates".
The committee continued (in paragraph 158 of its report):
"There have been some well documented difficulties with the introduction of the private sector into the erstwhile work of the prison service… we recommend that the Home Office learn from the lessons of private sector involvement in the prison service before granting any contracts to the private sector to run centres where secure training orders will be served".
It is not possible to argue that the Home Office has learnt all it needs to know about private sector involvement in the prison service in the intervening nine months. There are two private prisons currently in operation. The Wolds, run by Group 4, has been operating for just over two years. Blakenhurst, run by United Kingdom Detention Services, has been operating for just over one. Similarly, Group 4's escort contract
96
for the East Midlands and Humberside has been running for only 13 months during which time one prisoner, Mr. Ernest Hogg, has died in Group 4 custody, an incident without precedent. I believe that this weekend another prisoner was in danger of death. The inquest verdict was that lack of care had contributed to Mr. Hogg's death. Neither of the two prisons holds young offenders and Blakenhurst has yet to be visited by Judge Tumim, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
The judge's report on the Wolds painted a mixed picture. Staff/prisoner relationships were generally good, as were the physical conditions, which is not altogether surprising because it is a new prison, and the time prisoners spent out of their cells. However, the judge found significant drug use among prisoners, criticised the "corrupting lethargy" of the regime, and argued that it was impossible to say whether the gaol offered value for money.
Less has been written about Blakenhurst, but it is understood that the number of assaults on staff has been running at several times the rate of that in state-run prisons. In fact, we were told at the all-party penal group last Wednesday that assaults on staff and, indeed, on other inmates have increased over the last year or so. Following a disturbance at Blakenhurst in February 1994, the people running that prison incurred a penalty payment although neither the report on the disturbance nor the amount of the financial remedy has been made public.
The contracting-out of secure training centres would also be a further retreat on the Government's own commitment to treat privatisation as an experiment. Only three years ago, the then Minister for prisons said:
"If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the prison service".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/91; col. 720.]
Leaving aside the issue of principle and the uncertain record of the private sector to date, there are important additional reasons why the privatisation of secure training centres should be opposed. Running any prison is a specialist task. Running custodial institutions for children—many of them far from home and in some cases aged as young as 12—will represent an enormous challenge. Yet no private company can demonstrate any experience in this field. As the Minister of State, David Maclean, claimed during the Commons Committee stage of the Bill, there is no real private sector provision of training or remand centres at present. That was said on 25th January this year.
The consequence of contracting out to the private sector would be a frightening social experiment on already vulnerable and damaged children. Furthermore, the central element in private sector thinking on prisons has been reduction of the number of staff. Applying that concept to secure training centres will be to run great risks. Bullying is likely to increase and there must be severe doubts about both the degree of individual care and attention that the children will receive and about the viability of the proposed regimes. There is also a danger that the staff will be isolated from mainstream child care, increasing the risk of bad practice.
In summary, privatisation is in its infancy. It has not yet been tested sufficiently to meet the objections of the

97
Select Committee on Home Affairs which considered the contracting out of secure training centres. No private company has prior experience of running secure facilities for children. Any inclination to pare staffing levels presents serious worries about care for children and their treatment and development while held in the centres. The care of young people with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties is not a fit subject for competition and market forces. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should like the Minister to clarify one point. What kind of parliamentary control will we have over the privatised institutions? The experience of the past is that once an institution of this kind has been privatised, it is very much more difficult to ask in either House of Parliament the awkward questions which need to be asked.
I give the example of TECs. Whenever I have tried to raise a question about the operating practices of the TECs, I have been told that it is now entirely the affair of the TECs. There is no way of raising issues which, in the view of many of us, need to be raised. That is bad enough in connection with the training and education carried out by the TECs. When it comes to the very sensitive area of special units and the training and education of difficult youngsters, surely it is essential that the opportunity for parliamentary inquiry and probing should be there. Will it be there or not?
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may ask a question because there seems to be some administrative confusion. As I understand it, the Department of Health will be responsible for inspecting the centres. What arrangements have been reached between the Department of Health and the Home Office about the setting up of the centres, given that the Department of Health is to be responsible? If the Department of Health inspectorate finds that things are going wrong, to whom does it report? Does it report to the Department of Health or the Home Office? Will they be Home Office penal institutions or will they be children's homes under the children's homes regulations? I am sorry, I am not clear about that, and the situation is not made clear anywhere.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has put her finger on what is one of the most fundamental problems of contracting out. She has pointed out that the regime—to use again the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but in a rather different sense—under which the secure training centres will operate, is partly health, partly education and partly the Prison Service under the Home Office. It is the Home Office which is apparently putting up the specifications. This applies not just to the responsibility of Ministers, it applies to the skills required within those institutions themselves. There must be skills in guarding children (in keeping them there)—in other words, in security; skills in education; skills in training, if that is something different from education, and we still do not have that clear; skills in social work which may extend beyond the time during which the children are in detention into the aftercare period, as we have heard in earlier debates.
98
All those factors require a huge range of different skills which come from different qualification regimes and different government departments. It is almost impossible to imagine how a specification can be issued which provides for the range of skills and qualifications necessary in such organisations.
The fact, as we learnt on the previous amendment, that we shall not see the rules themselves which contain the kernel of the matter—it is not the inspection that matters, it is the rules that matter—before Royal Assent, increases our concern greatly when we look at the privatisation proposals.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to rise again on this question, but under the Children Act 1989 children's homes are inspected by the inspectorate of the Department of Health. Certain rules are laid down. Perhaps I may draw attention to one rule which is a difficult rule and one which will probably be altered: if a child accuses a member of staff of sexually abusing him in any way, that member of staff must be suspended, according to the Children Act 1989. If the Department of Health is inspecting, it will think of administering that rule. But is that the Home Office rule? Will the Home Office administer that rule? If the member of staff is suspended and there are not enough staff to run that home, who will be responsible? Who will be responsible if things go wrong? Will it be the Home Office or the Department of Health? If it is the Home Office, it will not have inspected the home. That point needs to be clarified.
Lord Renton: This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss in detail the suggestion by the Government, embodied in this clause and implied in nearby clauses, as to the part to be played by private enterprise in running these new homes. We are breaking entirely new ground here. As I said earlier, I am in favour of Clause 1 and the clauses that go with it I am also in favour of private enterprise, but I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about private enterprise being used in these new circumstances.
So far as I know, except where voluntary societies have been used to run children's homes, private enterprise has never before been suggested or used in this country to deal with delinquency of any kind. I may be wrong about that, but I do not recollect any instances.
We need to be told a great deal more than we know about the intentions of the Home Secretary. We should gather what we can from the Bill. In answer to one of the points made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the first point is that the Home Secretary will retain constitutional responsibility for what goes on in these homes—
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may intervene. Let us suppose that the Home Office disagrees with the Department of Health. They have completely different roles. Under the Children Act 1989 a voluntary home is inspected by the Department of Health according to children's homes regulations. If the Department of

99
Health inspects the premises, does not agree with what is being done under the Children Act 1989 and reports that to the Home Office, who takes precedence?
Lord Renton: That is a bit of a diversion from what I was attempting to impress on the Committee. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to answer my noble friend. Alas, it is not uncommon for government departments to disagree and for Ministers at the head of them to disagree. When that happens, the matter has to be taken to the Cabinet, or to a committee of the Cabinet, and resolved one way or the other. The Cabinet should then show its usual collective responsibility and it almost always does so.
Perhaps I may return to the theme that I was trying briefly to put before the Committee. According to the Bill and what the Government have expressed, we know that the Home Secretary is to be the responsible Minister. He may have to obtain the co-operation of others but he is the one ultimately responsible to Parliament for the running of these homes. The responsibilities placed upon him, and the powers that he needs in order to exercise those responsibilities, are contained partly in this Bill and partly in the Prison Act 1952, which the Bill amplifies in order to enable that to be done. I wonder about the personnel problem. How are the people to whom that responsibility is to be contracted out to be found?
There is no problem about the word "provision", which appears in the second line of Clause 7. The provision of the centres means the building or the leasing of them. I find no difficulty in that respect. Most prisons are built by private enterprise, sometimes with the help of government architects, but they are run by prison officers under the Home Office.
The situation will be different in this case. One hopes that there will be a sophisticated, select body of carefully chosen people who are not as yet in the government service and will not be in the government service for the purpose of this contracting. We should be told what the Government have in mind as regards the choice and, if necessary, the training of the people who will carry this difficult responsibility.
I could go on but I hope that I have said enough to indicate that all Members of the Committee will wish my noble friend Lord Ferrers to give a clear indication of what the Government have in mind in enabling private enterprise, which is in itself a good thing, to help the Home Secretary to carry out this responsibility.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I asked the Minister whether there would be boards of visitors because young offenders' institutions and prisons have such boards. He said, "No, but there will be visitors". Who will those visitors be and to whom will they be responsible? Boards of visitors are independent bodies appointed by the Home Secretary for the good of the inmates of an institution. They are independent and have direct access to the Home Secretary. Who will those visitors be officially responsible to and will they write a yearly report?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has been shown to be quite right to question both the wisdom and propriety of contracting out this major new experiment in child custody.
Clearly the Government have been thinking about this for quite a long period of months; since at least last September, if not longer. Therefore, what will happen if all the proposed contractors gang up together and say, "We are very sorry but we cannot provide education in this new system"? What will happen if they say, "We think that we shall have to sub-contract it out to yet a third party down the line"?
In connection with sub-contracting, I hope that the Government have already begun to learn from the not very satisfactory experience of the Campsfield detention centre near Oxford which takes detainees under the immigration Acts. There, the medical services have been sub-contracted out by Group 4 Total Security Ltd. Regrettably, when a hunger strike occurred in that institution, the results were far from satisfactory. Therefore, the whole matter needs further thought.
Lord Elton: I share the grave doubts of my noble friend Lord Renton about the wisdom of embarking upon the privatisation of the prison service, the education service or the health service, whichever it may be. Like my noble friend, I should like to hear a good deal more from the Minister about what steps are to be taken to allay the anxieties of the Committee, which are rightly aroused by the prospect of the incarceration of young children for profit. I recognise that public schools are also run for profit but the parents of a child at public school can remove him; and there are holidays. This is totally different.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say that we had not been told what the training would be. I thought that I must have missed that. After all, training will account for about 80 per cent. of what is done at one of these institutions: 25 per cent. is to be spent on education, a proportion will be spent sleeping, and I assume that the rest of the time will be spent on training. Can my noble friend tell us what that training will consist of or tell us when we shall be told that? At present it is difficult to be told that we should authorise these institutions; that they will be run on certain lines; that they will be administered by certain people; and that there are certain purposes. Yet we are not told what is to be done there, and to be told that would be extremely helpful.
Earl Ferrers: The Government wish to ensure that the secure training units are run as efficiently as possible. We believe that the private sector has a crucial role to play in that. I know that there are Members of the Committee who believe that such facilities should be provided by the public sector alone, either through central or local government. I do not follow that argument.
For many years in this Chamber I have listened to debates on prisons in which there have been complaints on how badly run, inadequate and inappropriate they are. There are complaints about how the food is bad and

101
about how slopping out is awful. I am asked why standards are not raised. When we then decide to change the system and bring in new ideas for contracting out some of the services in order to see whether the job can be done better by other people, everyone turns round and tells us that we should not do that because the firms will be making a profit. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to private profit-making companies as though there was something disparaging about that. Of course, if services are contracted out, the companies providing those services make a profit. They will not provide the services at a loss or for public benefit. They have to make a profit.
My noble friend Lord Elton surprised me—and not for the first time this evening—by also suggesting that it was running for profit. The fact is that either the state does it at a cost or the private sector does it at a cost. There is nothing wrong in inviting the private sector to see whether it can provide similar or better facilities, preferably at a cheaper cost. If it is a cheaper cost to the taxpayer, I cannot see what on earth anyone is complaining about. I have never understood what it is that is so particular about civil servants that they alone should be allowed to look after prisoners and take care of the education provision.
If such places are put out to contractors, they will have to show what they intend to do. They will have a specification. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained earlier, that specification will be laid in the Library of this place so that everyone will be able to see what we expect the contractors to do. The contractors will then say what they propose to do and how they propose to do it. Of course, it will mean that some matters such as health care will have to be, as the jargon says, bought in. There is nothing peculiar about that. If the Government and the Home Office set up a secure training unit, the civil servants and the Home Office do not provide the care; it has to come from elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that people will have to be skilled as regards keeping people in, skilled in education and skilled in organising people. That is perfectly true. However, that is not a prerogative solely of civil servants. I believe that it is quite right that we should ask the private sector to see whether and how it can play a part in the process.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that he believes that this is the first time the private sector has been used in dealing with delinquents. I daresay that he is quite right. Indeed, only a short while ago it was the first time that the private sector had been involved in prisons and in the process of transferring people in custody, and so on. Those are major changes. I do not deny that fact. But having had criticism of standards in the past, it is only right that we should see whether there are others who can bring in some ideas and some fresh thought.
Secure training centres are totally new institutions. We want to encourage new providers with new ideas who will be able to meet the high standards of education and training which are required. For example, the training will cover the tackling of offending behaviour; vocational training; social skills; anger management, and so on. There will be no set time allocated for training, but it will be an element of the individual
102
training plan of each offender. The contractors will have to satisfy my right honourable friend that the staff have the skills, the training and the experience successfully to operate the centre to the required standards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was concerned about visitors. Clause 6(3) allows the appointment of independent persons to visit centres, hear representa-tions and to report to my right honourable friend who may publish the report. For example, the visitors could be representatives of children's charities or local people of standing. However, no persons have as yet been chosen.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about inspectors. The Department of Health inspectors will report to my right honourable friend. The centres will not be registered children's homes and the specifications will be in the spirit of the Children Act. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am much obliged. Can the Minister tell us to which right honourable friend he is referring?
Earl Ferrers: I was referring to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked what would happen if the inspectors complain to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend does not accept their complaint. My noble friend Lord Renton is quite right. People sometimes take differing views within departments. That does not occur very often but it has been known to occur in the past. But the fact is that, if an inspector complains to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that something in an establishment for which he is responsible is not operating correctly, the buck stops with my right honourable friend. It is his responsibility and he has to take such action as is necessary.
The inspection will take place under the rules which are made by the Home Secretary in Clause 6. The rules will specify the persons to do the inspection. They will be from the Department of Health Inspectorate but they will be accountable to the Home Office alone for this purpose. I believe that that answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she asked who would be responsible for this matter. In fact Ministers will be responsible. Of course the building and the running of the centres will be contracted out, but those operations will be contracted out according to the specifications put out by the Home Office and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be responsible for that.
The provision of secure training centres will be undertaken by a process of competitive tendering. As part of that process potential providers will be assessed as much on the quality of the regime which they propose to offer as on the cost. Their proposals will have to satisfy the requirements of the specifications for the design, the building and the operation of a secure training centre and they will have to comply with standards which will be set out in the contract.
Baroness Seear: The Minister implied that he had answered my question but I am afraid that he has not. I gave the example of the TECs. I have again and again tried to ask questions arising from the operation of the TECs. I have always been told that, because that is now contracted out from the department, there is no way that they can be controlled and I cannot obtain an answer to any question I may ask about what goes on inside the TECs.
Obviously Parliament will be very concerned—I suggest that it will be more concerned than about TECs —about an institution of this kind which is to deal with the youngsters that we are discussing. Many people will want to ask questions about what will happen. Are we to receive the stonewalling answers that we have been given as regards TECs; namely, that this matter is no longer the concern of the Government and that it is the concern of the private enterprise sector which has taken on the work? Can we in this Chamber and in another place probe to find out in detail how these highly controversial institutions will work once they have been set up? We do not wish to receive just a bland reply from the Secretary of State.
Earl Ferrers: I am disturbed if I did not reply to the noble Baroness to her satisfaction, as I had hoped I had done. Of course I understand the problem, although I am not too familiar with the problem as regards TECs to which the noble Baroness referred. I believe a similar difficulty could arise in regard to the prison service when the noble Baroness, or very often her noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, writes to the Government to ask what is happening in the Prison Service. The answer they receive is that this matter has been devolved to the Director General of the Prison Service. That is done for simplicity and ease of operation and for simplicity of work. In the end the Home Secretary is responsible. The Home Secretary will be responsible for what goes on in these premises.
I believe I am right in saying—if I am wrong I shall let the noble Baroness know—that if she wants to know what is happening in these centres, she will have the right to ask the Home Secretary about that and to obtain a reply from him. I cannot guarantee that he will not suggest that for ease of operation the responsibility of answering the letter may fall to someone who is more directly involved in the matter, but the responsibility is that of my right honourable friend.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was worried about standards. The standards in these places will be safeguarded by a monitor. The monitor is, oddly enough, not a prefect, as some Members of the Committee might have imagined from their schooldays. The monitor will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The monitor will oversee the running of a secure training centre and it is he who will make sure that the terms of the contract are properly met. If a provider fails to satisfy the terms of his contract financial remedies can be applied. The centres will also be subject to rigorous inspections. As I have explained, those will be undertaken by the Social Services Inspectorate and by the Office for Standards in Education.
104
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained, the operating specification for a secure training centre will shortly be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. That will help to clarify and confirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that the centres will provide high standards of education and training in a safe and secure environment.
I believe that the involvement of the private sector offers substantial advantages both to the Government and to the taxpayer. The capital for the new centres is being provided under the Government's private finance initiative and thus will be found entirely by the private sector and by the provider. If this clause were to fall it would prevent any possible private financial involve-ment and would place the capital burden entirely on the Government. That would inevitably result in cutbacks having to be made in other important areas.
Who provides the people, whether they are the trainers, the carers, the cleaners or anyone else involved in the establishment, is relatively immaterial. What is important is what is expected of the establishment and the specification in the contract. That is a public responsibility, and those are standards which will be met by my department, which will be monitored by my department and for which my department will be responsible. To ensure that that happens there will be a monitor in the secure training centre who will be a person appointed by my department.
I should add that if Clause 7 were to be lost it would result in Clauses 8 and 10 also falling. I therefore hope that the Committee will consider that we would be well advised to keep Clause 7 in the Bill.
10 p.m.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask a question before the noble Earl sits down. What will be the situation if nobody offers to build and run these institutions? Is the Minister confident that there will be offers?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness has a vivid imagination. If nobody offers, then these places will not be built. But I have no reason to think that that will happen.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Is the noble Earl correct? He says that these secure training centres will be built only if sub-contractors offer to contract for them success-fully. Is that correct? Is the noble Earl correct in saying that the Secretary of State will not go ahead himself? Are we to understand that it is only if there exists in the private sector the accumulation of skills and expertise that is required to make it feasible for these institutions to be run by the private sector that these institutions should even, literally, get on the ground?
Earl Ferrers: I intended to indicate that if nobody applied to be a contractor and nobody offered to tender then obviously the private sector would not build or run the premises. That would then be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. As I tried to explain, if that were to happen that would be an additional burden upon the Government and other priorities would be affected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is curious social policy. We have been told that these secure training centres are absolutely essential as a matter of social policy and that the whole of our penal system requires that we should be putting these children away in a sub-prison regime. Suddenly we are told that it is nothing to do with social policy at all; it is only a question of whether there are suitable sub-contractors in the private sector which will determine whether they are built. I think that the Minister will regret his recent answers.
Earl Ferrers: I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will regret his recent summary. I have never heard such an obtuse summary of the whole issue. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we believe that secure training centres are correct. He knows perfectly well that we believe that the right way to do that is by getting the private sector to participate. That is what the whole of this clause is about.
If the private sector does not wish to participate, for whatever reason, then the burden falls upon the Home Secretary and the Government, and then other priorities will have to go. That is why we want to invite the private sector to participate. I do not see anything complicated about that whatsoever.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may perhaps have made my task a little more difficult. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that I surprised him by talking about the containment of children for profit as though that were different from the containment of children for other purposes. I hope that he will not react to that observation with the same ire with which he reacted to the more provocative statement of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whom I did not wish to tempt to his feet.
My noble friend will accept—will he not?—that the motive of a government department, or government officials such as prison governors, is to fulfil their obligations within a budget which is inelastic. The objective of a charity is to deliver its charitable service to the best possible level within a budget which is inelastic. The objective of a company in the private sector is to deliver a contracted service for a profit. That is an elastic term and therefore allows more freedom of choice and restriction of delivery of service than the other two methods.
A number of us are deeply concerned that there should be some transparency about what is going on inside the institution. It is not that we are inimical to the proposal. I believe that there is much that may benefit young people if the system is properly undertaken. We need to assure ourselves on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, addressed one issue: can Parliament ask questions? I shall look to see whether my noble friend gives any more information in writing before deciding whether the answer given is satisfactory. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was told that there was to be no board of visitors but that there would be appointed visitors. That raises another question. If a child does not have caring parents who discover how he or she is being mistreated in one of these institutions, what recourse does that child have?
106
We do not talk about a mature young offender, a prisoner with a solicitor who will understand the position, or an old lag who knows the system. We refer to a frightened child of 12. What recourse will that frightened child of 12 have? No matter how many cars he has done or how many burglaries he has committed, he is still a kid of 12 standing not much higher than the Dispatch Box. How will those outside be able to satisfy themselves whether some action needs to be taken? I ask noble Lords to think of a grandchild of 12 who has gone severely off the rails. If my noble friend does so, he will be able to say whether the arrangements are satisfactory and therefore capable of reassuring the anxious grandparent not only that the child is being properly treated but that if he is not being properly treated someone with authority will know and will do something about it. No matter how desperate the annoyance such children may cause, they are not the enemy. They are the people from whom we seek to save society. We also seek to save them from themselves.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may follow my noble friend.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I always defer to the noble Lord. However, I wish to follow the precise point put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He has given a good example of how the arrangements set out in the clause are unsatisfactory. I find it difficult to understand why we are not to have a board of visitors. All other penal establishments have a board of visitors. These will be the only establishments responsible to the Home Secretary which will not have such a board. Yet they will deal with the most vulnerable people who are held in custody in this country.
First, as we well know, there have been a number of scandals involving children who have been in community care of one kind or another. There have been cases in the criminal courts where people who have been responsible for the care of children have been convicted and sentenced to long periods of imprisonment. That being so, it seems to me even more necessary to have the formal arrangement of a board of visitors, with an obligation on individual members of the board to pay regular visits to the establishment. I find it most unsatisfactory that we are apparently to have some far more informal arrangement where people will be appointed as visitors, but there will not be the formal machinery of a board of visitors.
Secondly, I have a good regard for the integrity of the inspectors from the Department of Health. I am sure that they will do their job with integrity, but I seriously question the desirability, again for the first time, of having penal establishments—and that is what they are —which will not be subject to any form of examination by the chief inspector of prisons. He is known for his independence of the Executive, but that cannot be true of Department of Health officials, however honourable they may be. There may be a risk. I make no reflection on Mr. Howard, but let us talk about the future Let us suppose the officials produce a report which the Home Office does not like. I wonder whether that report will be published in its original form or whether there will be direct or subtle pressure put upon those who have

107
drafted the report to change it, in the interests of the Home Secretary of the future who may be embarrassed about its contents. I hope that we will receive clear answers to those questions.
Finally, I wish to ask one question of the noble Earl on the contract for the establishments. I do not propose to become involved in the privatisation argument. We have had it on many occasions in the past over prisons and I prefer not to ask questions dealing with that issue of principle at this stage. The question I wish to ask is this: what will be the period of the contract? My understanding is that it will be some time before the establishments are open. They still have to be constructed. There will be the tendering process. People have to be chosen, appointed and staff have to be recruited and trained. So far as I can see, most of them will have no direct knowledge of child care or anything similar. When will the first establishment be opened? What will be the period of the contract? A successor government may well take a different view about the establishments from the present Government. The question therefore, is: how much will the present Government bind their successors by the terms and length of the contract which is presumably in the process of being negotiated or will soon be negotiated? I should be grateful for an answer.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will agree that this has been a valuable discussion on a most important new matter. As one who expressed doubts about the Government's proposal to use private enterprise, I was greatly reassured by what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said. It comes to this. The Home Secretary will remain responsible for everything that the people do to whom he contracts. He will be responsible to Parliament. There is no question of quangos being set up or anything like that.
However, my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have raised an important point as to what protection there will be in those cases where things go wrong. We hope that such cases will be rare; even more rare than they have been under the present system for the custody of young offenders.
Corporal punishment may, of course, legitimately be used in these places. We have not been told. I do not suppose that a decision has yet been made about that. But that is the sort of thing that we need to be wary about. There must, of course, be something analogous with visitors—a board of visitors, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, making regular visits. That is not unreasonable. I should very much like to know from my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether something like that is intended.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I have been asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to provide noble Lords with answers. My noble friend Lord Elton started off on a rather philosophical treatise of economics about the elasticity and inelasticity of demand and of profit making. He said that some organisations had to fix a budget to work to in the public sector; in the private
108
sector, of course, that was a question of running to a profit. I do not think that one can make these strict and simple comparisons.
The fact is that the public sector does not have to make a profit because that is not the way that the public sector is funded. The private sector, of course, has to make a profit. What is important is whether the item that is delivered, whether by the private or the public sector, is provided at an economic price. We have to consider whether that which is delivered by the private sector in this case will be better than, and possibly cheaper than, that which would be provided by the public sector.
My noble friend asked how we could reassure anxious people that a frightened child of 12 will be properly looked after. We would all like to ensure that a frightened child of 12 will be able to explain to somebody that he has been badly treated. But my noble friend may well remember when he was a child of 12. I dare say he remembers that there were facilities for making complaints at the establishment which he attended but that perhaps he did not find it all that easy to make them. AH that we can do is to provide the facilities by which the complaints can be made. There are facilities. There will be a grievance procedure which will be agreed with the Home Office, as well as that of independent visitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, in chasing the point of my noble friend Lord Elton, that, after all, there has been criminal misbehaviour in public institutions. The noble Lord is perfectly right. But I have no doubt that in those public institutions there were facilities for complaints. The fact that those facilities were not used is not a condemnation of the arrangement of the facilities so much as a condemnation of the way in which the organisations were run. The fact is, whether it be in a public institution or a privately financed institution, there are opportunities for things to go wrong.
What we have to do is ensure that sufficient regimes are put in place so that when things do go wrong people can complain. Whether or not they complain is a matter for them. They will be able to complain by this grievance procedure. There will be visitors. As I explained, Clause 6 allows the appointment of independent people to visit the centres, to hear representations and to report to the Home Secretary, who can publish the report. As I said, the visitors could possibly be local people of standing, from children's charities, and so forth; but no people have been chosen.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked why we cannot have somebody like Judge Tumim, who is a very renowned Chief Inspector of Prisons, and why there is no board of visitors. The simple answer is—and we heard this very early on this afternoon when my noble friend Lady Faithfull described these centres as mini-prisons—that they are not mini-prisons. They are not prisons, and that is why we are not having the equivalent of a chief inspector of prisons. No board of visitors is being considered because they are not prison establishments.
The secure training centre is much more like a children's home than a prison. The children's home has independent visitors. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of

109
Greenwich, asked when the first establishment will open and what is the length of contract. I cannot answer either of those questions. One does not know when the first building will be opened until tenders have been issued, the final tender chosen and the contracts placed. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer.
But the inspection of the premises will be by the Department of Health inspectors rather than the Inspectorate of Prisons because the secure training order does not concern prisons. It means another form of accommodation for children similar to a children's home.
I hope that I have managed to answer most of the questions. I was lucky enough to have persuaded my noble friend Lord Renton so that he now feels that the case is excellent. I hope that the Committee will have followed my noble friend's judgment and will agree that these proposals are quite acceptable and proper.
Lord Elton: My noble friend speaks of "visitors" and "inspectors". Can he tell me whether they are the same people mentioned in Clause 6(3) or whether, as my noble friend Lord Renton suggests, they are quite different people?
Earl Ferrers: I thought that I had made perfectly clear that they were different. The visitors could be individual people. They could be charities. But the inspection will be carried out by Department of Health inspectors, who are totally different.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether I could return to the point made by the noble Earl a few moments ago. He said that these places were not prisons; he said that they were children's homes. I suppose that that is one way of putting the argument. However, when we receive a reply to a question put to the Home Secretary in this Chamber, we shall receive a Written Answer from the Director-General of the Prison Service. Of course we shall. The noble Earl must not express amazement, shock or horror—or anything of that sort. It is a fact.
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to infer surprise, shock or horror because I said that myself.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In that case I must have misread the expression of exquisite agony which crossed the noble Earl's face. The point is that it is the prison department which is responsible for these centres —homes or prisons, call them what you will. It is responsible. The Home Secretary is responsible because of his defined ministerial responsibility for prison department establishments. These centres are prison department establishments, sub-contracted to the private sector. Ministers will determine whether they are fulfilling the terms of their contracts.
I put this question to the noble Earl: why will they not be inspected by someone who is independent of the Executive, such as the Chief Inspector of Prisons? Officials at the Department of Health are not independent of the Executive. That is the issue which I raise. I make no allegation about their good faith, honesty or integrity. Moreover, I am not talking in relation to Mr. Howard, as I made clear earlier. I simply
110
put to the noble Earl that in future a Home Secretary who is faced with an unattractive report from Department of Health inspectors may well use the machinery of his department to try to get the Department of Health to tone down its remarks. That is a fact.
The noble Earl conceded earlier that there have been a number of scandalous situations arising in institutions of this kind. Therefore it is particularly important that we should guarantee, in so far as we can, that improprieties of that sort do not take place. The noble Earl said that there will be a grievance procedure. But we are not talking about adults who know how to go to the ombudsman or whatever. We are talking about 12 year-old children. They are people who may be very frightened. There may be a suggestion that they have been sexually abused. They may indeed have been sexually abused. They will not know what to do. They will be so fearful that they will not know who to speak to about a situation of that sort.
The noble Earl cannot say that we are talking alarmist nonsense. As we know from the number of people who have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, just that sort of conduct has been experienced in some children's homes in this country. I must confess that what makes me deeply uneasy is that someone with the independence from the Executive, Judge Tumim, is not being given some responsibility in these matters.
The noble Earl may merely repeat what he said earlier and say that these are no more nor less than children's homes. But, if so, why are they not the responsibility of the Department of Health rather than the Home Office? The Department of Health is responsible for children's homes, not the Home Office. Therefore, why is the Home Secretary insisting on maintaining his direct personal responsibility? If he does so insist on that personal responsibility and accountability to him, the noble Earl should not be surprised that we take more confidence from the fact that the one person who reports directly both to the Home Secretary and the public when he visits penal establishments —for that is what these places will be —will be responsible for inspections, albeit perhaps with some support from the Department of Health inspectors, rather than the unsatisfactory reporting arrangement outlined this evening.
Baroness David: The noble Earl must realise that the Committee is extremely uncertain about this clause. In fact, it dislikes it very much. The noble Earl was able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a little, but the rest of us are not at all happy with what he said. I admire the style with which he tries to answer us. But there are a great many anxieties in relation to independent inspections, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, and in relation to where the real responsibility will lie.
I shall not be so foolish as to divide the Committee at this time of the night, though I feel inclined to do so However, I shall restrain myself because I do not wish to be defeated. We shall certainly come back again at Report stage with a string of amendments to the clause.

111
The noble Earl must realise that there is great anxiety in the Committee from every Bench. I hope that he does realise that and will think again about the clause.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I may ask a number of questions in relation to Clause 8. First, I note that it contrasts a contracted-out secure training centre with a directly managed secure training centre. Will the noble Earl be good enough to confirm that the latter is one directly managed by the Secretary of State?
Secondly, and more importantly, the clause provides for each contracted-out secure training centre having a director and also a monitor. Will the director be a full-time employee of the contractor? With regard to the monitor, who is to be a Crown servant appointed by the Secretary of State, plainly he has the most important functions of reviewing and reporting to the Secretary of State on the running of the centre and investigating and reporting to the Secretary of State on allegations made against officers. Will that monitor be present on the ground? That is to say, will it be somebody who, in substance—albeit a Crown servant—will be a full-time employee of the Crown at the centre, without any functions as a Crown servant other than to monitor the secure training centre in question?
Thirdly, he has an important reporting function. Will his reports be published? Finally, in the context of the publishing of the reports, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, when dealing with Clause 6(3), indicated that the reports of the inspectors would be published. But, as I heard the noble Earl a little time ago, he was indicating that the reports may be published. My question in relation to the publishing of the reports is: will the monitors' reports be published; and a related question to Clause 6(3): will the inspectors' reports be published?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord raises an interesting question. I suspect that what lies behind it is an expectation that the monitor should be permanently in residence in the centre. But would he not then be in the position of a captain on a ship in the Napoleonic wars —at very close quarters with his crew but, not like the captain of a ship, with no authority over them? I just wonder whether the noble Lord has thought through the relationships that would develop within the institution. It seems to me that what is wanted is something half way between the occasional meteoric visitor and the permanent resident. That cannot perhaps be very easily expressed in legal language but I suspect that that is what is wanted.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend maligns the captains of ships in the Napoleonic wars. They were very much in command of their own ships. He is talking absolute rubbish.
Lord Elton: My noble friend misheard me. I said that, like the captains of the ships, they would be
112
constantly with the crew, but, unlike the captains of the ships, they would have no authority over the crew. The monitors will not have authority—
Lord Mottistone: We did not have monitors on our ships.
Lord Elton: I commend to my noble friend the columns of Hansard which he has missed. The monitors figure in the statute and they will be the commissars. To try to find an equivalent in naval terms that my noble friend will understand, it is like a Russian ship with a commissar on board; but, unlike under Russian law, the monitor will not be able to enforce.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, attributed more perceptiveness to me than I would claim in posing the questions that I asked about the extent of the function of the monitor. Whether he should be full-time on the ground or should occupy an intermediate position more consistent with his supervisory role is plainly an issue that merits serious consideration. I rose to ask these questions simply because it occurred to me that, before we agreed that Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill, we should have clear information on what the Government intend on that important subject.
Baroness Seear: I find this a most extraordinary organisation, if I have understood it aright; perhaps I have not. The picture I have is that there is a director who is responsible for running the show and there is also a monitor who sits there watching to see if the director goes wrong and then he will tell Dad about it. He will report to the Secretary of State. It will be a very strange relationship. What on earth will they be doing to each other? Either the monitor will be on good terms with the director, in which case he will not be any use at all in keeping the Secretary of State informed; or he will be on bad terms with the director, in which case the running of the organisation will not be all that smooth. I cannot understand what people think will happen in an organisation structured like that.
Earl Ferrers: This has been a most illuminating debate, I am sure. My noble friend Lord Elton ought to know that there is no point in starting to talk about captains of ships with my noble friend Lord Mottistone behind him. But when he starts mixing his metaphors and talking about this being like the captain of a Napoleonic ship with a commissar on board, I really find my powers of imagination have burst their limits.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked a perfectly reasonable question, and I shall do my best to answer it. Clause 8 provides for the officers of a contracted-out secure training centre. Each centre will have a director who will be an employee of the contractor whose responsibility it will be to run the place. Then there will be a monitor, who will be a full-time employee. He will be appointed by the Home Office, and he will not be on the premises all the time.
My noble friend Lord Elton said that if the monitor is on the premises all the time, the monitor and the director will get hugger-mugger together and therefore he will not be much of a monitor but if he is not on the

113
premises very often he will not know what is going on. Whereupon the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says that she cannot understand what is going on at all. Yet her noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich says, "Why can't we have somebody like Judge Stephen Tumim because he is a very penetrating person?" Well, he is not in prisons all the time. He comes down rather like a Sputnik from outer space, goes into the prison, decides what he thinks about it and makes a report. That appeals to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but not apparently the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who says that a person going in periodically will not know what is going on. All that I can try to explain to the noble Baroness is that the monitor will be the person who is responsible to the Home Office for seeing that the contract is correctly carried out. Running the show will be the director's responsibility, as an employee of the contractor.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked whether the monitor's report will be published. The answer is that the inspector's report will be published, but not the monitor's. I think I have replied to the questions I was asked - other, evidently, than something of which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is about to remind me.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I intervene only because the noble Earl was kind enough to mention my name and, not having spoken on this amendment, I am sure that he will be deeply disappointed if I do not respond to him. At this time of night, I do not want to disappoint him. Therefore, I speak.
I have had the advantage of seeing this system in operation. I saw it in the Wolds. I visited the Wolds a few months ago. I am not sure that the noble Earl has had that good fortune. I saw what went well and what, in my view, certainly did not go well. It is not my purpose this evening to go into the matter in any detail save to say that I understood precisely the role of the monitor, as I understand the role of the monitor at Blakenhurst. The noble Earl will be aware that at Blakenhurst the contractor has been fined by the Home Office as a result of a report, presumably from the monitor. Such are the principles of accountability we now have in this country that we are not even allowed to know how much the contractor was fined. So, although punitive action can be taken as a result of a report by a monitor, the fact of the matter is that Parliament is prevented from having the information which, in my view, it rightly should possess.
I come to the noble Earl's second point. I do not want to re-fight the issue of the last clause that we debated, but as the Minister he will realise there is no relationship whatever between the role of the monitor and the position of Judge Tumim. The fact is that Judge Tumim reports on each prison either on the basis of one of his standard visits in depth or as a result of one of his brief, unannounced visits. What I continue to find deeply unsatisfactory is that he will be prevented from looking as these establishments. I assure the noble Earl that we shall be spending many hours on this issue because of the degree of concern about it that is held by many noble Lords of all parties. I hope that between now and Report stage he will review this matter.
114
I am well aware of the sensitivities, because of course we are discussing this issue with only a Home Office Minister present. There is no one here from the Department of Health, although it has clearly defined responsibilities through its inspectorate. I can imagine the arguments on this issue which clearly took place between the Home Office and the Department of Health.
The more one looks at this system, the more uncomfortable one becomes. This is not the issue of the secure establishments that we debated for several hours this afternoon. We are talking now about the system. we wish to know whether the truth will emerge clearly to the public as a whole if things go wrong. At the moment I am not persuaded that that information will become available publicly. That is what worries me and, I suspect, people in other parts of this place. I hope that between now and Report stage the Minister will look at this issue with his colleagues from the Department of Health.
We are not discussing major issues of principle; we are discussing the implementation of the new system and trying to ensure that if things go wrong the searchlight of publicity will be directed immediately onto that situation.
Earl Ferrers: Had I realised that merely by referring to him the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would have made a speech of not inconsiderable length, putting me on the spot, I would perhaps not have referred to him. Of course I shall take what he has said into account between now and the next stages of the Bill.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Powers and duties of custody officers employed at contracted out secure training centres]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) When exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) (b) above the custody officer shall have regard to items of clothing etc. worn in respect of religious beliefs.")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It is not one of great principle, although it arises out of what happened in another place. Clause 9(1) (b) gives authority to a custody officer to search another person. Subsection (2) states:
'The powers conferred by subsection (1) (b) above to search a person shall not be construed as authorising a custody officer to require a person to remove any of his clothing other than an outer coat, headgear, jacket or gloves".
Headgear in the form of a hat was added in Committee in another place. The point was made by Mr. Peter Butler that a knitted woolly hat was a most convenient place in which to hide soft drugs, for example. The Minister, my honourable friend Mr. Maclean, accepted that in principle. The argument went on to people who did not have woolly hats but had Sikh turbans or other religious headgear. In due course Mr. Maclean said that he accepted the amendment in principle. He said that it would be eminently sensible to add the word "hat" to the list to deal with all forms of headgear other than turbans or religious caps.
At a later stage, presumably on Report, the word was changed from "hat" to "headgear". That rather nullified what Mr. Maclean had said in his closing remarks. So it

115
has been proposed, and my amendment deals with the point, that to clarify that point there should be a further subsection after subsection (2) to state:
"When exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) (b) above the custody officer shall have regard to items of clothing etc. worn in respect of religious beliefs",
the point being that if someone is being searched under Clause 9 and they have headgear which has religious significance, the removal of,
"outer coat, headgear, jacket or gloves",
might be religiously insulting, and so that should be taken into account. Hence my amendment. I hope that that is the point that my noble friend's honourable friend was trying to make and that he will find it easy to agree to this amendment or to something like it. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Subsection (1) (b) of this clause empowers a custody officer to search any person who is in or who is seeking to enter a secure training centre. Subsection (2) as drafted restricts a custody officer who is carrying out such a search to requiring a person to remove an outer coat, headgear, jacket or gloves. This amendment would require a custody officer who is undertaking such a search to "have regard to" items of clothing and so forth which are worn in respect of religious beliefs. I do not think that this kind of requirement properly belongs in primary legislation. It would be more appropriately placed in Home Office guidance to custody officers conducting searches.
When this matter was discussed in another place in Committee, the Minister of State said that religious headgear such as turbans or Jewish caps would not normally be required to be removed. My noble friend's amendment would extend this to all forms of religious apparel, such as a Sikh's turban, a Jewish prayer shawl, a bishop's mitre or even a cardinal's biretta.
I think that if it is necessary to make provision for such a wide panoply of religious garments it would be much better accommodated in Home Office guidance rather than in primary legislation. That would also allow for greater flexibility if such guidance needed to be amended in the light of experience, or indeed if the religious paraphernalia were to be changed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the Minister will agree that the last 12 year-old cardinals were in the time of the Medicis.
Lord Renton: This all sounds very pleasant, but we must be careful because a turban could conceal all kinds of pills, powders, drugs and even worse. When the Home Office is drawing up such secondary legislation or guidance it must be very careful.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I did not gather whether he was saying that Home Office guidance would be a good idea or that there would be Home Office guidance. I should be reassured it I could be told that that would certainly be the case.
Earl Ferrers: I was saying that it would be a bad idea to have it in the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: But that does not go far enough. I am sorry to have to press the matter. We understand why my noble friend said that it was a bad idea to put it in the Bill, but does he undertake to put it in Home Office guidance?
Earl Ferrers: I did not believe that that would satisfy my noble friend but I thought that it was worth having a shot. I shall certainly consider the point and let him know.
Lord Mottistone: Rather reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Long term detention of young offenders]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("10") and insert ("14").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The amendments limit the offences for which young offenders aged 10 to 13 can be sentenced to long-term detention to offences involving violence, sex, drug trafficking or arson. The amend-ments would restrict the power to sentence offenders aged 10 to 13 to long-term detention for violent and sexual offences, drug trafficking or arson. The provision would therefore exclude non-violent offences such as burglary and handling stolen goods.
Why is it considered necessary to give the courts power to impose such lengthy sentences of detention for non-violent offences such as burglary and handling stolen goods? At present, young offenders from the age of 10 upwards can be given a supervision order with a residence condition which requires them to be kept in local authority accommodation. The Bill provides for offenders aged 12 to 14 to be given secure training orders for such offences and for 15 to 17 year-old offenders to be given sentences of detention in a young offenders' institution for up to two years, so why are long sentences under Section 53(2) also necessary?
Where a juvenile has committed a serious violent or sexual offence or has endangered the lives of others, long-term detention may be regarded as necessary, but it is difficult to see the justification for it when a juvenile has committed a non-violent offence. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 16 extends Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 so that 10–13 year-olds may be eligible for long term detention, up to the adult maximum, when they are convicted of grave crimes which, were they an adult, would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. This power to deal with a juvenile, who commits a single serious offence, complements the secure training order power which deals with the juvenile who commits a string of less serious offences.
This amendment seeks to limit the range of single serious offences for which 10–13 year-olds would be eligible to be detained. But it does not actually place

117
much restriction on the extension of Section 53 as most 14 year or life offences, which 10–13 year-olds commit are of a sexual or of a violent nature, or they involve drugs or arson.
The biggest exclusion, which this amendment would achieve, would be in relation to the burglary of dwellings. This offence, like so many others, can cover a wide range of seriousness. In the gravest cases we consider that courts should have a power to order the detention of burglars who are below the age of 14 and who need to be locked up, but who fall outside the criteria for the secure training order.
It would be wrong to deprive the courts of any power to detain those who commit the gravest type of crime but who cannot receive a secure training order. The numbers are likely to be small: only seven 14–17 year-olds were detained under Section 53 in 1992 for burglary. We are now proposing that the courts should have the same power for 10–13 year-olds. The numbers are unlikely to be large, but I suggest that the courts should have this power. The extension of the scope of Section 53, which is proposed in the Bill as it stands, is the one which will give the courts the powers they need in dealing with the most serious offenders and I hope that your Lordships will agree.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may ask him to clarify one matter which I do not understand. To double the sentence may be right for some children but it may not be right for others. Is there any flexibility?
Earl Ferrers: Of course there is. The flexibility lies with the courts. They do not have to impose the maximum.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Family Proceedings Court and young offenders. Where in any proceedings in respect of a person of at least 10 but not more than 13 years a youth court, a magistrates' court or the Crown Court is satisfied that the behaviour which constituted the offence was due, to a significant extent, to the circumstances in which the child was living and is of the opinion that it may be appropriate for a family proceedings court to make a care order in respect of the child, it may refer the case to the family proceedings court which shall, after considering the case—

(a) make a care order in respect of the child, or

(b) refer the case back to the youth court, magistrates' court or Crown Court for sentence,

as it sees fit.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to insert a new clause. As I believe I said in an earlier speech today, you cannot excuse a child but sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. If a child comes from a disruptive home, should not he or she be treated as a care case rather than a criminal case? I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The purpose of the amendment as explained by my noble friend Lady Faithfull is to discuss the question of whether or not in certain circumstances, as set out in the amendment, a child should be treated as a care case rather than a criminal case. In that connection, one must remember a
118
whole series of steps which will have been taken before one reaches the situation where such matters come into play.
The first stage is the police cautioning. At that time, in considering whether a caution should be given to the youngster, the police will obtain information from the juvenile liaison panel, which will of course have representatives from various agencies, including the social services department. They will discuss the matter and advise the police. In that context, home visits are often undertaken. The whole procedure provides an opportunity to ensure that the welfare of the child is taken into consideration rather than concentrating exclusively on the criminal justice part.
However, let us suppose that it is decided to proceed. At the stage when criminal proceedings have been initiated, the Crown Prosecution Service must have regard to the public interest in deciding whether or not the prosecution should go ahead. The code for crown prosecutors specifically requires that the welfare of the juvenile should be fully considered. Indeed, there are nationally agreed police and prosecution service guidelines for the preparation of evidence which make clear that such evidence should include, among other matters, the views of the multi-agency panel which has considered whether or not to caution. The evidence must also include information on home conditions and education.
The result of all such information being available to the Crown Prosecution Service is that, again, consideration is given to whether or not the case is one that would be better dealt with in the welfare system or one that should go ahead in prosecution. Once a decision has been taken to prosecute the crown prosecutor must advise the local authority and the probation service of the decision. The local authority is; then under a duty to undertake an investigation, among other matters, into the home circumstances of the child unless it considers it unnecessary to do so.
It therefore follows that there will be comparatively few children with unidentified welfare needs who appear in the criminal courts. Indeed, most young; offenders who have an overriding welfare need will have been filtered out during the earlier stages. However, those young offenders who do reach the criminal courts will not, even at that stage, have their welfare overlooked. Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, there is a statutory duty on the courts to have regard to the welfare of the children who appear before them.
In cases where the child's welfare is at issue, a pre-sentencing report will often be required. At that stage, the local authority agencies will be involved. If they identify welfare needs, they will be able to consider the need for an application for a care order or a supervision order. If they think that it is appropriate, even at that stage they may make an application. There is no need for the local authority to be required to conduct an additional investigation on top of the investigation which it is entitled to make under the procedures which I have indicated.
Indeed, the court itself has, as my noble friend knows, a wide range of sentences available to it; a

119
conditional or absolute discharge, fines or compensation orders, attendance centre orders, and, of course, in the most serious cases, detention. But a particularly useful sentence because of the various ways in which it can operate can be the supervision order which places a juvenile under the supervision of a social work or probation officer.
A wide range of requirements can, of course, be included and in those cases which involve a situation rather analogous to the one envisaged in the amendment where the circumstances of the child may have had an influence on the offence, the supervision order can include a requirement that the young offender live in local authority care accommodation. That is of course under Section 12AA of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
At that stage, if the child is required to live in local authority accommodation, it can be for up to six months and during that period the local authority can consider the position and of course can reach a considered decision on what further action may be needed to meet the child's welfare needs. It would, of course, be possible at that stage for the local authority to decide that a care order or supervision order might be appropriate and for it therefore to make an application to the family proceedings court. In these circumstances it appears that there is a wide range of options open and that it would not be necessary to have this particular provision. In the light of that explanation I hope my noble friend may withdraw her amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a dense and fascinating response which seems to me at any rate to be somewhat in conflict with the response given on the previous amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was arguing for greater flexibility and the Minister was arguing that enough flexibility already exists whereas, on the previous amendment, we were being told that a greater degree of flexibility was at all costs to be given to the court, even when, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us, we were in a situation where only seven 15 to 17 year-olds were involved in one year. In other words, very small numbers were concerned.
I was fascinated by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said about Section 12AA of the 1969 Act because that has always seemed to me exactly the way in which it was possible for the courts to order that under a supervision order a child should go into local authority care, and that that could be residential local authority care and indeed secure residential local authority care. That has always seemed to me the way out of the necessity for the creation of secure training centres. I still believe that to be the case and that is the way in which I personally propose to approach the issue of secure training centres on Report.
But the Minister has not really answered the challenge contained in the amendment, which is that only a family proceedings court can make a care order with all the implications that that has for local authority
120
services. I think that a better answer is needed before the noble Baroness should be persuaded to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The point which I sought to make was that I accept that it is only the family proceedings court which can make such an order. What I was pointing out is that there are various ways in which a request for such an order may be made in the course of these kinds of proceedings without the necessity for having in place the measure which the noble Baroness has put down in her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. I am not quite sure that I fully understand or agree with it. I should like to withdraw the amendment, read what he said in Hansard, and raise the matter again at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Maximum length of detention for young offenders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to oppose Clause 17 and the doubling of the maximum sentence in prison service custody for 15 to 17 year-olds. At present courts can sentence 15 to 17 year-old offenders to detention in a young offender institution for up to 12 months. Clause 17 increases the 12 month maximum to two years.
There are separate powers under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act whereby courts can impose lengthy periods of detention on young offenders of this age who commit offences which in the case of an adult carry a maximum penalty of 14 years or more. These sentences are served in young offender institutions run by the prison service. The ill effects of prison service custody for this age group are well known and widely recognised. Juveniles sentenced to detention in a young offender institution learn about criminal techniques from older, more experienced prisoners up to the age of 21. As the Government's 1988 Green Paper Punishment, Custody and The Community stated:
"Most young offenders grow out of crime as they become more mature and responsible. They need encouragement and help to become law-abiding. Even a short period of custody is quite likely to confirm them as criminals".
I believe that the longer a sentence the less effective it becomes. I am speaking of young offender institutions rather than prisons. A number of young people grow out of their criminal behaviour, but the longer they stay in the institutions the more they make friends with colleagues who commit the same offences.
I shall not press the matter tonight, but I want to bring it to the attention of the Committee and ask the Minister for his reaction.
Lord Renton: We are dealing here not with the most frequent sentences but with maximum sentences and the power for the court to award a longer sentence in exceptional cases where it is felt that 12 months as a maximum sentence is not requisite. I should have thought that, bearing in mind the amount of serious crime, including violent crime, which is, alas,

121
committed by young people of the ages of 15, 16and 17, there will be the exceptional case in which 12 months is not considered by the court to be enough and up to two years may be considered appropriate.
I remind my noble friend Lady Faithfull that if the court awards a sentence which in all the circumstances could be regarded as being excessive there would be the right of appeal. Therefore, I should have thought that the Government were justified in asking Parliament to grant this opportunity for longer sentences to the courts.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, thinks that doubling the sentence is enough. Following the logic of his argument, if one trebled or quadrupled it it would be even more satisfactory.
The noble Lord says that we must deal with violent offenders. There is already a power to do that under the 1933 Act. Why do we have to double the sentence? It seems to many of us that when Ministers respond to genuine public concern, but even more relevantly to the interests of tabloid newspaper editors, their solution to every problem is to increase the maximum length of sentence. I do not believe that this provision will achieve any constructive result. No doubt the Government will have their way. But given the existence of the 1933 Act to deal with exactly the type of case referred to by the noble Lord, I can see no advantage whatever in the clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree entirely with what has just been said. It is just something to be said to the 1994 Conservative Party Conference. The Home Secretary will appear before the multitudes and say, "I have done something: I have increased the maximum length of sentences for 15 to 17 year-olds in prison".
Lord Renton: The provision relates to detention, not prison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. But, if I may say so, that point does not affect the strength of the argument. It does not seem to matter that there is no evidence whatsoever that detention of more than 12 months does any good either in terms of deterrent or rehabilitation. It does not matter that all the evidence from everyone involved, from the criminologist to the Chief Inspector of Prisons, warns of the dangers of long sentences of detention for very young people. They are taken away from their homes; they become institutionalised in the company of other young criminals; and they learn crime from those other young criminals. But no matter what the result may be, a political gain is achieved by claiming that something has been done by raising the maximum sentence. I find it deeply depressing that this argument should be put forward.
Earl Ferrers: As my noble friend Lady Faithfull concluded her remarks on the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill, she wondered, delightfully, what my reaction would be. My reaction is twofold. The first reaction is of total disapproval; that will not surprise her. The second is one of astonishment at her statement that the longer the sentence the less effective
122
it becomes. I can only assume therefore that she feels that the shorter the sentence the more effective it becomes. I do not agree with that.
Clause 17 raises the maximum sentence of detention in a young offender institution from 12 months to 24 months for 15, 16 and 17 year-olds. The simple proposition is that the Government believe that courts should have the flexibility to impose longer sentences than are currently available should they think it appropriate to do so in order to reflect the gravity of offences which are committed by this age group Long-term detention under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is available in the gravest of cases. But there are some offenders in the 15 to 17 age group whose offending is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified but whose crimes are not so grave as to warrant long-term detention under Section 53.
This is particularly true in relation to offences involving motor vehicles. Parliament recently passed the new offence of aggravated vehicle taking which has a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment or five years where a death occurs due to the driving of the vehicle. But for the 15 to 17 age group—and that is the group which is heavily involved in this sort of crime. —the maximum sentence lias remained at 12 months.
As your Lordships will recall, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, 17 year-olds were brought within the ambit of the youth court for sentencing purposes. Before then, they could receive custodial sentences of the same length as adults; but since the 1991 Act, the one year maximum has applied.
The doubling of the maximum sentence of detention in a young offender institution will ensure that the courts have the powers which they need to deal effectively with this age group.
I fear to mention the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for fear of provoking him into standing up again—which I invite him not to do. However, he and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other Members of the Committee may wish to know that in its evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Council of Circuit Judges argued that the maximum sentence should be raised in the way that the Government propose. I think that is right.
I should only emphasise that the change will not represent any increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates' courts. It will be for the Crown Court to sentence offenders to detention in young offender institutions with sentences of more than six months for a single offence and more than a total of 12 months for more than one offence. For those reasons, I believe that Clause 17 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: At this late hour I do not propose to take the matter further, but with young offenders the law of diminishing returns applies. After a while, they become so used to the sentence and the life that it does them more harm than good to spend a long time inside. Obviously, I cannot say for certain that that is so, but it is my experience that it is. I do not propose to take the matter further.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London Underground (Green Park) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  GAS (EXEMPT SUPPLIES) ACT 1993: COMMENCEMENT
  GAS (EXEMPT SUPPLIES) ACT 1993: COMMENCEMENT
  ICI: EXPORT LICENCES
  ICI: EXPORT LICENCES
  MARITIME SAFETY: REPORT
  MARITIME SAFETY: REPORT
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: INTERVIEWING ARRANGEMENTS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: INTERVIEWING ARRANGEMENTS